BoxRec

Billy Conn vs the great Welshman Joe Calzaghe...Who wins?

Conn beats him morning, noon & night. The speed & precision of Conn's assault saw him fighting evenly with a prime Joe Louis. It also saw him beat just about everyone at Light-Heavyweight. His footwork & the fluidity of his movement around the ring would leave a fighter of Calzaghe's abilities hopelessly outclassed.

Conn motors to a wide UD.

conn easily... could you see calzaghe fighting joe louis and making a go of it? calzaghe would get tagged all night long

No CONNtest!

Calzaghe hasn't fought at 175 yet. I'd have my money on Conn.

Calzaghe is a slapper and his fans that think he could actually compete with Billy Conn are on crack.

I think to a degree, this fight is a bit more difficult to say who would have won, than most people would like to believe.

Conn was a middleweight contender for many years, was a top 10 Light Heavyweight champion, and he beat a fair amount of Heavyweights like Buddy Knox and gave Joe Louis a run for his money for 12 rounds.

Calzaghe on the other hand made 20 some defenses of the WBO title he won from Chris Eubanks, albeit against mediocre opposition, and wasn't until recently he unified those titles. Now there's talk of him going to go up against Bernard Hopkins for the Light Heavyweight title.

After all the fights I have seen of these men, I can say Conn was the better boxer, thats a given, but Calzaghe's hand speed is a notch or two above Conn's. Calzaghe has yet to be in a real long, tough, dragged out fight against someone with great credentials...Conn been in with guys like Lesnevich, Louis, Apostoli, Bettina, Young Corbett 3, Risko, Dundee, Yarosz, Kreiger...really top solid guys.

Calzaghe's volume of punches would be a hurdle for a few rounds, but Conn was used to pressure, and was very smart in the ring...I think from the 6-8th rounds, it would have been Conn's fight [that is if we're talking 15 rounders]. Conn would win a decision.

Billy Conn died in 1993 at the age of 86. In 1993, the then 21 year old Calzaghe would have beaten Conn easily.
In fact, even if Conn had fought Joe at the age of 80, I still have to think that the 15 year old Calzaghe could have beaten him

Billy Conn easy unanimous decision. Calzaghe performs when the competition level is high, but not with a fighter with this type of resume.

Crssbones wrote:Billy Conn easy unanimous decision. Calzaghe performs when the competition level is high, but not with a fighter with this type of resume.

Uh huh

.....And Jerry West would lead the NBA in scoring this season

When are some people going to realize modern day fighters, just like all modern day athletes are far superior in every way to comparable athletes of the distant past?

"Uh huh

.....And Jerry West would lead the NBA in scoring this season

When are some people going to realize modern day fighters, just like all modern day athletes are far superior in every way to comparable athletes of the distant past?" - FourReal

I just want to clarify something - are you arguing that Joe Calzaghe would beat Billy Conn at Light-Heavyweight? Or are you just saying fresher athletes are better than previous generations?

Goodnight, Irene wrote:"Uh huh

.....And Jerry West would lead the NBA in scoring this season

When are some people going to realize modern day fighters, just like all modern day athletes are far superior in every way to comparable athletes of the distant past?" - FourReal

I just want to clarify something - are you arguing that Joe Calzaghe would beat Billy Conn at Light-Heavyweight? Or are you just saying fresher athletes are better than previous generations?

The short answer is...both

I am saying that Conn, or any fighter from distant past eras, (in this case, we are talking about boxing in the LHW division, but the same is true of virtually all divisions and sports) can not be compared to comperable athletes in the modern era.
To think otherwsie, is romantisized rose colored hindsight. Not a popular thing to say among old time boxing buffs, but clearly true none the less.

As for Calzaghe, I beleive he can beat any current LHW on a given night. History may show he is better suited for 175 then he was for 168
I would pick him to beat Hopkins Woods or Dawson by UD

I agree about the modern day athlete being bigger and stronger but going back to the 40's and 50's is not to far too go back. What made these fighters great was activity which relates to experience and the level of competition they fought. They were using the same technics and fighting style in those days as they do today. Not much has changed except for physical size of the athletes. Not all of the athletes could compete in today's world but in every era there are special athletes that are above the competition. That is like saying that a prime Micheal Jordan could not compete in basketball 50 years from now or Roberto Duran could not win a lightweight title in a future era. Going back to John L. Sullivan and James J. Corbett I agree they could not compete in today's world because of the style they fought back then. But Billy Conn would be every bit as good as any athlete today and would only rank behind a handful of lightheavyweights in history and number one as a super middleweight which is probably where he would fight in today's world. Imagine Calzaghe in his prime challenging Evander Holyfield in his prime for the heavyweight title.

Well I have to believe that Billy Conn at 80 years of age would have still beaten Joe Calzaghe. Heck it is not like Calzaghe could actually punch hard enough to stop an 80 year old man anyway. Billy Conn's wife hits harder than Calzaghe.

"The short answer is...both

I am saying that Conn, or any fighter from distant past eras, (in this case, we are talking about boxing in the LHW division, but the same is true of virtually all divisions and sports) can not be compared to comperable athletes in the modern era.
To think otherwsie, is romantisized rose colored hindsight. Not a popular thing to say among old time boxing buffs, but clearly true none the less.

As for Calzaghe, I beleive he can beat any current LHW on a given night. History may show he is better suited for 175 then he was for 168
I would pick him to beat Hopkins Woods or Dawson by UD" - FourReal

Joe Calzaghe hasn't even fought at LHW. You would expect him to actually beat Billy Conn? I'm assuming you imagine the same result against Ezzard Charles, Archie Moore & Gene Tunney then? & Benny Leonard isn't in the same class as the Lightweight version of Jose Luis Castillo? Ray Robinson couldn't beat any of the top Welterweights today? All the top Heavyweights today (or within ten years) would have defeated the prime Muhammad Ali of the 60's?

Arguing Joe Calzaghe beats Billy Conn makes me think you haven't seen much of Conn. I don't disagree with your reasoning on modern athletes in general --- I just think that argument has little relevance to boxing. It's more apt in regards to other sports.

If Joe Calzaghe moved up to a division in which he never fought, & beat one of that division's greatest (let alone all of them), I would give over to you my car, house, & all worldly possessions. I guess it's too bad we can't see these fights ever happen. Fights just aren't decided by what's written on a man's birth certificate.

fourreal wrote:

Crssbones wrote:Billy Conn easy unanimous decision. Calzaghe performs when the competition level is high, but not with a fighter with this type of resume.

Uh huh

.....And Jerry West would lead the NBA in scoring this season

When are some people going to realize modern day fighters, just like all modern day athletes are far superior in every way to comparable athletes of the distant past?

The thing is that on ESPN Classic you can see games from years ago and see that the NBA has greatly declined. Jerry West did average 27 pts a game in his career (before there was a 3 pointer) so it's not really that hard to imagine him leading the NBA in scoring now.

It always amazes me that some people think that athletes are automatically are better today than years ago. Some were, some weren't.

Some people seem to think the world started the day that they were born.

[quote="Goodnight, Irene"][b]"Uh huh

.....And Jerry West would lead the NBA in scoring this season

When are some people going to realize modern day fighters, just like all modern day athletes are far superior in every way to comparable athletes of the distant past?" - FourReal[/b]

I just want to clarify something - are you arguing that Joe Calzaghe would beat Billy Conn at Light-Heavyweight? Or are you just saying fresher athletes are better than previous generations?[/quote]

Generally, I think modern athletes are better due to the size differential. And, in some cases to training techniques, number of participants, and so on. By having a weight class, the size differential is taken away (not so for heavyweight of course). With regards to technique, I think fighters of the past were better schooled. With regards to number of participants, now many other sports draw the best athletes and so the number of quality participants in boxing may have been superior in the past.

I hope boxrec changes its historical rankings soon. It rates fighters highly in weight classes where they lacked wins over top contenders and it is harder to make comparisons with this problem.

I agree. There are numerous examples of guys who are simply put in the wrong weight class. Sometimes there is a gray area as to what weight class to put a certain fighter in. However sometimes it's pretty obvious. For example Bernard Hopkins, who barely fought at lightheavyweight, is listed as the #6 lightheavyweight of all time instead of being rated as a middleweight.

Ezzard Charles is rated as the #4 heavyweight, Jimmy Bivins as the #12 heavyweight etc.

It's really a shame because a lot of research goes into the ratings and then it gets screwed up by putting guys in a weight class that wasn't their main weight class during their career.

Can any of the editors address this?

Ambling Alp wrote:I agree. There are numerous examples of guys who are simply put in the wrong weight class. sometimes there is a gray area as to what weight to oput a certain fighter in. However sometimes it's pretty obvious. For example Bernard Hopkins, who barely fought at lightheavyweight, is listed as the #6 lightheavyweight of all time instead of being rated as a middleweight.

Ezzard Charles is rated as the #4 heavyweight, Jimmy Bivins as the #12 heavyweight etc.

It's really a shame becasue a lot of research goes into the ratings and then it gets screwed up by putting guys in a weight class that wasn't their main weight class during their career.

Can any of the editors address this?

I think the solution is to only rate retired fighters on the bouts which took place at the division in which they are set. The problem there is the guys who spent time at many different divisions... in which case they would not show up at the top of any of the lists.

I agree with Ambling - fighters shouild only be rated at their real weight or main weight, that is the one they mostly competed in...

lots of fighters when younger 'pass' through lower weights but you'd hardly call them that and likewise top fighters (especially in the past) dabbled in the higher weights but we still knew them as L-HW or WW or whatever...

Charles is the perfect example he was truly a L-HW and on an all-time scale should be rated as such, his successes at HW only stand to serve better his 'overall ratings...Hopkins at MW, Duran at LW, Len Harvey at L-HW same as Mills...

fighters like Armstrong or Robison who had lengthy careers at 2 weights can still be narrowed down to their longest period in a particular division or what was generally peceived and reported to be their "real" weight - Robinson typically thought to be a MW and so on.

Easy to do for all known fighters, maybe more obscure ones will be rated in the wrong division, but not for the known ones.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:"The short answer is...both

I am saying that Conn, or any fighter from distant past eras, (in this case, we are talking about boxing in the LHW division, but the same is true of virtually all divisions and sports) can not be compared to comperable athletes in the modern era.
To think otherwsie, is romantisized rose colored hindsight. Not a popular thing to say among old time boxing buffs, but clearly true none the less.

As for Calzaghe, I beleive he can beat any current LHW on a given night. History may show he is better suited for 175 then he was for 168
I would pick him to beat Hopkins Woods or Dawson by UD" - FourReal

Joe Calzaghe hasn't even fought at LHW. You would expect him to actually beat Billy Conn? I'm assuming you imagine the same result against Ezzard Charles, Archie Moore & Gene Tunney then? & Benny Leonard isn't in the same class as the Lightweight version of Jose Luis Castillo? Ray Robinson couldn't beat any of the top Welterweights today? All the top Heavyweights today (or within ten years) would have defeated the prime Muhammad Ali of the 60's?

Arguing Joe Calzaghe beats Billy Conn makes me think you haven't seen much of Conn. I don't disagree with your reasoning on modern athletes in general --- I just think that argument has little relevance to boxing. It's more apt in regards to other sports.

If Joe Calzaghe moved up to a division in which he never fought, & beat one of that division's greatest (let alone all of them), I would give over to you my car, house, & all worldly possessions. I guess it's too bad we can't see these fights ever happen. Fights just aren't decided by what's written on a man's birth certificate.

Those current "greats" in the LHW division are nothing more then oversized middle weights who skipped 168, in part because they wanted no part of Kessler or Calzaghe, Spare me the "there was no money at 168" crap. If there was a title to be had at 168, Dawson, Hopkins and Woods (and others) would have been all over it and could have turned it over into BIG paydays later. They made the "smart" choice, if not the courageous one.

Calzaghe is simply a better fighter then the current 175 elite and could come in a 175 more comfortably then he made 168
The myth of a suspect chin was settled against Kessler, so that claim no longer works either.

As for Conn and the fighters of those eras:
It is a simple fact proven over and over again, there is just pound for pound "more athlete" in a 175 (or just about any weight in which the athlete is in good shape) frame now then there was in those days. Look at any sport, and the story is the same, boxing is no exception.
Those old timers looked great against each other, in the same sort of way the green bay packers dominated the KC Chiefs in super bowl one. Today, the players of that era would not be viable. Boxing is NO different. Same cause and effect

But what does Calzaghe actually do that gets him by someone as good as Conn? Conn can almost beat arguably the greatest Heavy who ever drew breath, but not Calzaghe?

& Ray Robinson & Benny Leonard & maybe Muhammad Ali as well --- your conviction is they couldn't hang today? Really?