Jimmy Bivins vs Ezzard Charles

One of Ezzzard Charles sloppiest fights in his prime. When you fight Jimmy Bivins for the 4th time, chances are you are going to know eachothers styles so well that it becomes a boring sloppy fight, thats what happened here. I believe this fight was shortly after charles had killed Baroudi, so Charles did not have a killer instinct at this time. he was still tramatized.

I wish someone uploaded Walcott-Charles I 1949...charles and walcott really showed some masteclass boxing moves in that one!

 

You need a lot of coffee to get through fights of this period. Boring.

 

you sure bout that?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUzJaokX_N8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKUlBPErrn0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WG8kmOgjSPY&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Je9fncDgI-s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBRilCUg90E

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LF7wSmNaEW4

 

Wow. Seeing this fight completely changed my opinion on Ezzard Charles. He's rubbish.

 

Yes he's exposed as The Cincinnatti Slow Worm.
Bivens has arms that look like they reach his knees ,yet he paws with his jab:huh.

 

Bivins was a spoiler type. He could not punch much, but he could paw with his jab, and make things boring when he was matched vs a slower footed, non puncher.

I do not think Bivins would be a threat to any modern heavyweight champion. He was not that good. Bivins did ascend way up the boxing ranks during a talent drained world war II era of boxing.

 

well if he fought like that against liston, foreman or tyson he would be ko'd in 1 round. i take he was having an off-nite and this was much later on in the fight.

 

Bivins was also a LHW, and past his prime in this bout.

 

Not at all. I dont think you have done much research on him. What film have you seen of Bivins in his prime? he was past his prime here in 1948

He could do more than Paw. He was 5'9 but had an 80" reach, which was why he was so good at outboxing heavyweights from a distance. bivins jab was very good in his prime

He knocked out Archie Moore, Lloyd Marshall and floored Ezzard Charles 7 times, and floored a prime Charlie Burley when he was just a novice. I would say he was a very hard puncher at 175lb.

Bivins defeated a slew list of big punchers during his career

Not that good? Bivins was a hall of fame ATG fighter who has TEN times the resume Bob Fitzsimmons does. Once again you have never seen film of prime jimmy bivins. I bet you have never read a news read on bivins. He was considered a master boxer with an abnormally long reach and had the ability to land shots at all angles and ranges.



Jimmy Bivins would embarras most of these slow out of shape modern heavyweights



Jimmy Bivins rates in the top 12 lightheavyweights of all time and top 60 heavyweights of all time

 

Top 10.

 

Possibly Rattler. Anyone who says "Jimmy Bivins is not that good" does not know what they are talking about. I am flabergasted by that comment. If Bivins was not that good, what does that make Charley Burley, Lloyd Marshall, Ezzard Charles, archie moore?

 

Mannassa and myself were tongue in cheek regarding Charles of course.Bivins record speaks for itself,I think.

 

Yeah, that was just one of those funny nights for both of them. You get plenty of uneventful bouts today.

 

Yes I have seen Bivins before. He is semi impressive, and more often than not lost to the best talent he fought.

Bivins could out box the slow heavies near his size, but would be out of business in the modern heavyweight era because he was not a punch, was defensive, and did not have the best chin either. Something like 20+ different fighters defeated Bivins.

Moore was tough, but he was floored a lot more than most are aware of. Marshall was best known for being a middle weight. Charles started out at middle too, and Burley was even smaller. It seems like Bivins power only shows up on blow up middles here, and his KO% is very low. Since Bivins had skills, its a clear case of lack of power, and lack of aggression.

Was Bivins a three belt lineal champion at middle, light heavy or heavy. No-- Bivins was not 10x the fighter Fitz was. Most historians will say Fitz rates higher in a pound for pound sense.

Bivins is short, lacks power, and really does not throw a lot of punches. I would take both Klitschko's, Chagaev, Dimitrenko, Ibragimov, Povetkin, Haye, Gomez, over Bivens. That is six fighters. 50/50 matches would be Chambers, and Valuev. Could Bivens out box a fat / un-interested heavy? Sure, but he's borderline ring magazine top 10 heavyweight fighter is he was around today. it is likely that Bivens would never fight at heavy today. He would he at light heavy or cruiser.

Top 12 at light heavy might be a stretch. top 15? ok. I think Bivens lost too many times to be top 60 at heavy. Top 100? Maybe.