Is it Possible that Jimmy Bivins...

He doesn't look average on film, it's just most of the available film of him is when he is well past his prime. Youtube used to have a bivins vs christaforidas clip 1943....Bivins looks spectacular in that one.

Bivins is definitely one of the best of the murders row

 

"Freak" is the right term to describe him. Only 5'9, possessed an extremely long reach, near 80". One report described "Bivins looked as though he could tough the ground with his hands standing straight up letting his arms dangle" lol. His long arms allowed him to outbox many 6'3 heavyweights at long range during his career.

Bivins was a very scientific boxer. In most of the film we see on youtube he appears slow. That is because most of the footage is him while past his prime. If you watch film of him in the early 1940s, he was not slow. He was quite slick, cagey, and had very nice upperbody movement. Good swift jab, could punch, and was very intelligent. Also had a nice chin, and a lot of courage.

An underrated middleweight, ATG light-heavyweight, and a very good heavyweight.

 

It's possible. Bivins stales a claim as the best heavyweight not called Joe Louis before his famous counterparts did and more than held his own against the best fighters at middle and light heavy previously.

He's right up there. Burley gets more sympathy but Bivins was less avoided and therefore claimed some incredible scalps.

 

:happy

YES YES YES YES!!!!

Bivins
Marshall
Burley

 

3 excellent examples of just how great the fighters from this period in boxing were. for me though the top honour of the 3 belongs to Lloyd Marshall.

on his best, he bests damn near anybody at middle & l-hw. but as I also state he is by no means alone, there were litteraly 'dozens' of them from this period.

Dozens & dozens of Greats in all weight classes from all of boxings top nations then!

 

And people said the welterweight era today was stacked! Back then we had Marshall, Charles, Bivins, Moore, Gus, Billy Fox, Maxim etc etc. and that's in 1 division, and totally forgets Robinson, Louis, burley etc

 

Eddie Booker.

 

He's lucky he haven't met Burley!:tong:bbb

 

Bivins isn't near the best of them P4P imo He was just bigger and stronger, around 8-10lbs (18lbs on Moore!!) than the likes of Burley/Charles/Moore/Marshall when he was beating them. When Charles and Moore gained a bit of weight and matured they beat him

 

It can easily be argued that those fighters only beat him once he started to slip

 

He was still in his prime in 1946 when those guys beat him.

 

I think his prime ended when he lost to Jersey Joe. I won't argue too much that Charles beat a very good Bivins, but by the time Moore got hold of him, he had lost a couple times to Lee Murray.

His 4 year unbeaten stint from 42-46 was absolutely awesome

 

You can argue what you want, what's indisputable is the fact his legacy is made off men weighing 8-18lbs less than him (usually 10lbs). Also what evidence is that he started to slip, other than he lost? Losing doesn't necessarily mean you started to slip