My timeline of the premiere HW in the world.

is that the question though? it could be but i don't know if h2h is necessary the measure of best for the time period. i was thinking more along the lines of who would win more fights if they took on all the top contenders. i think byrd outranks wlad in 2005 for instance because he was more proven at the top at that point even though wlad would ALWAYS beat byrd based on styles. just my viewpoint

as to your question i don't think bivins would have won and personally i don't see any consistent period where he was the best either

 

Those in bold are ones I find questionable at first glance. Some should be extended (Joe Louis, Lennox, Liston, etc), others should be diminished (Langford -I'm not sure he was ever better than Johnson as a HW), and a few should be summarily removed -like Douglas, Ingo, etc.

I agree with others on this thread that you seem to be giving those with the crown a bit too much. We have the advantage of retrospect here and we know, for example that Holyfield was better than Douglas even before he KOd Tyson.

Subjectivity will of course, enter in, but if you consider where The Ring ranked them, it may serve as a guide...

 

Fitzsimmons has a pretty good hindsight argument to have been better than Corbett for quite a long time.

 

I think Bivins was the best around and put together an impressive run while Louis was inactive.
The point I am making is Ali is eliminated as the best while inactive while Louis isnt.
Who in your mind beats Ali while he was in exile? I certainly dont see anyone until Frazier and even then not before 69-70 and its feasible that a slightly greener Joe gets beaten by an Ali who has stayed active.
I agree with removing Ali and Dempsey from their position atop the division while inactive because they have no form to justify maintaining the status, however Louis should be too in my opinion

 

I do believe that at least for one night, and thus by right until he was dethroned, that Douglas was the greatest heavyweight on earth. The Tokyo Douglas takes the 1990 Holyfield.

Similarly, some would argue that Johnson had declined later in his reign while Langford had established himself an excellent heavy, repeatedly beating McVea and Jeanette (both of whom Johnson would not match for the title), beating Jim Johnson (a feat Jack did not acheive) and KO'ing O'Brien in 5, a feat Johnson could not match in 6 and in fact had to settle for a draw.

Ingo was certainly better than Patterson for a single, provable night, and could be considered to have been better for at least a year, especially given his destruction of Machen. That is not too far-fetched.

 

No. He was the recognized number 1 heavyweight while Louis was gone though.

 

I think Tunney had a better resume than Wills in 1925,and would probably have beaten him at that time ,if Harry had agreed to fight him.

 

I think you might consider giving dual #1 spots now and then, especially for Louis during WWII when he was in the army. Who was better?

I might wonder if Bettina shouldn't get one of the WWII years. He split even with Bivins in three fights and was the #1 contender in 1944.

If Louis is penalized for not fighting in 1943-1945, why does Dempsey get to be the #1 man in 1922?