Is Jimmy Bivins run 42-46 as good as Floyd's career?

Everyone in the top 10 back then were full time boxers?

 

Not interested in loaded questions. If you have a response to my post, make it.

 

Mosley was considered the man at 147 when floyd fought him whether you want to accept it or not

 

When I clicked the thread I thought you meant Patterson

 

If you beat a top 10 fighter today then that's what you did. They are a full time fighter who's every flaw is highlighted under the camera. If you go back in history and examine top wins in history you'll find many of them were much more ill prepared than the fighters of today are. Exceptions don't make the rule.

 

What Bivins did was historic. What Floyd did was phenomenal. What Bivins did can be compared to any boxer in history. Why choose Floyd?

 

Yeah but FlIVds resume isnt great. Its filled with has beens with big names when he fought them.

 

I fail to see how fighting more frequently makes you less of a full time fighter or as you are implying less of a fighter.

I don't see how being filmed makes you a better fighter either. A top 10 win is a top 10 win in any era.

My point also stands that Bivins wasn't privileged. He fought as frequently as any other fighter from his era yet dominated his peers.

 

How about Greb going 45-0 in one calendar year while boxing more rounds than Floyd did in his entire career? Along that run, he beat Leo Houck (3x), Bill Brennan (4x), Billy Miske, Battling Levinsky (3x), Willie Meehan, Mike Gibbons, Jeff Smith, Mike McTigue and avenged his only KO loss by beating Joe Chip.

That's a Hall of Fame career. What it is for a year I have no idea.

 

Being filmed highlights your flaws. If Floyd was a fighter form 1940 he would seem like the perfect fighter. He has flaws they would easily be lost throughout history. However since his entire career is on HD we can pick through his career and criticize it in ways that we can;t for fighters of the past. Had Floyd vs Corrales happened in the 40's or 50's who would be criticizing that win like they do today? You would have to sift through old newspapers to find articles that might not even exist anymore to know that Corrales was drained coming into that fight. Since you can;t do that people tend to take old fighters resumes at face value who putting modern fighters under a microscope. They are rarely judged in an even light.

 

Gotcha.

You have to be lucky to fight in a Bivins era, Robinson era, Leonard Duran era, Ali era, Montgomery and Williams era, Holyfield era etc etc. In those days to be able to fight many contemporaries around your weight who after retirement became HOF fighters was a blessing because there were only 8 divisions then. As many times as Bivins beat those guys, they beat him too. With that said, that run was as good as any run in boxing history, but it isn't enough when Floyd's run was a 18+ years since winning the title at age 21. Here's why.

For some reason and I'm not saying you, but Floyd's undefeated record is truly downplayed. But lets look at it for what it's worth. The man refused to lose. He didn't take early losses like Pac and many others and bounce back. That's not to down play many greats and legends who lost early. Floyd was cut badly in like his 4th fight fighting a southpaw. Over came that to win an ugly fight.

Floyd hurt his hand in a fight at SFW and had to finish with 1 hand-overcame that. He was a SFW outweighed by a guy in Castillo by 17 lbs. Outweighed by Maidana by 18 lbs. Outweighed by Canelo by 18 lbs. I may be a lb off or two. He never let his lack of size be a detriment to him because of his will to win. Floyd has gone through adversity just like all of the greats and he has refused to lose. He has hand issues, rotator cuff issues and overcame them.

He was hurt badly by Shane at WW and Corley at JWW and I mean hurt badly. He overcame that. His defense and intestinal fortitude is what makes him legendary. Floyd's ability to not only come back in fights after being down by points early or hurt, but his ability to adapt and solve his opponent is why boxers love Floyd. Fans not so much because Floyd did what he had to do to win. That pleased enough fans to the point that they paid to see him lose and his opponents wound up respecting him after their fights. I said that Floyd's style will be appreciated far down the line one day.

Bivins run from 42'-46 was a great run. Some of those guys he fought, he fought a month later. But, imo that run was not as good as Floyd's career. Floyd didn't lose. I can say this about Bivins. His run was as great as any run any great has had in this sport when looking at it after the fact.

 

I can further add that going up in with back then was a way bigger risk than going up in weight today. But that also depends on who is 4-15 lbs above you.

 

George Foreman was a lineal champion and was considered as #1 HW by The Ring Magazine when he was 46, It doesn't mean he was in his prime then. The same thing can be said about Mosley.

 

Beating the #1 fighter in a division... well, that's the best you can do in that division.