Tell me about Jimmy Bivins....thanks

Bivins was certainly the best light heavyweight during WWII and I think the second best heavyweight as well. His resume is no joke. Louis could not have defended his title better than the way Bivins did during the years that Louis was inactive. Despite being a light heavy, a win against Bivins would have been one of the best on Louis' resume.

Despite being one of the best, he is also one of the most tragic. Both Louis and Bivins had declined by the time they fought, which was about 7 years too late.

Louis, though declined was still a puncher, Bivins had lost a lot of the defensive quickness, the snap off of his jab, it is harder for a boxer to maintain the things that make them great as they get older, as opposed to a puncher.

He is still alive, even though he was born in 1919 and his family left him to die of born cancer.

One of the best fighters to not be able to challenge for the heavyweight title.

Louis vs. Conn was a thriller. I can totally see why a rematch was in order. Conn deserved it and it was a big seller. But the time for a rematch would have been before the war, maybe instead of Louis vs. Abe Simon II. By the war's end, Conn had lost his speed. The fact that Conn was injured before the war, that's Conn's problem. Bivins should have come first after the war.

Bivins wound up losing after the war to the next two heavywieght champions, but for what he did during the war the Louis vs. Bivins fight should have happened for the title right then.



I just wrote about him when I wrote about heavyweights who got bad breaks on this forum.

 

.....it may have happened since, but Jimmy Bivins was the first fighter to be rated number one in the heavyweight and light heavy divisions at the same time.

An all-time great, he and Lloyd Marshall are one and two....I forget which is first and second...have the record for beating the most title holders at one time or another..either after or before the opponents held the titles. This of course is back when there were only eight divisions. The disgrace is that neither of them was even given a title shot. They both fought in what i think was the era in which the greatest light heavies existed. Charles, Bivins, Marshall, Moore all fought each other,and they fought heavyweights too.

I don't know how tall Bivins was....i'm sure he was under six feet, but he had a longer reach than most men of his height, and he knew how to use it.

 

Excellent fight won the "duration" lightheavyweight title against Marshall, its sad to hear what happen to him a few years ago apperantly he was chained up by his family and bascially left to die heres the article.

http://www.cyberboxingzone.com/boxing/bivinfo.htm

 

I think he wa 5' 9''

 

,,Janitor...thanks. That sounds right, as I do recall he was short, even for a light heavy. A remarkable fighter.

 

Bivins was most probably the best of the 'uncrowned champions'. His best weight was most probably middleweight, but his talent and toughness was so good that he could beat a lot of the best light-heavies of the time, and did weel against heavies aswell. think he ranks above Burley in a ranking of the 'uncrowned champions'. Burley would be number 2 of that era for 'uncrowned champions'. Bivins beat Burley, but he did considerably outweigh him, most of Burley's top class opponents did. Sam Langford is most probably the best 'uncrowned champion' of all-time though.

 

He had unusually long arms for his height though, so did Burley. But if you look at photos of them, it is more obvious with Bivins.

 

Bivins was the "Interim Heavyweight Champion" while Louis was in the army.

That should put him on a par with guys like Tom sharkey and Peter Maher as a title claimant in historic terms.

 

Jimmy Bivins was only 5'9 but had a 80" reach. they called him octupus cause his arms were so damm long. He had absolute wars with Lee Q murray, a very good fighter.