1943 Joe Louis*, Champion Jimmy Bivins Tami Mauriello Lee Q. Murray Curtis Sheppard Gus Dorazio Joe Baksi Joey Maxim Turkey Thompson Lee Savold Buddy Scott 1944 Joe Louis*, Champion Melio Bettina Tami Mauriello Curtis Sheppard Joe Baksi Lee Oma Lee Q. Murray Jack London Elmer Ray Al Hart Buddy Scott 1945 Joe Louis, Champion Billy Conn Tami Mauriello Jimmy Bivins Elmer Ray Bruce Woodcock Lee Oma Freddie Schott Arturo Godoy Jersey Joe Walcott Joe Baksi So Bivins is the universally accepted duration HW Champion in 1943 and number 1 contender. Conn leaves for the War in 1942 as the number 1 contender with the promise he would be reinstated number 1 upon his return. So conn comes back in 1945, he’s immediately promoted to number 1. However, Bivins leaves in 1944 and comes back and suddenly Tami Mauriello is above him and Bivins is down to number 3? Seems like Bivins was royally screwed here. Not only had he beaten Mauriello twice, but he hadn’t lost at all from 1943-1944 then came back from the war and was dropped from number 1 to number 3. So why did Tami get moved ahead of Bivins? Some hometown cooking in New York there? They take care of their golden boy?
Bivins was rated number 2 in 1945, right behind Conn, in the NBA ratings. Ring ratings are pointless.
thanks. The NBA ratings seem to have gone like this Champion--Joe Louis 1-----Billy Conn 2-----Jimmy Bivins 3-----Melio Bettina 4-----Tami Mauriello I think these ratings much more logical than The Ring ratings, given the feeling that Conn should get back his pre-war #1 ranking.
The boxing scene was quite different after World War II ended. Sugar Ray Robinson and Jake LaMotta didn't get world title shots until late 1946 and the middle of 1949 respectively. In regards to Jimmy Bivins, there isn't any way that he was going to get a world heavyweight title shot until after Joe Louis defend his title in a second bout with Billy Conn. The second Louis-Conn bout drew a gate of nearly two million dollars when it took place on June 19, 1946. It is very doubtful that a bout between Louis and Bivins was going to draw such a large gate. Meanwhile, Bivins lost three bouts during 1946 and another three during 1947. As a result, Bivins was out of the running for a world heavyweight title shot afterwards. - Chuck Johnston
Yes. Ive said all along, until the 1970s the NBA ratings usually made sense, were fair, and also official. Yes there are some exceptions but by and large they were better than the Ring ratings which were often arbitrary and/or manipulated to promote certain fighters to better sell magazines in certain markets were those fighters fought. Somehow, largely through their own PR Ring got people to believe their ratings were somehow above reproach but they werent. From their inception they were a tool of abuse for both New York and Ring magazines sales. Ring was a New York based and largely New York-centric magazine housed in MSG, partially funded by New York promoters, and largely written by New York based newspapermen. It had a vested interest in promoting New York/East Coast fights and fighters and above all catering to subscriptions and growing those sales. So its ratings could not, by design, be above reproach. People were aghast when DLH, as a promoter, bought Ring because it could represent a conflict of interest but that conflict had existed for most of Rings history.
Champions werent bound to the Ring ratings at all. The NBA had affiliations with most state governments by this point and as such when and if they stripped a fighter or banned him those states followed suit. This was a powerful (underutilized) tool. The Ring had nothing more at their disposal than manipulating public opinion.
"klompton2, post: 19286330, member: 99355"]Yes. Ive said all along, until the 1970s the NBA ratings usually made sense, were fair, and also official. Yes there are some exceptions but by and large they were better than the Ring ratings which were often arbitrary and/or manipulated to promote certain fighters to better sell magazines in certain markets were those fighters fought. Somehow, largely through their own PR Ring got people to believe their ratings were somehow above reproach but they werent. From their inception they were a tool of abuse for both New York and Ring magazines sales. Ring was a New York based and largely New York-centric magazine housed in MSG, partially funded by New York promoters, and largely written by New York based newspapermen. It had a vested interest in promoting New York/East Coast fights and fighters and above all catering to subscriptions and growing those sales. So its ratings could not, by design, be above reproach. People were aghast when DLH, as a promoter, bought Ring because it could represent a conflict of interest but that conflict had existed for most of Rings history.[/QUOTE] I'm in no way disagreeing with your opinion of the Ring's ratings , some of the European heavies included in the top ten over the years have made me scratch my head as to how their ranking could be justified. However, for those of us UK boxing fans ,The Ring's ratings were the only ones readily accessible to us via their magazine. Where in the UK in the 50's,60,s 70,s would we have found the NBA 's rankings? Where can we find them today?
