Great question. Historian Bert Sugar wrote of the fight between Louis and Bily Conn, about Conn, "His consummate boxing skill, his flashy left hand the center piece (that) made him a lineal descendant of 'Gentleman' Jim Corbett, the first of the great scientific boxers, also with great defense"... Makes one wonder if Bert also wondered about a matchup of Louis and Corbett as well.
Corbett was a boxer deluxe. He was very clever, elusive and very, very fast ( sounds like Conn.) Joe Choynski, who was a outstanding fighter and gifted as a brawler/boxer combo, and known as being very quick, was amazed at Corbett's speed and skill, and Corbett always coming out the better man in their bouts.( also, Choynski beat and gave Jack Johnson a ko loss. One could argue however that Jack was still young and green, yet on the other hand Joe was older , battle worn and no longer in his prime, making it balance out.(?)
The great gene Tunney sparred with Jim when Corbett was in his late 50's, early 60's (?) and Gene was stunned at Jim's bewildering speed, footwork and ability to mix up his punches. Tunney was on the defensive and said it was the greatest thing he'd ever seen.
Durant and Bettman said of corbett "Jim could feint, slip punches, side-step and counter with a left jab so fast that it was a blur to the eye." He was a master of the feint.
Many people who were alive to see the prime Peter Jackson fight and the same people who also saw a prime Jack Johnson fight, thought that Peter Jackson was better than Jack Johnson. Corbett went with the great legendary Peter Jackson 61 rnds. to a draw. (Jackson was amazed at Corbett's talent.)
While Fitzsimmons did beat Jim, Fitz was totally outboxed and near beat. How would history view Jim and Fitz. if not for the long delayed count on Bob's behalf during their match? Immediantly after the fight Jim demanded a re-match and told Bob if he did'nt he would whup him there in the streets every time he seen him. Bob avoided Jim and never gave him a re-match. ( Did Fitz. realize Jim was the far better fighter and he may not be as lucky the second time around.(?)
Corbett also had loses to Jim Jeffries yet in both bouts Corbett TOTALLY dominated Jeffries. Something other boxers hadnt done, execpt Jack Johnson, but Jack was fighting only a shell of Jeffries. Jeffries was so outboxed by Jim he thought of quitting during the bout. Jim Jeffries said of Corbett..."Was the cleverest man I ever fought. There isn't a fighter of any weight, living or dead who could measure up to him as a boxer
Every Fighter who fought Jim, every boxing writer, historian, etc. all lament of his extraordinary skills. No one ever said Corbett was good, but not as great as they make out, NO ONE. Jim was probably the greatest ring general and thinker ever, He was the Albert Einstien of boxing. Jim actually drew pictures/graphs of boxing situations, pictures of getting out of corners when trapped and how to with various punches thrown at him. He was a ring thinker and could adapt to any situation during a fight. Jim was ahead of his time, a Ali or " Sugar" Ray Robinson if you will. I think if you could time-warp Corbett to now and give him 6 months to a year to 'Modernize', he would prove to be a force.
Corbett was approx. 40 years removed from fighting Joe Louis. Would that make that much of a difference? (especially in view of Jims great skills.) Would a 40 yr. and 50 yr. removed Ali and Ray Robinson also do well with today's fighters? I feel they could, and would probably dominate. So a Corbett vs. Louis bout is not far fetched.
So if Corbett had all the attributes that Conn had, and then maybe more (?) Could it be that unreasonable he might gain a victory over Louis?