Marciano vs Charels I, a war!

[Mendoza]

I watched a bit of ESPN classic Marathon on Rocky Marciano. The first Charles fight was a classic. Rounds 1,4, 6, 10, and 15 were shown.

Charles start out hot, and even shakes Marciano up in rounds 1 and 4. Had Charles opted to stick a move a bit more, the fight might have gone his way. Rocky was cut ealry, and pawing at times at it. However, as it was Charles pretty much stood toe to toe with the Rock, beating him to the punch and scoring more cleanly, but lacking the big punch to turn the tides into his favor.

Marciano turns the tides in round 6, though Charles makes a rally. In round 10 and 15, Marciano's will to win and work rate is amazing. He just keeps loading up and throwing punches. Charles at times lands clean uppercuts and counter punchers ( Which Rocky is open to ), but just does not have the reserves left to fight back as often. There were no knockdowns. Charles took many punches. I guess chins can be funny. Charles took many bombs from Marciano without going down in this fight, but went down in other fights from lesser punchers.

Comments from Bert Sugar: Charles was the 2nd best heavy at the time, but Sugar says really wasn't anyone else out there. Sugar did not see a lot of skill from Marciano, but admires his stamina. He calls Marciano the Nolan Ryan of the heavyweights. All fastballs throw hard, but not much variety or accuracy. Props are given to Charles for going the distance. Sugar also says, Rocky loved to eat and his trainer Goldman had to take food away from him during camp! Amazing since Rocky was in tiptop shape for this fight.

Is the full 15 out there? This was one heck of a fight.

[SuzieQ49]

Charles start out hot, and even shakes Marciano up in rounds 1 and 4. Had Charles opted to stick a move a bit more, the fight might have gone his way. Rocky was cut ealry, and pawing at times at it. However, as it was Charles pretty much stood toe to toe with the Rock, beating him to the punch and scoring more cleanly, but lacking the big punch to turn the tides into his favor.

Disagree, charles wasnt standing toe to toe......he was counterpunching and moving. notice the overhand right charles makes marciano miss in round 4, charles steps back and lands a huge counter right hand flush. charles was confined to stand toe to toe late in the fight cause marciano wore him down.



I agree a classic fight though


Is the full 15 out there? This was one heck of a fight.


Nope

[Mendoza]

SuzieQ49 Disagree, charles wasnt standing toe to toe......he was counterpunching and moving. notice the overhand right charles makes marciano miss in round 4, charles steps back and lands a huge counter right hand flush. charles was confined to stand toe to toe late in the fight cause marciano wore him down.

Charles stood right in front of Marciano, and traded from round 1 to finish. He did not use his height, reach, skills, or footwork advantage at all early in the fight when he was in the lead. What fight were you watching? If Charles boxed and moved a more often, the outcome could have been different.

[SuzieQ49]

Charles stood right in front of Marciano, and traded from round 1 to finish. He did not use his height, reach, skills, or footwork advantage at all early in the fight when he was in the lead. What fight were you watching? If Charles boxed and moved a more often, the outcome could have been different.


what fight were u watching? in rounds 1 and 4, charles can be seen circling marciano displaying tremendous COUNTERPUNCHING and slick shoulder rolls.


not until round 10 did charles get worn down and forced to fight toe to toe.

[Mendoza]

what fight were u watching? in rounds 1 and 4, charles can be seen circling marciano displaying tremendous COUNTERPUNCHING and slick shoulder rolls.

not until round 10 did charles get worn down and forced to fight toe to toe.

Now this is funny. Wrong, they exchage plenty. Charles is not keeping away from Maricnao and piling up points, he is mixing it up. In fact, Chalres, who was not a big puncher at heavy, shakes Marciano up, not once but twice in the rounds shown on ESPN CLassic.

How about Marciano's prespective on one of his fights with Charles? Rocky says, " He looks like he ( Chalres ) is going to stay close. I don't like that! "

Very amusing stuff SuzieQ. Sure you know more than I do on boxing.

How about watching a bit of the action?

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[SuzieQ49]

I guess all the step back rolling away counter right hands charles nailed marciano with in rounds 1 and 4 were "toe to toe" hail mary exchanges :lol:



:patsch :patsch :patsch

[Mendoza]

I guess all the step back rolling away counter right hands charles nailed marciano with in rounds 1 and 4 were "toe to toe" hail mary exchanges :lol:

:patsch :patsch :patsch

Marciano was easy to hit in this fight, up close with upper cuts, or from out fighting. It is easy to see Chalres was in there brawl more than run. Laughing with silly icons won't change the truth.

[SuzieQ49]

Marciano was easy to hit in this fight, up close with upper cuts, or from out fighting. It is easy to see Chalres was in there brawl more than run. Laughing with silly icons won't change the truth.



So essentially without beating around the bush, you made this thread in order to put down and once again degrade rocky marciano. A feeble attempt at making it into a real thread, but we all know the real truth now why u made this thread. A big jack dempsey fan in disguise.

[sugarkills]

More like: Marciano vs Charles I, a beating!

[Maxmomer]

More like: Marciano vs Charles I, a beating!

Have you seen the fight?

[Mendoza]

So essentially without beating around the bush, you made this thread in order to put down and once again degrade rocky marciano. A feeble attempt at making it into a real thread, but we all know the real truth now why u made this thread. A big jack dempsey fan in disguise.

This is a thread about a great fight. I start these type of threads from time to time. In great fights, both fighters have their moments. I described the action as it went down. Don't be so sulky.

[he grant]

Does anyone add that Charles was shopworn and past his prime, losing four previous fights in the two years since he had lost his title. In addition, he really was a blown up light heavyweight with a ton of mileage on him ...

That being established, it was a great, grueling fight ...

[red cobra]

Charles' last stand. One of boxings really gallant performances really. Marciano proved he was an ATG 15 round fighter, which is IMO, one of the prime criteria of what a great figher should be.

[he grant]

Does anyone add that Charles was shopworn and past his prime, losing four previous fights in the two years since he had lost his title. In addition, he really was a blown up light heavyweight with a ton of mileage on him ...

That being established, it was a great, grueling fight ...

[he grant]

Sorry about the repost ...

How does the Charles fight prove Marciano was one of the all time great fifteen round fighters ? Doesn't the opponent matter ?

I say Frazier beating Ali in Super Fight 1 was a much greater 15 round performance.

[sugarkills]

Have you seen the fight?

Yeah. Marciano won. You should also know by now I'm insane :rofl

[la-califa]

I watched a bit of ESPN classic Marathon on Rocky Marciano. The first Charles fight was a classic. Rounds 1,4, 6, 10, and 15 were shown.

Charles start out hot, and even shakes Marciano up in rounds 1 and 4. Had Charles opted to stick a move a bit more, the fight might have gone his way. Rocky was cut ealry, and pawing at times at it. However, as it was Charles pretty much stood toe to toe with the Rock, beating him to the punch and scoring more cleanly, but lacking the big punch to turn the tides into his favor.

Marciano turns the tides in round 6, though Charles makes a rally. In round 10 and 15, Marciano's will to win and work rate is amazing. He just keeps loading up and throwing punches. Charles at times lands clean uppercuts and counter punchers ( Which Rocky is open to ), but just does not have the reserves left to fight back as often. There were no knockdowns. Charles took many punches. I guess chins can be funny. Charles took many bombs from Marciano without going down in this fight, but went down in other fights from lesser punchers.

Comments from Bert Sugar: Charles was the 2nd best heavy at the time, but Sugar says really wasn't anyone else out there. Sugar did not see a lot of skill from Marciano, but admires his stamina. He calls Marciano the Nolan Ryan of the heavyweights. All fastballs throw hard, but not much variety or accuracy. Props are given to Charles for going the distance. Sugar also says, Rocky loved to eat and his trainer Goldman had to take food away from him during camp! Amazing since Rocky was in tiptop shape for this fight.

Is the full 15 out there? This was one heck of a fight. How about before the fight? It was a who's who of Boxing Champions! I never seen so many Boxing Champions at one event. Dempsey, Louis,Saddler, Ect...

[SuzieQ49]

In addition, he really was a blown up light heavyweight with a ton of mileage on him

it could be looked at he was a naturally filled out trim 185lb heavyweight with a ton of experience on him. gene tunney was 195lb when he fought dempsey with the same amount of bouts, was he a blown up lightheavyweight with tons of mileage on him? how bout tommy gibbons? same age as charles with near same amount of bouts on his resume when he fought dempsey.

[quote]
Does anyone add that Charles was shopworn and past his prime, losing four previous fights in the two years since he had lost his title. In addition, he really was a blown up light heavyweight with a ton of mileage on him QUOTE]


seems like you like to scew up facts to support your opinion. when we look deeper, we see charles won 11 out of his last 13 fights going into the marciano fight. One of the losses to ATG hall of famer harold johnson, was a robbery in which I and others thought charles deserved to win upon seeing the film. His lone loss to nino valdez was an upset when charles came in too heavy, but charles and NBA issued a rematch and valdez DUCKED OUT OF THE REMATCH losing his # 1 contender status.

Prior to the marciano fight, Charles looked EXTREMLEY impressive demolishing two TOP 10 rated heavyweight contenders very hard punching bob satterfield in a classic knockout, and a one sided drubbing over 6'3 200lb slugger coley wallace. These were huge confidence boosters to charles. He came into the marciano fight with his confidence and mental state of mind as clear and motivated as ever, according to charles friends. Charles had earned his spot back as the Ring Magazine # 1 contender and divisions best boxer. On film that night he looked very impressive(not as impressive as he did in the late 1940s, but very impressive.) I believe the june 1954 charles was clearly better than any opponent dempsey ever beat. charles had a modern boxing style that 1920s boxers simply couldnt compete with him.


New York Times described of charles performance "charles made one of the best showings of his career."- June 18 1954

Boxing and Wrestling, November 1954, said of their first meeting,"It was also generally agreed that no fighter in the world other than Marciano could have lasted 15 rounds against the Ezzard Charles of the night of June 17, let alone win the decision."

* this was claimed by nat fleischer a non ezzard charles fan in a boxing wrestling magazine interview


- Of course rocky proved he was clearly superior in the rematch by winning every round knocking charles down 3 times and finishing him off in the 8th with a busted nose.




btw HEgrant, while charles was past his prime, so was marciano. if u watch...marcianos style changed by 54-55, he became slower his punches lost steam, and he became more of a defensive volume puncher who wore his opponents down and he entered the charles fight coming off a long layoff full of rust. I dont think this was the best marciano, the best marciano was the 1951-52 rocky marciano.

[SuzieQ49]

How does the Charles fight prove Marciano was one of the all time great fifteen round fighters ?

Because of the punchrate, workrate he put up under gruelling conditions.. just watch round 15.....i think the walcott fight however shows marcianos ability as an ATG 15 round fighter


Doesn't the opponent matter ?


Yes and beating a live dangerous version of ezzard charles doesnt matter? charles was the # 1 contender in the heavyweight division and still a great fighter despite being past his prime. the June 1954 charles is better than anyone jack dempsey beat. charles wasnt ali, but he was no washed up deadbeat in there, he was a hungry live dangerous # 1 contender trying to become the first contender in history to recapture the heavyweight crown.


sure no one is saying the charles win was as good as fraziers win over ali, but the 15 round grueller marciano put up certainly rated up there and proved himself clearly a capable 15 round fighter.

[Dempsey1238]

I dont hold the lost to Johnson against Charles. Charles should have been 3-1 going into Marciano fight 1. I had it 7 rounds to 3 score for Charles vs the Johnson fight. A Clear robbery imo.

Should have been 12 out of 13 fights leading to Marciano.

[SuzieQ49]

I agree. I scored it 6 rounds to 3 charles with 1 even, charles even knocked him down in the 10th round with a sharp right hand too.

[ChrisPontius]

A truely great fight.


Saying that Charles traded with Marciano is a subtle misunderstanding of the flow of the fight; Marciano made Charles trade with him because of his workrate and pressure. And that pressure of course, in turn made Ezzard throw many hard shots early to get Rocky's respect and try and keep him off.

Look at the last rounds of Marciano's fights with LaStarza, Moore and Cockell. Are they trading with him? No, they simple can't keep him off.

[Mendoza]

A truely great fight.


Saying that Charles traded with Marciano is a subtle misunderstanding of the flow of the fight; Marciano made Charles trade with him because of his workrate and pressure. And that pressure of course, in turn made Ezzard throw many hard shots early to get Rocky's respect and try and keep him off.

Look at the last rounds of Marciano's fights with LaStarza, Moore and Cockell. Are they trading with him? No, they simple can't keep him off.

LaStarza did not try to trade much. He moved and countered, building an early lead on the cards until his stamina, fouls from Marciano, and Marciano's legal shots wore him down. Marciano landed a mean foul punch on a break or after the round ( I forget ), and IMO, that took some steam out of LaStarza. I did a write up review of that fight a while back which can be queried by doing a search here.

Anyway, Charles was tough minded and did not run nearly as much as LaStarza did. He was mixing it up, not clinching or using his jab and legs.

[he grant]

Heavyweight immortality for punching out LaStarza, Cockell and forty plus year old Archie Moore ... none of whom are rated in anyone's top 100 heavyweights ...

SQ: Are you saying the 33 year old Charles was comparable at this stage in his career to 27 year old Tunney that fought Dempsey ?

[Mendoza]

Heavyweight immortality for punching out LaStarza, Cockell and forty plus year old Archie Moore ... none of whom are rated in anyone's top 100 heavyweights ...

SQ: Are you saying the 33 year old Charles was comparable at this stage in his career to 27 year old Tunney that fought Dempsey ?

He Grant

I have a top 100 rated heavyweight chart like you've never seen before. I haven't updated it in a while though. PM me with if you want it.

I do think Moore did enough to make the cut, and included him in the top 100.

IMO, Lastarza is not top 100, and Cockell would be blasted out by many fighters.

[OLD FOGEY]

Heavyweight immortality for punching out LaStarza, Cockell and forty plus year old Archie Moore ... none of whom are rated in anyone's top 100 heavyweights ...

SQ: Are you saying the 33 year old Charles was comparable at this stage in his career to 27 year old Tunney that fought Dempsey ?

Ring Magazine ranked Archie Moore #29 in their ranking of heavyweights.

[Mendoza]

Ring Magazine ranked Archie Moore #29 in their ranking of heavyweights.

The ring's top 50 heavies were well done in general, however I think they had Charles at #13, which is a reach. Bivins making the top 50 was a reach. Moore at #29 is a huge reach. Lennox Lewis was in the 30's. Holyfield was somehow #3!

Much like the Ring's top 100 punchers, popularity played a large role.

To Quote Cosell, “ What is right is not always popular, and what is popular is not always right. “

[OLD FOGEY]

The ring's top 50 heavies were well done in general, however I think they had Charles at #13, which is a reach. Bivins making the top 50 was a reach. Moore at #29 is a huge reach. Lennox Lewis was in the 30's. Holyfield was somehow #3!

Much like the Ring's top 100 punchers, popularity played a large role.

To Quote Cosell, “ What is right is not always popular, and what is popular is not always right. “

Bivins, I think, was #26. The question is do you rate fighters on such lists on historical achievements, or go on a p4p basis. Frankly, I think the best way is to have two lists because any combination is arbitrary and confusing. Bivins fought and defeated more good men than almost anyone who was never champion, including even Langford. Jim Jacobs, who certainly saw more films of fighters than almost anyone, named Bivins as the all-time most underrated fighter.

*By the way, you should rethink some of your constant ad hominem circumstancials--if someone thinks such and such a way, it is obviously because of bias and so should be dismissed--I have never met anyone who isn't biased in one way or another. Just because an "expert" agrees with you doesn't make him unbiased.

Lewis was in the #30's, but this was before he fought Holyfield. I think both of their ratings would be quite different today.

[SuzieQ49]

SQ: Are you saying the 33 year old Charles was comparable at this stage in his career to 27 year old Tunney that fought Dempsey ?

Charles was 32, not 33. Tunney was 29, not 27. Dempsey DID NOT beat tunney. in fact he won only two rounds out of 20. I specificully said Charles of june 1954 was better than any opponent jack dempsey ever BEAT

[SuzieQ49]

Heavyweight immortality for punching out LaStarza, Cockell and forty plus year old Archie Moore ... none of whom are rated in anyone's top 100 heavyweights ...

Moore was 38, not 42. and I know many people including myself who rate archie moore in top 40 heavyweight list. in fact many here do. Archie moore beat the best young heavyweight contenders of the 1950s and he did so in dominating fashion, including over the biggest baddest of the 1950s. Archie Moores heavyweight record is something like 75-3!!!!!

[Mendoza]

Bivins, I think, was #26. The question is do you rate fighters on such lists on historical achievements, or go on a p4p basis. Frankly, I think the best way is to have two lists because any combination is arbitrary and confusing. Bivins fought and defeated more good men than almost anyone who was never champion, including even Langford. Jim Jacobs, who certainly saw more films of fighters than almost anyone, named Bivins as the all-time most underrated fighter.

*By the way, you should rethink some of your constant ad hominem circumstancials--if someone thinks such and such a way, it is obviously because of bias and so should be dismissed--I have never met anyone who isn't biased in one way or another. Just because an "expert" agrees with you doesn't make him unbiased.

Lewis was in the #30's, but this was before he fought Holyfield. I think both of their ratings would be quite different today.
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.

[SuzieQ49]

I still think Bivins at #26 was a bad call. Something like 19 other fighters beat him, he was never heavyweight champion


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.

[Mendoza]

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.

[Marciano Frazier]

Two questions.
Though these are for SuzieQ, I'd like to pipe in a bit here.

1 ) Is #26 a reach for Bivins in your book. Yes or no?
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.

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?
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.

It is possible that Bivins win over Henry was a fix. Henry won the re-mach easy.
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.

I think Bivins in the top 50 is a reach. Top 100, maybe.
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.

[Marciano Frazier]

The ring's top 50 heavies were well done in general, however I think they had Charles at #13, which is a reach. Bivins making the top 50 was a reach. Moore at #29 is a huge reach.
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.

[OLD FOGEY]

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.

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.

[Mendoza]

Marciano Frazier 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.
I think top 40's is a huge stretch.


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.
Farr was another bad pick for the Rings top 50.


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.
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.


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.

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.

[Marciano Frazier]

I think top 40's is a huge stretch.
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.

Farr was another bad pick for the Rings top 50.
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.

This is some substance, but in a heavyweight thread. Bivins light heavy accomplishments really should not count for much.
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.


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.
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.

[OLD FOGEY]

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.

[Mendoza]

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.

[Mendoza]

Marciano Frazier 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.

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.


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.

This statement here midly contradicts your first statment where you say


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 "


It seems like feel Bivins shoudl be int he top 50, but isn't in yours. Strange.


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.

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.

[OLD FOGEY]

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.

Have you seen film of Bivins taken before 1946?

Isn't 5' 9" the same height as Jones and Toney.

[PowerPuncher]

Have you seen film of Bivins taken before 1946?

Isn't 5' 9" the same height as Jones and Toney.

Toney yes, David Tua is 5'10, Jones is 5'11

[SuzieQ49]

Bivins was the best of a very depleted and weak heavyweight divison when he was #1.


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!

[SuzieQ49]

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.


Bivins had a 80 1/2" reach. thats a longer reach than vitali klitschko.

[markedwardscott]

Both of their fights were great fights. Marciano had a concussive power that hurt opponents a lot more than you could tell from watching, unless the camera was at a close-up. Some of the still shots of fight one show Ezzard face horribly distourted. He landed a some great shots too.

[Mendoza]

Have you seen film of Bivins taken before 1946?

Isn't 5' 9" the same height as Jones and Toney.

I have seen Bivins on film before. He's a tad boring. The skills are there but he did not hit hard enough to get the respect of his opponents. Jones to me had faster hands, and hit harder. Toney to me was far more durable, and better on defense and the counter.

[Mendoza]

Bivins had a 80 1/2" reach. thats a longer reach than vitali klitschko.

80 1/2 reach for Bivins? Box rec says 76". Do you have other sources of newspapers where the article says Bivins was measured and his reach was 80 1/2 inches?

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[SuzieQ49]

80 1/2 reach for Bivins? Box rec says 76". Do you have other sources of newspapers where the article says Bivins was measured and his reach was 80 1/2 inches?


Yes I do