I get you points. I have the magazine. Form what I recall historical significance played a role in the article. I still think Bivins at #26 was a bad call. Something like 19 other fighters beat him, he was never heavyweight champion. Jacobs might be an expert, but being an expert doesn't excuse anyone from making odd reach calls unless they have some stuff that can make me think about their position. Flim, re-search, and ring results is what I prefer to go by. In the case of no flim, then I value a general opnion of those who saw so and so. I've seen enough of Bivins to call the pick a reach. I hope that makes sense. I also like Jacobs. A fine guy from the interviews I've seen, and and torch passer of rare films. Holy at #3 was a huge reach. Bowe who got the better of Holy was way down the list. While you are right, Lewis did not beat Holy at press time, the Ring did a hack job on Leiws calling him a one-handed fighter.
He was interim heavyweight champion, which has just has much credence as any ALPHA HW belt today! bivins never got his title shot at louis because of the war! not his fault, but bivins was number 1 contender throughout the mid 1940s. I think Bivins has an excellent heavyweight resume, full of quality depth. he beat Lee Q Murray, Clarence Henry, Bob Pastor, Melio Bettina, Turkey Thompson, Mike Dejohn, Coley Wallace, Johnny Haynes, Lee Savold, Sid Peaks all quality dangerous heavyweight contenders. certainly top 50 material.
Two questions. 1 ) Is #26 a reach for Bivins in your book. Yes or no? 2 ) Bivins scored a low amount of knockouts ( 27.68% ), lost to some journeyman, and was beaten by something like 19 other fighters. Is any other top 50 man have worse stuff than this in terms of KO%, losses to 19 other fighters? It is possible that Bivins win over Henry was a fix. Henry won the re-mach easy. I think Bivins in the top 50 is a reach. Top 100, maybe.
Though these are for SuzieQ, I'd like to pipe in a bit here. Yes, I think 26 is stretching it, though I believe that list was compiled in the mid-late '90s, which would leave him a little more room. Still, I think Bivins probably belongs in the mid-30s to 40s. Tommy Farr has a substantially lower knockout percentage than Bivins, lost to over 20 different fighters (and upon review, Bivins lost to 17 opponents, not 19), and is on the list. Incidentally, scanning down this list, I believe only Farr, Langford, Jeanette, Moore and Charles have as many listed fights as Bivins, and all of them but Moore and Jeanette have at least as many losses as he does, those two having very slightly fewer; I would also bet you that if you took the time to sit down and take the statistics (which I may do when I have more time and inclination) that it would be crystal clear that win/loss average among these fighters has an inverse correlation with total number of career fights; the more they have, the lower it goes. Guys like Langford, Charles, Bivins, etc. who had well over 100 pro fights and became established elites in the first few dozen spent year after year facing the best in the game and continued to do so long past their peaks, and their win/loss records suffered as a result, but this does not undo their accomplishments. Bivins was well over the hill by the time of these fights anyway and they are not terribly central to his legacy; when one is typing a broad overview of counter-Bivins rhetoric, this argument seems a strange selection. The centerpiece of Bivins' legacy is the 26 fight undefeated streak he had during 1942 through 1946, in which he beat just about everyone at light heavyweight and heavyweight- Moore, Charles, Pastor, Maxim, Lee Q. Murray, Tami Mauriello, Lloyd Marshall, Lee Savold, Hatchetman Sheppard- before Walcott edged him out in their encounter. After this, his record grows increasingly spotty, but he still added a fair number more of noteworthy names to his winning ledger, including Turkey Thompson, Clarence Henry (albeit perhaps suspiciously), and even a prime Mike DeJohn when Bivins was near 36 and in his final professional outing after 15 years and over 110 fights. Not having Bivins in the top 100 would be ludicrous. I can see having him a little outside the top 50, but think he belongs inside it on the basis of his very deep resume, outstanding longevity and status as interim champion for several years.
Bivins is hardly "popular." How many threads have there been about Bivins on this forum, or any you've been to? Ever seen a TV special about Bivins? Has ESPN Classic ever even aired one of his matches? I think it's reasonably plain that they just hold a substantially higher opinion of that era as a whole than you do.
My take: 1) Is #26 a reach--not much. I think this list is from 1998. One thing I would criticize is rating Bivins above Moore, as Moore ko'd him 3 times and beat him 4 times and Bivins had about 15 or so pounds on Moore at the time. 2) In fairness, if you go strictly head to head, I agree that Bivins is probably not a good top 50 choice. 3) On a historical rating, based on how he did against the available opposition of the time, I think a position in the high 20's can easily be justified. Bivins simply beat more good men than any other non-champion with the possible exception of Langford. Looking through the Boxing Register, Bivins recorded 25 wins over opponents ranked when he fought them, defeated 38 men who were ranked at one time or another, won around 55 or so fights (I really had trouble keeping count) against men who were rated at one time or another, and fought 78 fights against men who were rated at one time or another. Let that last one sink in. 78 fights!!! How many of most top 50 lists would even have 78 fights against all opposition. As to the argument that he lost quite a bit--well, if you couldn't point to quite a few defeats for a man fighting that many tough fights, he would have to be ranked in the top ten if not the top five.
I think top 40's is a huge stretch. Farr was another bad pick for the Rings top 50. This is some substance, but in a heavyweight thread. Bivins light heavy accomplishments really should not count for much.The country was in WW 2 while Bivins was on top, and the talent pool in boxing was badly drained. I had Bivins at #95. Barely top 100. He was ahead of guys like Maher, Fripo, and Layne. In the end he was too small, not a puncher, lost to 17 different fighters, and never held the real heavyweigh title. I don't think Bivins would be an alphabet heavyweight champion today. In fact he might be too small, to weak, and not durable enough to compete in a modern heavyweight divison.
Not at all- I don't think there's ever been anyone who was #1 ranked contender in the world as long as Bivins was and beat as many name fighters as Bivins did who would NOT be considered a virtual lock for the top 50. In fact, I defy you to name one. Perhaps. He wouldn't be in my top 50; however, he was never #1, has an inferior record to Bivins as I illustrated, and doesn't have anywhere near Bivins' winning resume. As I pointed out before, guys like Langford and Charles who have comparably-compiled records to Bivins also have scratchy win/loss records and relatively low knockout percentages; this does not undo their accomplishments. Sure. Bivins was heavyweight interim champ, beat top heavyweight contenders like Pastor, Murray (three times), Thompson, Mauriello (twice), Maxim, Savold, Sheppard (four times), etc., and was ranked at heavyweight as early as 1942 and as late as 1952. Sam Langford was smaller than Bivins and lost to more than 17 opponents, but I don't think you would argue he's barely top 100. Being "not a puncher" does not make one less great. Punching power is a means to an end, not an end in and of itself, much like speed, stamina, defense, etc. This is one reason I find your apparent tendency to rank fighters on the basis of their knockout percentages peculiar.
Mendoza--Bivins had no choice in his own era but to compete as a heavyweight. Today he would compete only as a cruiser, I think. My guess is he would earn recognition as a lightheavy and cruiser champion.
Bivins might be better off at light heavy today. Most cursiers today fight close to 200, and some train down to get there. 5'9" is a bit short for crusier in general. Heck, its short for middle these days. I would pick quite a few cruisers and light heavies to beat Bivins in the modern era post 1960. Just because Bivins fought everyone, doesn't make him great. At a very low point in heavyweight history, Bivins was the best of a bad lot.
Bivins was the best of a very depleted and weak heavyweight divison when he was #1. If your saying top 50, then list yours. I want to see all the names. I beleive you will see that pretty much everyone on the list beat better heavies than Bivins did, are were more formidable in general. This statement here midly contradicts your first statment where you say It seems like feel Bivins shoudl be int he top 50, but isn't in yours. Strange. Langford beat better fighters, hit harder, and is a true pound per pound guy. He also fought many more times than Bivins did, so sure he should have 17 losses. But when rating heavies, things like Power matter, and Bivins did not have much. Langford was shorter than Bivins, but more solidly built by a mile.
Elmer Ray, Lee Q Murray, Jersey Joe Walcott, Melio Bettina, Turkey Thompson, Lem Franklin, Billy Conn, Harry Bobo, Buddy Baer, Lou Nova, Bob Pastor weak???? far tougher era than the one right now!