Would Jimmy Bivins be P4P #1 Today ?

I’ve clarified what I meant. If you want to argue semantics instead of the actual point, that’s up to you.

 

you get it, you just can't bring yourself to admit it.

they Are Different Weight Divisions period... whether you bring Bivins & co forward into today, or take Usyk and todays L-HWs back to then, because damn near EVERY Modern L-HW then would be HW's full stop and a hell of a lot of Middles & S-MWs too...

you know fine well what is being said you just refuse to acknowledge it.

I'm a 5'8" Man, in my absolute athletic best I was 145 lbs - 150lbs, being of a medium lean stature... fighting in the 1940's I would likely skip through LW, level out at WW and maybe, maybe finish at MW...

Today I'd be walking around at 150lbs plus, but fight at FW cum LW... because of my Stature and MONTHS to cut weight and compete there... because that is how it is done today, I wouldn't dream of WW or MW today, its just not in the mind to do so, because it is not done like it was in the Past, which of course was to fight in & around your Natural Weight - Boxing doesn't do that anymore, generally speaking.

Bivins Today, meets NONE of those fighters above WW until his closing out last few years and that would only include MW's.

 

Same day weigh ins (no weight grifting)
No PEDs
Higher fight frequency
Fewer divisions
Smaller gloves

Etc..

All made for a purer sport & a better overall test of metal. Those fellas forged their greatness under a much harsher framework than that of today. That's why i too think they are greater fighters. I can't think of any fighter operating now that I'd put in my top 10.. Crawford? Hell no.. fought once a year, beat up shell after shell, never really fought at a significant size disadvantage his entire career despite the Canelo grift they'll try sell ya'll.. Give me Pep, Duran, Charles & Walker any day of the week ..

 

And boxing is nowhere as relevant in any other country as are soccer and motorsports... and often volleyball and basketball and handball and etc...

 

I'm not surprised the redditor lacks reading comprehension.......

 

You can't put your own meaning on any word and expect us to understand you.

 

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/comparable

 

HOW are we arguing that a 180-lb man who did NOT cut weight is comparable in size to a man who is 5 inches taller and has had a 40-lb advantage over him for the past five years?

 

capable of or suitable for comparison
The situations are not at all comparable.

ironic!

 

The definition of "comparable" is "able to be likened to another, similar".

So, by saying "Usyk and Bredis are comparable in size" you are, by definition, claiming they're similar in size.

A claim you initially defended when challenged, and are now ttying to distance yourself from, having been educated as to how ridiculous and ignorant it is.

 

Its so strange to me that a post asking whether an also-ran from one of the sports most depleted eras would be a P4P great today when even in his own era the guy almost always had a size/weight advantage in his biggest wins has gone so many pages. The fact that today he would be considered a weight bully is pretty much the antithesis of being some kind of P4P star. Thats also ignoring his incredibly spotty record that, surprise, got even spottier as the war ended and the talent started returning and he was fighting more and more against men his own size.

It should also be noted that, despite what Thistle think, weight cutting isnt a new invention of the sport. Fighters have been cutting weight as long as there were weight divisions and typically weighed a good 15 to 20 pounds more than their fight weight even as far back as the 10s and 20s.

 

I'm curious, where do you rank SRR, Ezzard Charles, Willie Pep, Joe Louis, Archie Moore and Charley Burley p4p all time?

 

Must have them right below the prestigious modern powerhouse George ****ing Kambosos

 

Something that gets lost in this is Bivins was short for his era including among those who went back and forth between HW and LHW. 5'9 in the early 1940s wasn't big for a LHW. It wasn't the smallest. But most of the fighters who went to HW were bigger then Bivins.


6'1.5 Conn
6'1.5 Beckwith
6'1 Maxim
6'0 Ezzard Charles
5'11.5 Pastor
5'11.5 Mauriello
5'11 John Henry Lewis
5'11 Archie Moore
5'11 Al McCoy
5'11 Sheppard
5'10 Lloyd Marshall
5'10 Bolden
5'9 Bivins
5'9 Lesnevich
5'9 Bettina

Lets not forget Lee Murray was 6'3, Johnny Haynes was 6'4, Bean 6'2.5, Coley Wallace 6'2. Bean and Wallace are important because he beat them long after his prime. Bivins lost to 6'2 Lem Franklin but he came back from three knockdowns to almost win the fight. Bivins was 21 and this was almost a year before his famous streak started.

Lee Murray was probably better then Usyk and was certainly more "dangerous". Both because Murray had more power and he because he wasn't bloated up trying to compete with Fury and Chisora on the scale. Now Murray didn't prove much because his prime was WW2. But if Usyk is an ATG great HW off 8 fights. I do not need feel more proof is needed. He's a 6'3 duration champion with more power then Usyk and a bunch of glowing testimonials. Glowing testimonials is all you need.

Being lighter is actually an advantage against guys who aren't knockout threats like Usyk. Usyk is not Holyfield or Haye who was wrecking all the 200 pounders. 4 of his 7 CW title fights went the distance.