Michael Spinks vs. Billy Conn @175lbs.

[sr71ko]

Not sure if this dream fight has ever came up, but who would win between Michael Spinks vs. Billy Conn. Both of these guys were great light heavyweights and each had their own skill set. Conn was a classic boxer that mixes up....he had respectable pop to keep you honest despite the low amount of knockouts, and great boxing skills and speed. Spinks was a unorthodox herky-jerky boxer-puncher. The Spinks jinx would put you to sleep. Who wins this bout and why?

[hawk5ins]

I think Spinks legs in this matchup make him look quite oridnary against Conn for a vast majority of the bout.

However, I Do think Late, very late in the fight Spinks connects with shots that hurt Billy that he can't recover from. And Spinks ko's him.

I know, it sounds like a Joe Louis mirror copout.

My apologies.

Hawk

[Michael Frank]

I thought this match already existed on a thread, but of course it doesn't matter even if I'm correct.

I'll take Spinks by KO after 10. Speed usually kills, so it's hard for me to see Billy being behind on points, though I doubt he ever has Spinks in trouble. But as Hawk noted, when Spinks eventually catches him, he's got the KO power to finish Conn, and he would.

[Surf-Bat]

I'll take Conn by UD. He'd already proven he had a granite chin by taking it from powerpunchers like Fred Apostoli, Oscar Rankins, Solly Krieger and Ray Actis. He even took some solid raps from Joe Louis and several top heavyweights, so I don't see Spinks' right hand denting his chin when and IF it lands. I also don't see Spink's awkwardness becoming much of a factor. Billy beat southpaw Melio Bettina TWICE and Melio was as awkward as they come.


Spinks fought mostly in-your-face punchers and did seem to have trouble with one of the few clever boxers he met(Eddie Davis). It's easy to envision Conn giving him more trouble than Davis did and copping a UD. Conn fought the much wider variety of fighters in his career- boxers, punchers, boxer-punchers, welters, middles, lightheavies, heavies. And- as mentioned before- speed kills.

[hagler04]

I'll take Conn by UD. He'd already proven he had a granite chin by taking it from powerpunchers like Fred Apostoli, Oscar Rankins, Solly Krieger and Ray Actis. He even took some solid raps from Joe Louis and several top heavyweights, so I don't see Spinks' right hand denting his chin when and IF it lands. I also don't see Spink's awkwardness becoming much of a factor. Billy beat southpaw Melio Bettina TWICE and Melio was as awkward as they come.


Spinks fought mostly in-your-face punchers and did seem to have trouble with one of the few clever boxers he met(Eddie Davis). It's easy to envision Conn giving him more trouble than Davis did and copping a UD. Conn fought the much wider variety of fighters in his career- boxers, punchers, boxer-punchers, welters, middles, lightheavies, heavies. And- as mentioned before- speed kills.

I take Conn too for the all the reasons above. Spinks excelled vs the come forward bangers but not the slicksters. I also don't see how one can say Conn gets knocked out as Billy faced a slew of guys who hit as hard or harder than Spinks and never was knocked out at 175 or above except by Louis. I can see the Jinx putting Conn down, but not out.

[Michael Frank]

I take Conn too for the all the reasons above. Spinks excelled vs the come forward bangers but not the slicksters. I also don't see how one can say Conn gets knocked out as Billy faced a slew of guys who hit as hard or harder than Spinks and never was knocked out at 175 or above except by Louis. I can see the Jinx putting Conn down, but not out.

Maybe Conn wins, but the notion that Conn "took" Louis's shots (as Surf noted), I don't see. Joe didn't hit him all night in fight #1, then Billy got nailed with like 2 great headshots and was down for a 100-count. Why Spinks can't knock him out based on that I can't see.

And who did Conn face that punched harder than Michael Spinks? Spinks took out Marvin Johnson with one left hand and dropped Mustafa Muhammad with one right. He almost decapitated Wassaja, also right-hand KO'd Yaqui quicker than others had. Spinks was a brutal KO puncher by the time he won the title.

[Surf-Bat]

[QUOTE=Michael Frank]Joe didn't hit him all night in fight #1,

That's the first time I've ever heard that. Almost 13 full rounds fought(close to 40 minutes of combat) and Joe never hit Billy once?? Then the films- or my eyes- are lying to me.

Why Spinks can't knock him out based on that I can't see.

Why Spinks can't KO Conn based on the fact that JOE LOUIS knocked him out?? The implication being that Spinks was in a class with JOE LOUIS in the power dept?

And who did Conn face that punched harder than Michael Spinks?

Joe Louis (who had TWO "jinxs"...his right AND his left!)
Lee Savold(65 KOs in 93 wins)
Ray Actis(24 KOs in 29 wins)

[hawk5ins]

I have heard two VASTLY different descriptions of the bout:

*Dominant Performance by Conn.

*Zale loses Disputed Decision.

I've read that Conn left the ring to a chorus of boos, but one story initmates the boos were the result of the duke and another will state that it was due to the fans being dissapointed in Zale lasting the distance.

I've read that Conn Staggered Zale in rounds 6, 7, and 11 And I've read that Zale had Conn in trouble on more than one occasion as well.

With this fight not being available on film, we are so very reliant on post fight reports. What is so frustrating is when the Reports are so inconsistant.

Two of the different sources I've used here are The Ring Boxing in the 20th Century book (pro Conn strong performance) and Peter Walsh's Men of Steel (Disputed decision).

It seems that when you read a story on Zale, it was a bad decision. Read one on Conn, it was a dominant performance.

I've seen the word "lackluster" being used to describe BOTH fighters in this bout as well.

Any insight folks?

Hawk

[Surf-Bat]

I have heard two VASTLY different descriptions of the bout:

*Dominant Performance by Conn.

*Zale loses Disputed Decision.

I've read that Conn left the ring to a chorus of boos, but one story initmates the boos were the result of the duke and another will state that it was due to the fans being dissapointed in Zale lasting the distance.

I've read that Conn Staggered Zale in rounds 6, 7, and 11 And I've read that Zale had Conn in trouble on more than one occasion as well.

With this fight not being available on film, we are so very reliant on post fight reports. What is so frustrating is when the Reports are so inconsistant.

Two of the different sources I've used here are The Ring Boxing in the 20th Century book (pro Conn strong performance) and Peter Walsh's Men of Steel (Disputed decision).

It seems that when you read a story on Zale, it was a bad decision. Read one on Conn, it was a dominant performance.

I've seen the word "lackluster" being used to describe BOTH fighters in this bout as well.

Any insight folks?

Hawk

I've read nwspaper accounts and they were all pretty unanimous: Dominant performance by Conn, though he was booed for being unable to stop Tony. Zale never seriously hurt him and Conn was just too big for the "Man of Steel".

[hawk5ins]

Thanks.

Unfortunately, what I've read, has been conflicting, whihc is what is so frustrating.

No other sport is clouded by such mystery.

It's maddening at times.

Hawk

[Sharkey]

Spinks won't be able to manuever Conn consistantly enough to land a crushing blow. It is not like Billy Conn was Tommy Loughran in that if you COULD plant a solid sock on him and you were a big hitter he was three steps down Queer Street.

Conn's aggressiveness takes the play from Spinks, and Conn outlands Spinks throughout. Michael's 'awkwardness' does not prevent Conn from doing his thing.. I join Surf-Bat, Conn has Spinks 'hurt' as often as the vice versa, and Conn wins a unanimous decision.

[Surf-Bat]

Thanks.

Unfortunately, what I've read, has been conflicting, whihc is what is so frustrating.

No other sport is clouded by such mystery.

It's maddening at times.

Hawk

Indeed. That's because sportswriters have had such a field day putting their own spin on things when it comes to boxing. Even in recent years. I had a letter published in the Los Angeles Times some years ago lambasting Jim Murray for suggesting in one of his final columns that Pernell Whitaker received a "gift decision" over Azumah Nelson. It was even worse: Murray said that Whitaker looked as shocked to receive the verdict as the crowd was!

I informed him that NOBODY was shocked at the decision and that if anyone who saw it gave Azumah more than 4 rounds MAXIMUM that they were more charitable than Mother Teresa. Murray was nearing the end of his life at the time, so maybe it's understandable that his memory wasn't sharp anymore(he penned the article years AFTER the fight). But at the time I was like "HUH?!"

[hawk5ins]

Booed Conn's performance.....I wonder if that was simply reported incorrectly by those who heard ABOUT the boos or those who didn't know any better and interperated the boos incorrectly.

I've always imagined that the case was indeed Conn won easily...It was a lackluster bout.....and a lackluster performance by BOTH fighters.....and the Crowd booed becuase the felt they did not get their monies worth.

That getting twisted a bit over the years in some reports as a bad decision......Damn film crews.

Great analogy with Whitaker Nelson....I've also heard, PURPOSEFULLY a twisting by Ferdie Pacheco on air during one of Chavez's Post Whitaker fights when he made the suggestion that the Draw from the Pete bout, was a bad one....and that CHAVEZ was the victim!

Peaches ain't they?

Hawk

[Michael Frank]

Why Spinks can't KO Conn based on the fact that JOE LOUIS knocked him out?? The implication being that Spinks was in a class with JOE LOUIS in the power dept?

Surf, no, I didn't imply Spinks could punch like Louis. My problem with it is only in the logic. Because Louis knocked him out, that means he's the only one who can knock Billy out? Even a lesser-than-Louis puncher can't?

Had Louis not been able to KO Conn, that would convince me that Spinks couldn't. But, that Louis could KO Conn doesn't exclude others from being able to do so, as well.

[Surf-Bat]

Surf, no, I didn't imply Spinks could punch like Louis. My problem with it is only in the logic. Because Louis knocked him out, that means he's the only one who can knock Billy out? Even a lesser-than-Louis puncher can't?

Had Louis not been able to KO Conn, that would convince me that Spinks couldn't. But, that Louis could KO Conn doesn't exclude others from being able to do so, as well.

Fair enough, MF. Anyone can be knocked out, yes. Even a featherfist can KO an iron chin. How else to explain why Hearns couldn't KO Doug DeWitt and slappy Sumbu Kalambay could(and with a SINGLE punch!).

But I think the data we have on Conn vs power hitters(from middleweight to heavy) would support the assertion that he could take whatever Spinks managed to land.

[The Welterweight Epitome]

Think it's all been said here, would have to agree with the consensus and go with Conn for the reasons mentioned above.

[blv30]

I think Spinks pulls it out.Conn would give him fits but Michael would be prepared like Batman, and find a way to beat Billy by a close unanimous verdict.

[El Gato]

Spinks's boxing skills seem to be getting sold short here. He wasn't just a big puncher. He was an excellent, if very awkward, boxer who knew how to set up and time his power shots with the best of them. I'd wager on him getting to Conn late in a close bout.

[rocky111]

I like Billy Conn. He knew when to punch and when to move and Mike was a bit awkward in there to mess or nail a boxer of Billy's stature. Billy threw alot of leather also and he beat awful fine light heavies before he got out of there in Lesnevich and Bettina. HIs performance with Joe LOuis was no accident. Billy could fight in his prime.
Tony ZaLE told us that Conn moved away from him after a few rounds because he couldnt move Tony and Tony reached his body with some big shots. Tony in his prime was no joke. Billy chose the safest way to beat Tony and that was to move and box. No one near his weight wanted to move in on a prime Tony Zale. Why make a vic look hard when there is a better way?

[Elwill7847]

I'd take Conn by a clearcut decision in a tough fight.

[Sharkey]

Spinks' boxing ability is not being sold short if it is being said to not be formidable enough to shade Billy Conn.. IMO.

[walshb]

Spinks was one awkward fighter who carried enough power to hurt and drop Billy Conn.
He had a reach and "height" advantage too. I don't think Spinks has to worry about Conn's power as much as Conn has to worry about Spinks'.

Who ever out boxed Spinks? I have seen enough of both men from clips and I think that
Spinks makes this a very awkward affair for Conn. Conn become more and more frustrated with Spinks'
retarded style, gets a little wild and gets nailed badly to lose by KO

[Surf-Bat]

[QUOTE=walshb]Spinks was one awkward fighter who carried enough power to hurt and drop Billy Conn.

I'll give you that. The "Spinks Jinx" was no joke.

I don't think Spinks has to worry about Conn's power as much as Conn has to worry about Spinks'.

I'll give you that also. If one has to worry about the other's power it would be Conn worrying about Spinks. But as I've stated before, Billy fought enough powerpunchers(some who hit HARDER than Spinks) to where he wouldn't be worried about Michael's power. Not at all. Conn had a concrete chin, was very fast and had a good defense

Who ever out boxed Spinks?

What boxers did he fight? The majority of his career was spent taming sluggers. Eddie Davis is the only one you could call a "boxer" and look what happened there.

I have seen enough of both men from clips and I think that Spinks makes this a very awkward affair for Conn.

As stated before, Conn has already dealt successfully with "awkward". Spinks has never fought anyone like Conn. Conn has a VAST advantage in experience here. He had many more fights against many more different types of fighters at more weights. If anyone is going to be seeing something they haven't seen before it's going to be Spinks, not Conn.

A guy with a mere 31 fights(32 if you wanna refer to the Tyson bout as a "fight") is not going to be doing much surprising against a guy with 77 fights against some of the best, toughest middleweight, light heavyweight and heavyweight fighters of his day.

[walshb]

[QUOTE=Surf-Bat]

A guy with a mere 31 fights(32 if you wanna refer to the Tyson bout as a "fight") is not going to be doing much surprising against a guy with 77 fights against some of the best, toughest middleweight, light heavyweight and heavyweight fighters of his day.[/B]

Hey, I don't believe that is all that relevant. PBF or James Toney for example, could have only had two or three fights, but they will always present a real puzzle to whomever they meet. Great fighters will present issues to other greats. Sal Sanchez died very early, yet he would have held his own with greats who had much longer careers. When yo are great, you are great!

[Surf-Bat]

[QUOTE=walshb]

Hey, I don't believe that is all that relevant. PBF or James Toney for example, could have only had two or three fights, but they will always present a real puzzle to whomever they meet. Great fighters will present issues to other greats. Sal Sanchez died very early, yet he would have held his own with greats who had much longer careers. When yo are great, you are great!

You're not wrong there and I'm not saying Conn just walks over Spinks. It would be a tough fight for sure

[walshb]

[QUOTE=Surf-Bat]

You're not wrong there and I'm not saying Conn just walks over Spinks. It would be a tough fight for sure

Absolutely, but when you get two men who are great, and one is a proven bigger hitter than the other, then I think it's fair to say that the gambling man may just put his money on the hitter. That doesn't mean Conn will get KOd, but I feel Michael has TWO
ways to win this, Conn has ONE way. The smart money is on Spinks

I quoted you Surf, even though it appears that I quoted myself. You gotta' start using the quote function properly..