This is a test

[JAB5239]

hehehe. You still haven't answered the question on who you think is P4P better. Anyways, thanks for bringing this topic about Conn. One more fighter to look into.

Honestly I think its pretty close but would have to be looked into more deeply. Point is, fighters today are getting ranked by clueless fans ahead of fighters they don't even know about. It seems that ignorance rules this board.

[JAB5239]

I dont rate fighters when theyre still in the middle of their careers.

Heres a better question...who do you rate better P4P...Billy Conn or Michael Spinks?

Id say Spinks.

I rate Spinks ahead of Conn all time at lightheavy. P4p is something I would have to put more thought into, its not as cut and dried as just ranking one division.

[MaD RoBoT]

As i said before, future HOF boxers will be relegated to the backseats of ATG boards
picking their boogers while the old school fighters have the privelege to be recognized as
"untouchables"

it is what it is, sad but true

[Guest]

I rate Spinks ahead of Conn all time at lightheavy. P4p is something I would have to put more thought into, its not as cut and dried as just ranking one division.

Spinks was an awesome light heavy and a damn good heavy, although he caught some good guys at the tail of end of their career, but really the guy only had one bad fight in his whole career.

It just happened to be the one everyone watched.

[RightCross94]

Conn started at lightweight and fought top fighters all the way up to heavyweight. Zivic, Dundee, Corbett III, Yarosz, Krieger, Apostoli, Lesnivich, as well as top heavyweights of the day. How can you say Pac is better without knowing about these fighters?

Myu whole point to this thread is that a nuthugger for any fighter will blindly just vote for their guy. That many fans not versed in past fighters will just make a blind assumption without knowing all the facts. Fact is, Conn fought better fighters through higher weight classes sometimes giving up over 50lbs.

I know about most of those guys. I've seen Conn fight. Manny is a better fighter. No those guys were not better than guys like MAB, EM and JMM (with the exception of Louis, and resume wise, Zivic is better)
I think because theres so many morons who know nothing about past fighters, smart guys like you overcompensate a little and maybe give the old guys a little more credit than they deserve. I get the point you were trying to make with this thread though.

Fact is Conn and Manny are both great, great fighters and they are close in historical standing, but I think Manny is a slightly better fighter.

[JAB5239]

Spinks was an awesome light heavy and a damn good heavy, although he caught some good guys at the tail of end of their career, but really the guy only had one bad fight in his whole career.

It just happened to be the one everyone watched.

That is a shame considering some of the great names he fought at 175. That may have been the greatest lightheavyweight era ever. If it wasn't, it was up there.

[keepthemhandsup]

im young....so let me be the one to say....WHO DA *** IS BILLY CONN???

[DonTaseMeBrah]

Ahh, the Ol boxrec reply! Tell me something, does boxrec have the complete records for all fighters from that era or do they explain the circumstances of the time? You're exactly the type of poster Im talking about who like to jump to assumptions without ALL the facts.

Jumped right on Boxrec didn't you?!

ohh ok, we havent seen footage of billy conn but now numbers are not trustworthy? Yet we can say this guy is great & so & so yet we dont have video? harry greb is so awesome, midget wolgast is a beast but no video exists, yet i got to box rec & pull up some numbers & we cant use it for argument?


i dont give a damn what pac, floyd, or billy con rank. Im 28 years old, half black/ half white. Started watching boxing in the mid to late 80s with my pops.

I hate floyd, im a big fan of pacquiao, & my favorite fighter of all time is a mexican, salvador sanchez.

Im no pachugger blinded by nationalistic pride or a floyd lover overwhelming with black power.

I do hate the hypocrisy of old fighters & historians vs modern fighters.

How can I take old school boxers seriously when they fight guys with 20 to 30 losses on their records? How am i suppose to feel about a boxer who losses to guys with 2-6 records & gets tko'd by a guy who is 1-1?

We have never seen films of these guys yet you bust my balls for looking up their records & throwing out stats?

Lets be ****ing real here brah.

[Steak]

Spinks' light heavyweight record is pretty darn impressive, and even if the second fight with Holmes was controversial, he was still the first guy to ever give Larry Holmes an official defeat. Holmes may have been pretty old, but this was no Roy Jones picking up an alphabet belt...Holmes really was the true champion at the time.

and even years later Holmes was able to get a win over Mercer and give Holyfield a surprisingly tough fight, even at 40+. not too shabby a win, if you ask me.

Spinks had an annoying herky jerky style, but it was still very effective. able to get him wins over Marvin Johnson, Dwight Qawi, Yanqui Lopez, and Eddie Muhammed, alongside other rated fighters at the time.

[Guest]

Spinks' light heavyweight record is pretty darn impressive, and even if the second fight with Holmes was controversial, he was still the first guy to ever give Larry Holmes an official defeat. Holmes may have been pretty old, but this was no Roy Jones picking up an alphabet belt...Holmes really was the true champion at the time.

and even years later Holmes was able to get a win over Mercer and give Holyfield a surprisingly tough fight, even at 40+. not too shabby a win, if you ask me.

Spinks had an annoying herky jerky style, but it was still very effective. able to get him wins over Marvin Johnson, Dwight Qawi, Yanqui Lopez, and Eddie Muhammed, alongside other rated fighters at the time.

Very nice post.