Oh, I'm sorry, I meant of a boxer who was actually World Champion. A fighter who actually accomplished something note worthy, besides having so many wins. I stand somewhat corrected, since I didn't specify that I meant, accomplished fighters. Now, I know he beat some really good European fighters, but he was not in the class of a Greb, Robinson, Fitzsimmons, Pep, Ali, Duran, Armstrong, Langford, Gans, Charles, Ryan, etc.
That would be my top 5 as well, in a slightly different order. Really, though, pretty much any order is justifiable with that crew.
Never said he was. I was simply pointing out that Greb did not hold the record for most wins. Also, why did you mention Langford if you were only concerning yourself with World Champion boxers?
I said World Champion boxers and accomplished boxers. Langford is clearly the greatest non-champion in history. Did you not read my post?? "A fighter who actually accomplished something note worthy, besides having so many wins." Sound like Langford???
Given the way it was written, I'd have logically assumed that you meant only winning the World Title would qualify as "something note worthy". If not, you should have said something more along the lines of: "I meant of a boxer who was World Champion or accomplished something note worthy...".
You are right about the way I worded that. I would think you would know that someone as knowledgeable as myself on the history of the sweet science would surely know that the great "Boston Tar Baby" (a nickname that I hate, by the way) was never a world champion. As you probably know, his accomlishments in the ring speak volumes without ever being "officially" world champion. He beat the World Middleweight Champion, Stanley Ketchel in a 6 round Newspaper decision. He also beat the legendary lightweight champion, Joe Gans in a 15 round fight in which Sam weighed 140 lbs. And think about what Langford was able to do against World Welterweight Champion, Joe Walcott. Yes, it was judged a draw, but read the newspaper accounts on that one. It was a great, give and take affair that could have easily been a win for Langford. Anyway, to sum it up, I don't need any lesson from you on boxing history or the English language, but thank you.
El Bujia and Abdullah (as you both seem to know your ****), how highly do you rate Jimmy Bivins? I have him scrapping my top 25. His four year unbeaten record was one of the greatest ever, and included wins over Charles, Moore, Maxim, Lloyd Marshall, Bettina, Buddy Walker, Lee Q Murray and Bob Pastor. His run only came to an end in bizzar circumstances when he was outpointed by Jersey Joe Walcott, despite winning more rounds
He also beat the great Charley Burley. Granted, Bivins was slightly the bigger man, beating Burley was no easy task. Burley was NEVER knocked out in his entire career, but anyway, the question was about Bivins, not Burley. I don't know exactly where I would place him, but his wins over Moore, Charles and Burley alone make him an all-time great fighter. I am glad you mentioned him as he has been forgotten by so many. Props to you for that. :good
He'd rate in my top 50. Although he wasn't officially considered a member of the Black Murderer's Row at the time, revisionist history has painted him as such (and it makes sense). Of the Row, I'd probably only rate Burley ahead of him (so long as we're not including Charles and Moore among that group). Holman Williams and Lloyd Marshall aren't too far behind. It's difficult to take his head to head matchups with other members of the Row (and even early bouts with Charles and Moore) at face value given the fact that he was always the larger man. This is negated by how well he performed against men his own size or larger later on in his career, though, when generally past his prime. Not quite on the level of a Charles or Moore, but standing comfortably with pretty much any other member of the Row, which is high praise indeed.
Therein lies the problem. I don't know how knowledgable you are. I was merely feeling you out. If you're this confident in your knowledge, why not take it over to the Classic Forum? A badly jet-lagged (or train-lagged, whatever have you) and out of sorts Gans, it must be stated, but an extremely impressive victory nonetheless when taking into account Langford's relative lack of experience. It probably should've been. Walcott was said to have pressed the bout and made the fight, while Langford did the effective scoring and countering throughout. I wasn't meaning to give you a lesson. You seemed to take offense to what I said, regardless of what it was, and I responded in kind.
