Conn vs. Moore at 175 15rds.

[Joe E]

Two Lt. Heavy greats. Both also played in the Hvywt. Div. I'll choose Conn in this contest as I don't believe Moore would KO the quicker, better Boxing Conn. And Conn went a total of 19 rds. with Louis, demonstrating that he was both combative and could take a punch. Conn 15rd. dec.

[burt bienstock]

I believe Billy conn, because of his fleetness of foot,would have decisioned Archie Moore.. I think Prime Billy Conn of the first Louis bout in 1941, was with Ezzard Charles the two best lightheavies, since Gene Tunney...Conn was tough, fast and very combative, when needed....Billy by dec.

[mcvey]

Two Lt. Heavy greats. Both also played in the Hvywt. Div. I'll choose Conn in this contest as I don't believe Moore would KO the quicker, better Boxing Conn. And Conn went a total of 19 rds. with Louis, demonstrating that he was both combative and could take a punch. Conn 15rd. dec.

Conn by dec.

[Unforgiven]

I see it the same. Conn by decision.

[choklab]

im not so sure. conn was wrong for louis, it dont make him as good as louis since he didnt win either fight. conn was some tough hombre though, theres no way either man gets kayoed here. I give archie a good shot at winning this. conn was fast, tough and skilled but he did like to duke it out and peak archie was good enough and crafty enough to turn things his way. archie was expert at drawing guys in and had a good reach and defence- he was more consistant at 175, I dont see moore going the distance with tony zale like conn did. conn had a classic style and was a left hook merchant which was easier to read than say moores crouchy, weaving bag of tricks with two hand power. sometimes thats the difference. Ask yourself who would you rather fight?

[Lobotomy]

When I look at Billy dancing in and out with ease, handing useful southpaw champion Bettina a boxing lesson, I just don't see Moore having an answer for that. As hard as Archie hit, he couldn't have done the job with a single shot, and he might have had to here. Beyond that, Conn could punch much harder than 15 stoppage wins in 77 bouts suggest, as Pastor found out. Billy would probably have to climb off the deck at some point, but he could do that, and go on to win the decision.

Take a look at the group photograph of the inaugural IBHOF class of 1990. Conn and Moore are standing at opposite ends of the back row. Billy looks nearly as tall as Ali and Foster, although his listed height was 6'1-1/2" to Archie's 5'11". (Foster is standing next to Moore. A shock to realize that was nearly 20 years ago. Napoles, Ali, Griff, Foster, Jake and Carmen are still with us.)

[choklab]

conn knocked out bigger guys but not many his own size. I put it down to the 6oz theory. gloves are now 10 oz. back then a KO punch in 6oz horse hair was a KO punch if it came from a faster guy and you didnt see it coming and it didnt matter if it was from a 170 pounder. Two good fast guys the same size see evrything coming, conn fought a lot of good fighters his own size but couldnt catch them as blind as he could the slower big guys. However Archie fought as many fast guys his own size and was still the best knockout artist there was!

[sugarsean]

Archie Moore wins this one for me

[Son of Gaul]

:adminThey both lose to '89 Michael Moorer. Sorry guys, controversy follows my every post.

[Lobotomy]

:adminThey both lose to '89 Michael Moorer. Sorry guys, controversy follows my every post.:thinkHmmm...Well, Moorer was knocked out by Archie's protege, and Conn did win two title fights against a southpaw champion. Hopefully you get some entertaining responses to this though.:good

[choklab]

:adminThey both lose to '89 Michael Moorer. Sorry guys, controversy follows my every post.


the guy was very good for a short time but didnt hang out anywhere near long enough at 175 to be taken seriously. name one great or even capable lightheavy MOORER did fight? To be considered he has to have proved some kind of legacy in the LH devision, its no good saying beacuse he put weight on and competed sucsesfully at a higher weight proves he could do it without the speed edge against another great LH.

[Bummy Davis]

I love Billy Conn but Arhie was the best....Archie close NOD

[SLAKKA]

Moore once asked Conn
"How come we didn't fight when we were middleweights"?
"Because you weren't good enough"!!
They didn't call him brash Billy for nothing

[Sweet Pea]

:adminThey both lose to '89 Michael Moorer. Sorry guys, controversy follows my every post.Agreed. Moore and Conn didn't have the tools to trouble Moorer. Only the upper echelon greats of the division, like past prime former splinter champion Leslie Stewart, were capable of that. Moorer really proved himself at the weight. Talk about being thrown to the wolves.

[Sweet Pea]

I personally rate Harold Johnson higher than Billy Conn, and Moore winning 4 out of 5 fights in that series is proof enough that he was capable of dealing with a fighter of Conn's caliber. Johnson was the better technical boxer of the two, in my opinion. Conn was a very well rounded fighter, underrated on the inside (which is where I think he did his most impressive work against Louis, actually), and a well disciplined on the outside. I don't think he'd be able to master Moore, though, who wasn't nearly as limited as is sometimes made out, in reference to his chances against the best pure boxers. A ripe for the picking version, well aged over 40, was still able to hold one of the smoothest Light Heavies of all time in Willie Pastrano to a draw. Would be a good, close fight either way, but I think Moore at his best has a little too much for Conn. A KO isn't out of the realms of possibility, either.

[TheGreatA]

Moore was very adept at spoiling and drawing good technical boxers into brawls. He dealt with the likes of Harold Johnson, Willie Pastrano, Joey Maxim, Jimmy Bivins, Holman Williams, Bert Lytell and others.

I think Conn's fighter's attitude is going to be both an advantage and a disadvantage here. I can't see him not trying to slug it out with Moore at some point but thanks to his granite chin and infighting ability, he won't have as difficult a time as for example Harold Johnson did.

Speed could at times bother Moore but Conn doesn't really have the power to hurt Moore as badly as Moore could hurt him. You could clearly see the difference in punching power between Moore and Maxim and probably also with Moore and Conn. One clean right hand counter might impress the judges more than a combination of punches from Conn. I see the crafty Archie Moore coming up with a decision win by close margins because of his ability to deal with boxers and movers.

[SLAKKA]

This ones as tough a choice as i can ever think about
We must rate billy tip top prime at the tender age of 23 yrs and tipping the fairbanks at only 169lb

This vs the most wiley tricky cunning .....er the ring has ever seen!

[PowerPuncher]

Hmm who is the fastest fighter Moore has beat? he seemed to struggle with the faster men, but he had some good speed himself in his younger days

Moore is the more skilled, bigger, hard hitting man who is much more proven at the weight, although Conn obviously proved himself 1 way or another.

Which version of Moore would be prime? The Charles 3 version? The Johnson version?

[Joe E]

I personally rate Harold Johnson higher than Billy Conn, and Moore winning 4 out of 5 fights in that series is proof enough that he was capable of dealing with a fighter of Conn's caliber. Johnson was the better technical boxer of the two, in my opinion. Conn was a very well rounded fighter, underrated on the inside (which is where I think he did his most impressive work against Louis, actually), and a well disciplined on the outside. I don't think he'd be able to master Moore, though, who wasn't nearly as limited as is sometimes made out, in reference to his chances against the best pure boxers. A ripe for the picking version, well aged over 40, was still able to hold one of the smoothest Light Heavies of all time in Willie Pastrano to a draw. Would be a good, close fight either way, but I think Moore at his best has a little too much for Conn. A KO isn't out of the realms of possibility, either.Conn was every bit the technician Johnson was and more so. Conn, perhaps just slightly less the technician then Charles, whom I rate, along with Gene Tunney, as the best Lt. Hvys ever. Johnson also didn't take the punch Billy did either. Moores style of a stand up Boxer puncher was made for a prime Conn, as Ezzard Charles demostrated 3 times. Conn would take a UD here.

[Sweet Pea]

Conn was every bit the technician Johnson was and more so. Conn, perhaps just slightly less the technician then Charles, whom I rate, along with Gene Tunney, as the best Lt. Hvys ever. Johnson also didn't take the punch Billy did either. Moores style of a stand up Boxer puncher was made for a prime Conn, as Ezzard Charles demostrated 3 times. Conn would take a UD here.
Moore could hardly be classified as a "standup boxer puncher". He was nothing like a Harold Johnson in that regard. He fought more out of a crouch, leaning on the back leg for leverage, balance, and optimal range control in order to lure his opponents into making mistakes.

Conn didn't beat much resemblance to Charles, in my opinion, so that's not a very sound comparison. Charles was a bigger puncher and more athletic, if not quite the cutie that Conn could be at times. He defines the role of standup boxer puncher more than either Conn or Moore, though he was one of the very best ever at it.

If Moore could fight on even terms with Charles, even hurting him badly prior to getting cocked cold on the way in for the finish, I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility for him to do the same to Conn without the same negative result. Conn wasn't that kind of puncher.

[TheGreatA]

Conn was far from a textbook technician like Harold Johnson. He made a lot of mistakes but could get away with them because of his ability to take punches and his speed.

Moore wouldn't box Conn, he would be a light heavyweight version of Henry Armstrong combined with the spoiling of Sammy Angott.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]


[Only registered and activated users can see links]


3:35

[Joe E]

Moore could hardly be classified as a "standup boxer puncher". He was nothing like a Harold Johnson in that regard. He fought more out of a crouch, leaning on the back leg for leverage, balance, and optimal range control in order to lure his opponents into making mistakes.

Conn didn't beat much resemblance to Charles, in my opinion, so that's not a very sound comparison. Charles was a bigger puncher and more athletic, if not quite the cutie that Conn could be at times. He defines the role of standup boxer puncher more than either Conn or Moore, though he was one of the very best ever at it.

If Moore could fight on even terms with Charles, even hurting him badly prior to getting cocked cold on the way in for the finish, I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility for him to do the same to Conn without the same negative result. Conn wasn't that kind of puncher.Moore was not a technician, never said he was. However, his style was more stand up boxer then clubber or stalker. Like Louis, Archie would plant his feet and invite his Man in, or pursue his Man around the Ring. Taylor made for Conn. The Charles comparison was used to demonstrate that Moore was susceptible to boxers with quick hands and footwork. Never said Conn was as good as Charles, just nearly as good. And as for the Charles fights Ezz handled Moore without much trouble in all 3 KOing him once. As for Conns' durability and tenacity, it isnt a question. He went nearly 21 Rds with Joe Louis and was fighting ranked Heavys when basically just a Super Middleweight just prior to his first fight with Louis.

[Sweet Pea]

Moore was not a technician, never said he was. However, his style was more stand up boxer then clubber or stalker. Like Louis, Archie would plant his feet and invite his Man in, or pursue his Man around the Ring. Taylor made for Conn. The Charles comparison was used to demonstrate that Moore was susceptible to boxers with quick hands and footwork. Never said Conn was as good as Charles, just nearly as good. And as for the Charles fights Ezz handled Moore without much trouble in all 3 KOing him once. As for Conns' durability and tenacity, it isnt a question. He went nearly 21 Rds with Joe Louis and was fighting ranked Heavys when basically just a Super Middleweight just prior to his first fight with Louis.Moore was a technician, I never said otherwise and can't see how you come to a different conclusion. He was one of the most clever ring tacticians of all time. Probably the smartest of the great punchers, or at least on par with any of them.

I don't think you've read up much on the Moore/Charles fights if you hold that opinion, unless you've simple read far different breakdowns than myself. Moore was likely a bit pre-prime in the first bout, losing a clear decision. In the rematch, he lost a closer decision on the grounds of an earlier body shot knockdown that allowed Charles to gain the initiative for the rest of the way. In the last bout he had Charles on the brink of a knockout himself before Charles turned the tide at the last minute and KO'd an advancing Moore with a barrage of shots unexpectedly. In each bout Moore came closer to victory, but was unable to master the great Charles. Be that as it may, I don't think Conn presents the same difficulties that a Charles would, particularly in regards to the punching power that so often bettered Moore. I just don't think Conn holds those kinds of advantages. I'm not saying it wouldn't be a very closely contested bout, I just wouldn't give Conn any kind of notable advantage.

[Mendoza]

Two Lt. Heavy greats. Both also played in the Hvywt. Div. I'll choose Conn in this contest as I don't believe Moore would KO the quicker, better Boxing Conn. And Conn went a total of 19 rds. with Louis, demonstrating that he was both combative and could take a punch. Conn 15rd. dec.

Moore is my pick.

[Joe E]

Moore was a technician, I never said otherwise and can't see how you come to a different conclusion. He was one of the most clever ring tacticians of all time. Probably the smartest of the great punchers, or at least on par with any of them.
I see. So the problem here is definitions and degrees of Technician, Tactician. OK. Suffice to say Moore, who was tactically and technically sound was still vulnerable to Boxers who moved in and out and side to side quickly.
I don't think you've read up much on the Moore/Charles fights if you hold that opinion, unless you've simple read far different breakdowns than myself. Moore was likely a bit pre-prime in the first bout, losing a clear decision. In the rematch, he lost a closer decision on the grounds of an earlier body shot knockdown that allowed Charles to gain the initiative for the rest of the way. In the last bout he had Charles on the brink of a knockout himself before Charles turned the tide at the last minute and KO'd an advancing Moore with a barrage of shots unexpectedly...And the fact still remains that he lost to a quicker, better Boxer. What I've read on the Charles/Moore bouts is that Charles had a relatively easy go in each but the 3rd but still won 2 by UD and the last by KO. I don't think Conn presents the same difficulties that a Charles would, particularly in regards to the punching power that so often bettered Moore. I just don't think Conn holds those kinds of advantages. I'm not saying it wouldn't be a very closely contested bout, I just wouldn't give Conn any kind of notable advantage. Conn presents most all of the traits and physical advantages Ezzard Charles had over Moore, height, speed of hands and feet, combativeness, determination, etc. Save for the big Punch.

[TheGreatA]

I don't see any indication that Moore had trouble with good boxers. Charles was a boxer-puncher who greatly relied on his power, especially at the time Moore faced him when Charles was squarely at his peak while Moore was yet to hit his, before the Sam Baroudi tragedy. Conn is not going to present the same problems for Moore as Charles did. Charles kept Moore honest with his power and Moore couldn't use his aggressive spoiling tactics.

[Unforgiven]

I hope people realize that Conn was more than just an outside stick-and-move boxer.
I know boxing lore has him doing that against Joe Louis, and that's understandable.
Conn was actually a great all-round boxer, great on the inside, he could box, brawl and fight from every range, technically superb in every department. The only thing he lacked was a powerful punch. He was incredibly tough and durable.

[Joe E]

I hope people realize that Conn was more than just an outside stick-and-move boxer.
I know boxing lore has him doing that against Joe Louis, and that's understandable.
Conn was actually a great all-round boxer, great on the inside, he could box, brawl and fight from every range, technically superb in every department. The only thing he lacked was a powerful punch. He was incredibly tough and durable.Agreed.

[burt bienstock]

A great matchup Billy Conn vs Archie Moore in their primes..Billy Conn I will guess would have been an 8-5 favorite over Moore in 1940-1941...Conn was so dominate a figure about that time..He licked such fighters at that time as Melio Bettina,Gus Lesnevich,Gunnar Barlund,and stopped the highly rated heavyweight Bob Pastor, who gave Louis a couple of tough bouts...I think I woulkd pick Conn over Moore at that time,because Conn could really move and was very tough and conditioned...Conn by decision...P.S. I also think that Bob Pastor, a small heavyweight would have outpointed the smaller Archie Moore also...Ezzard Charles vs Billy Conn? hmm.......

[GPater11093]

Moore was very adept at spoiling and drawing good technical boxers into brawls. He dealt with the likes of Harold Johnson, Willie Pastrano, Joey Maxim, Jimmy Bivins, Holman Williams, Bert Lytell and others.

I think Conn's fighter's attitude is going to be both an advantage and a disadvantage here. I can't see him not trying to slug it out with Moore at some point but thanks to his granite chin and infighting ability, he won't have as difficult a time as for example Harold Johnson did.

Speed could at times bother Moore but Conn doesn't really have the power to hurt Moore as badly as Moore could hurt him. You could clearly see the difference in punching power between Moore and Maxim and probably also with Moore and Conn. One clean right hand counter might impress the judges more than a combination of punches from Conn. I see the crafty Archie Moore coming up with a decision win by close margins because of his ability to deal with boxers and movers.

Exactly.

Also Moore was a very adept pressure fighter. Look at the way he pressured Maxim constantly when he won the LHW title, it was a joy to behold.

Conn will try to move and box, but due to Archie's pressure and tactics Conn will stand and trade. Now Conn's speed and combinations will definitly get him some points but Archie will be landing the harder blows and also IMO has the better defence on the inside. I think in the end it will be a close decision to Moore, much like TGA sees it.