Would Jimmy Bivins be P4P #1 Today ?

160 wasn’t his established prime weight, that was his early career weight before he fully filled out. When he was beating Ezzard Charles, Archie Moore, and fighting Jersey Joe Walcott, he was typically around 180–185, and he stayed in that range for most of his prime. That suggests it was his natural mature weight.

So including 160 as part of his “prime range” inflates the spread. His mature fighting weight was closer to the high-180s.

If we’re talking fight-night weights, that overlaps with modern light heavyweights. Dmitry Bivol often rehydrates into the mid-180s. Artur Beterbiev is typically high-180s/low-190s.

That places Bivins much closer to modern LHW fight-night size than to modern 168. So calling him essentially a SMW today feels overstated.

 

That's one way to read it.

But you would be making the case that boxing is an outlier in comparison to all other sports on the planet that have benefited from this globalization. Good luck with that!

 

I'm not saying he'd be a SMW for sure; I'm saying he wouldn't be a cruiserweight (which you have said repeatedly) and in no universe is he fighting at heavyweight against super heavyweights (which you asked how many he fought on page 1).

He operated close to cruiserweight (although still much closer to LHW; able to drop down from 187 against Moore to 178 against Charles 3 months later), because cruiserweight didn't exist and the money was at heavyweight. He didn't have cut to stay ranked at HW, earned more money and had an actual chance at getting a title shot once the titles had unfroze. None of these reasons apply today; on top of a few reasons why he wouldn't fight above 175.

1) CWs today would be considered freakishly large HWs then.
2) If you want money at LHW today, you don't move up to CW, you move down and try to get the Canelo fight.
3) Every other person in boxing is cutting down even while they move up in division.


When was the last fighter below HW who deliberately chose to give up 20-15lbs on the scales, before rehydration? There's absolutely no way Bivins would fight as a 'low cruiserweight', when he could cut an extra 5-10lbs and be a LHW.

Also, the diets then were every bit as good for health and performance as they are now. When athletes or high level trainers say 'Modern Nutrition', it's mostly a dogwhistle term for Steroids. And the vast, vast majority of fighters now don't use S&C to get bigger because it's counter intuitive, they use it to stay strong while cutting weight. Even when guys move up in weight, it's usually a combination of a couple lbs of muscle, a couple lbs of fat and the rest is just cutting less water.

edit: huge ass gap + final two paragraphs were scraps and not meant to be included

 

Are we seriously still implying that the frame of a 5'9 180lbs man who peaked at LHW and the frame of a 6'3 200+lbs man are comparable?

 

To be fair the sport isn’t nearly as culturally relevant in the US as it used to be. It seems like there are a lot more top ranked Americans below 160 tho

 

He beat one of the greatest boxers of all time in Charley Burley weighing 160lbs. So I stand by my statement that his world level weight range was around 160-190lbs. And I stand by my contention that, that range is typically around WW to LHW fight night weights today. If you want to focus on his heaviest weights and say they most closely resemble those of LHWs on fight night today, fine, I don’t disagree, and have literally said the same on more than one occasion in this thread.

What I do disagree with, as per my first post directed at you in this thread, is your ludicrous contention that "Usyk and Bivins are comparable in size". They aren't. Obviously. If you'd like to defend, that statement, then have at it.

 

I actually think we agree more than we disagree.

I’m not saying he’d be a heavyweight today, and I’m not locked into him being a cruiser either.

What I’ve been pushing back on is the idea that he’d obviously be a 168. He spent most of his prime comfortable in the high-180s. That suggests his natural mature weight wasn’t 160–170.

Could he cut to 175 today? Sure, that’s plausible. I just don’t think it’s automatic that he’d drain all the way to SMW just because cutting is common now.

Beyond that, we’re both projecting. I just think the projection isn’t as clear-cut as “5'9 = modern 168.” like some people other people here are saying.

 

That's not the rationale that has been postulated, though, is it?

Posters within even the most rudimentary knowledge of Bivins career know that his 1942-45 run is what underpins his greatness. After losing an SD to the bigger Pastor in early 42, he went on a 23-0-1 run that includes wins over Ezzard Charles, Archie Moore, Lloyd Marshall, Joey Maxim, 20lbs heavier Lee Savold, Anton Christorforidis, 10lbs heavier Tami Mauriello, Oakland Billy Smith, Melio Bettina, 15lbs heavier Lee Murray x 2 and Curtis Sheppard. It's one of the greatest 3-year/c.25 fight runs in all of boxing history. Bivins record from 46 to the end of his career in 55 really isn't all that special. He has some fine wins before 42, when he typically weighed 160-175lbs, but 42-45 was clearly his absolute prime.

His mean average weight in all fights contested 1942-45 is exactly 181.24lbs, which is pretty much the average fight night weight for a SMW today and most certainly not "comparable in size to Usyk".

 

That’s fair and I agree 42–45 was clearly his peak.

If his average in that run was around 181, that still sits right in the overlap between modern SMW and LHW fight-night weights. Modern SMWs rehydrate into the high-170s/low-180s, and modern LHWs are usually mid-to-high 180s on fight night.

That actually puts him around the same fight-night size as Dmitry Bivol, who’s a light heavyweight and Bivol has said that's he’s not sure he could comfortably make 168 and has talked about possibly moving up to cruiser in the future.

So 181 doesn’t automatically land Bivins at modern SMW. It places him right in that grey area between SMW and LHW.

I’m not arguing he was comparable to Usyk’s heavyweight frame. I’m arguing that projecting him strictly as a 168-pounder isn’t automatic based on those numbers.

 

Actually you stated "Usyk and Bivins are comparable in size". Which is nonsense.

 

When I said “comparable,” I didn’t mean they were the same size. I meant that both operated in the heavyweight space and weren’t separated by multiple divisions the way a flyweight and heavyweight would be.

 

I think you need to look up the definition of comparable.

 

but you are wrong to think ONLY in Terms of WEIGHT...

Stature = Height, Build and weight,

Today's S-MWs & L-HWs, Stature wise are generally 6' - 6'2" or more and walk about at 190lbs - 210lbs or more, making them BIGGER Men than Bivins and Co. from bygone days, who were generally 5'8" - 5'11" Men fighting at MW & L-HW...

So 'them' fighting today, they aren't going anywhere near S-MW, L-HW or HW... No, they would be fighting as LW's - WW's generally speaking.

You are thinking in Weight ONLY, rather than looking at 'like' Statures, which would determine which divisions fighters generally speaking are going to fight at, Today or in in the Reverse Then!

 

You’re acting like height alone determines division it doesn’t. Bivins fought most of his prime around 180–185. That overlaps with modern LHW fight-night weights for example Bivol typically rehydrates to around the mid-180s.

Yes, modern LHWs are often taller on average. But division placement isn’t determined by height alone it’s about where a fighter is comfortable competing weight-wise. Projecting him as a modern lightweight or welter just because he was 5'9" ignores the fact he was competing near 185 in his era.