Yes defintley. Bivins was one of the most scientific boxers who ever lived, and he had extremley long 80" octupus long arms for his height, that would enable to compete with the bigger boys. He would hold a belt today
I dont know if he could (not saying he couldnt Suzie, just dont know), but for me, Bivins was the greatest of the 'uncrowned champions' of that era, just to voice my opinion
disagree, elmer ray was the greatest uncrowned champ of that era. Jimmy Bivins is tied with Lee Q Murray for 2nd place.
Okay then! Just my opinion, but i very well may be wrong, (as you have stated!) but Bivins must be in contention.
defintley contention. in fact i know many posters here who would agree with your opinion. i just happen to prefer ray over bivins. Ray beat prime versions of walcott and charles, went on a 72-2 winning streak in his prime, was avoided by nearly ever contender from here to china during the mid 1940s....he was 6'2 with 81" reach and had a puncher/swarmer style with long arms. a rare breed. he never got his deserved shot at joe louis.
Bivins should have got the shot at Louis post WW2, not Conn, but I guess money is money. Bivins would certainly be competitive today. He could hold a belt, yes indeed.
I think 17 different fighters beat Bivins. Bivins might not even be able to beat some of the top light heavies of the 90's and 00's. Could he be competitive? Maybe as a good opponent for the champions, but that is about it.
Ridiculous. i can only think of about 3 heavies who would beat bivins today. as for lightheavyweights, dont be ridiculous bivins is at minimum a top 15 lightheavyweight of all time.
Bivins lost and drew with some journeyman. He was small fighter 5'9:" fighter who had little power, and suspect durability. He wasn't very agressive either. Roy Jones would defeat Bivins. Sorry, 5'9" heavies with no power and suspect durability are as dead as dinasaurs in the modern era. I think the following heavies beat Bivins today. Wlad Chagaev Valuev Peter Povetkin Ibragimov Dimitrenko Far more than 3. In fact there are likely more.
peter couldnt deal with a fat old way past his prime 5'9 fighter in the first fight, i like bivins by unanimous decision displaying a smart counterpunching strategy like toney when did this happen in his prime? in his prime from 1943-1946 he went on something like a 47-0 run until a walcott split decision ended it. bivins fought everyone out there, of course hes going to lose sometime. if wlad and vitali fought top 10 contenders every month like bivins did, they would lose too. Bivins sported over an 80" reach, so this negated it he had octupus arms suspect durability? bivins was very durable, he faced all the monsterous hitters of his era and only few were able to knock him out. very scientific boxers with 80" reaches and solid durability would school the big men in the modern era
i like bivins over chagaev. chagaev tries to be scientific, but hes not, not like jimmy bivins. chagaev tries to display masterclass skills, but he doesnt have them. hes not an overwhelming puncher. i like bivins by close decision. dudes got potential but hes too raw now. i like bivins over him.
Bivins lost 25 times. He also won quite a few fights via razor close decsion. He's Over rated. The bottom line is Bivins is simply too small, and does not hit hard enough. No one would respect him at heavyweight, and he does not have the chin of Toney, nor does he have Toney's counter punching ability or defense. In addtion Bivins was not an agressive fighter. How is he going to win? Remember, Bivins started off at middle weight. At heavy he was 50/50 and beat small heavies in general. He'd be in over his head today vs the best. This is the logical way to look at it.
When your taking on top contenders ever month for 15 straight years, then obviousely you are going to have your share of losses. the real question mendoza is how many of those losses took place in bivins prime? not many is james toney too small? bivins had over an 80" reach you have to respect a man with skills like that thats debatable, he faced just as big punchers that toney did for a much longer time and was stopped only once in his prime. disagree, I believe bivins did have toneys counterpunching abilities, he worked very scientificully and very wise. he boxed like he had alot of wisdom, and he was a excellent fighter at countering in close or at long range. bivins defense was very compact he slipped punches and parryed jabs very well. the biggest difference is he was in much better shape than toney and far younger. have u seen film of bivins in his prime? he didnt need to be. he is in far better shape than anyone today including the fat obese grandady whale james toney who beat sam peter the first time around. Toney started at middleweight, yet he got into the top 5 rankings and picked up a belt. toney was 39 too, while bivins would be much younger at 25.
