Since Ezzard Charles is rightfully getting some love on these boards, how about some love for another avoided black Ohio fighter from the time, Jimmy Bivins? He is one of the few that legitimately beat Charles in his prime (he dominated Charles in their 1943 meeting, probably Charles worst loss in his prime) and they fought close fights (5 in all). While Charles is better overall for his career, Bivins-Charles in their primes is a 50-50 fight.
In 1948, Charles essentially won an eliminator fight with Bivins or it could have been Bivins getting the chance to fight for the heavyweight title.
In 1943, Bivins dominated Charles and knocked him down four times. Yet, even though Charles and Bivins had a natural Ohio rivalry and wound up fighting five times, it took three full years for Charles to fight Bivins again. Does anyone know why it took that long? Bivins prime years were during this period and Charles was great too. A quick rematch would have been a natural, right?
Deepak
Ezzard Charles: Underrated champion?
-
dempseyfire
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 5534
- Joined: 29 Oct 2003, 22:56
..i am one of jimmy bivins' greatest admirers and rate him along with charley burley as the greatest fighters never to get a shot at a title.
re: charles vs. bivins. Charles was in the army when he was defeated by bivins (Ezz:"i was up and down in that fight like a yo yo") and that same year was kayoed by another great, Lloyd Marshall.....his two worst fights as a light heavy. he was unable to train correctly while in the army, but he never made that an excuse and I'm not doing it here....well....maybe i am hinting at it. these fights were in 1943 and ezz got out of the army in late 1945 and had his first post/war fights in early 1946.
i saw his later fights with bivins on tv but by that time jimmy was past his peak..though he did score a couple of kayos over some promising heavyweights.
bivins, moore,. charles and marshall were the best lightheavies in the world and they all fought each other because they couldn't get others in the ring....lesnevich had anxiety attacks if you just mentioned their names.
of this estimable group, charles proved to be the best.....marshall was great, but he was really more of a middleweight than the others.
i've often said that the period in which the above guys fought was the greatest era ever for the light heavy division....and the secondary list including joey maxim and billy smith..to name just two....contains some very very good fighters.
re: charles vs. bivins. Charles was in the army when he was defeated by bivins (Ezz:"i was up and down in that fight like a yo yo") and that same year was kayoed by another great, Lloyd Marshall.....his two worst fights as a light heavy. he was unable to train correctly while in the army, but he never made that an excuse and I'm not doing it here....well....maybe i am hinting at it. these fights were in 1943 and ezz got out of the army in late 1945 and had his first post/war fights in early 1946.
i saw his later fights with bivins on tv but by that time jimmy was past his peak..though he did score a couple of kayos over some promising heavyweights.
bivins, moore,. charles and marshall were the best lightheavies in the world and they all fought each other because they couldn't get others in the ring....lesnevich had anxiety attacks if you just mentioned their names.
of this estimable group, charles proved to be the best.....marshall was great, but he was really more of a middleweight than the others.
i've often said that the period in which the above guys fought was the greatest era ever for the light heavy division....and the secondary list including joey maxim and billy smith..to name just two....contains some very very good fighters.
-
BrocktonBlockbuster49
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 4900
- Joined: 29 May 2005, 00:32
IT didnt matter that Jimmy didnt get a title shot, because he would have been knocked out by louis.
anyway i think the reason was he was black and it wouldnt draw enough money. Plus Bivins was a light-H. I know Joe Louis fought him when both were past their prime and Louis jabbed his way to a 10 round decision.
anyway i think the reason was he was black and it wouldnt draw enough money. Plus Bivins was a light-H. I know Joe Louis fought him when both were past their prime and Louis jabbed his way to a 10 round decision.
-
BrocktonBlockbuster49
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 4900
- Joined: 29 May 2005, 00:32
BUt yes, Jimmy Bivins was a great Light-H who should have got a shot at the title at both light_h and heavyweight.
i CANNOT SPEAK ENOUGH OF EZZARD CHARLES. THE MAN WAS A WARRIOR WHO WAS THE GREATEST LIGHT-H OF ALL TIME. THE MAN WAS A MASTER MASTER BOXER WHO HIT YOU WITH SHARP FAST COMBOS. I STILL THINK HIS FINEST MOMENT AT HEAVYWEIGHT WAS WHEN HE GOT HIMSELF INTO PRIME SHAPE AND FOUGHT A WAR WIT HROCKY MARCIANO FOR 15 ROUNDS.
THE MAN BEAT JERSEY JOE TWICE, AND DOMINATED ALL THE LIGHT-H OF THE DAYS INCLUDING BEATING ARCHIE 3 TIMES ONCE BY KO.
WHAT CAN WE SAY THE MAN IS COMPOLETELY UNDERATED AS AN ALL TIME FIGHTER AND AS A HEAVYWEIGHT CHAMPION/.
i CANNOT SPEAK ENOUGH OF EZZARD CHARLES. THE MAN WAS A WARRIOR WHO WAS THE GREATEST LIGHT-H OF ALL TIME. THE MAN WAS A MASTER MASTER BOXER WHO HIT YOU WITH SHARP FAST COMBOS. I STILL THINK HIS FINEST MOMENT AT HEAVYWEIGHT WAS WHEN HE GOT HIMSELF INTO PRIME SHAPE AND FOUGHT A WAR WIT HROCKY MARCIANO FOR 15 ROUNDS.
THE MAN BEAT JERSEY JOE TWICE, AND DOMINATED ALL THE LIGHT-H OF THE DAYS INCLUDING BEATING ARCHIE 3 TIMES ONCE BY KO.
WHAT CAN WE SAY THE MAN IS COMPOLETELY UNDERATED AS AN ALL TIME FIGHTER AND AS A HEAVYWEIGHT CHAMPION/.
Jaclem,
Thanks for your insights into Bivins/Charles/Marshall/Moore. That's why this board is great, because you can learn so much. What a terrible shame that this great talent was essentially unused, even wasted, through no fault of the fighters.
Thanks for your insights into Bivins/Charles/Marshall/Moore. That's why this board is great, because you can learn so much. What a terrible shame that this great talent was essentially unused, even wasted, through no fault of the fighters.
Jaclem wrote:..i am one of jimmy bivins' greatest admirers and rate him along with charley burley as the greatest fighters never to get a shot at a title.
re: charles vs. bivins. Charles was in the army when he was defeated by bivins (Ezz:"i was up and down in that fight like a yo yo") and that same year was kayoed by another great, Lloyd Marshall.....his two worst fights as a light heavy. he was unable to train correctly while in the army, but he never made that an excuse and I'm not doing it here....well....maybe i am hinting at it. these fights were in 1943 and ezz got out of the army in late 1945 and had his first post/war fights in early 1946.
i saw his later fights with bivins on tv but by that time jimmy was past his peak..though he did score a couple of kayos over some promising heavyweights.
bivins, moore,. charles and marshall were the best lightheavies in the world and they all fought each other because they couldn't get others in the ring....lesnevich had anxiety attacks if you just mentioned their names.
of this estimable group, charles proved to be the best.....marshall was great, but he was really more of a middleweight than the others.
i've often said that the period in which the above guys fought was the greatest era ever for the light heavy division....and the secondary list including joey maxim and billy smith..to name just two....contains some very very good fighters.
dna..i do a lot of learnintg here myself.
ring magazine....when its ratings were considered the most accurate.....once rated jummy bivins simultaneously number one contender in both the heavy and light heavy divisions.....i don't know if this has happened since but at that time it was a first.
late in his career he knocked out coley wallace and clarence henry, who were considered top heavyweight prospects at that time.
i don't recall whether it was bivins or lloyd marshall....i know they are one and two....who hold the record for most wins over fighters who became champions or were champions later.....yet neither got a title shot....which even more outrageously shows how unfairly they were treated.
ring magazine....when its ratings were considered the most accurate.....once rated jummy bivins simultaneously number one contender in both the heavy and light heavy divisions.....i don't know if this has happened since but at that time it was a first.
late in his career he knocked out coley wallace and clarence henry, who were considered top heavyweight prospects at that time.
i don't recall whether it was bivins or lloyd marshall....i know they are one and two....who hold the record for most wins over fighters who became champions or were champions later.....yet neither got a title shot....which even more outrageously shows how unfairly they were treated.
-
elmersalsa
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 15660
- Joined: 02 Feb 2003, 03:50
-
BrocktonBlockbuster49
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 4900
- Joined: 29 May 2005, 00:32
Ezzard Charles was not hated. He was just not liked. he was a quiet man who never spoke much about other fighters. the only thing i ever heard him talk about was praise of marciano and louis.
EZZARD WAS NOT LIKED BECAUSE HE BEAT JOE LOUIS AND VIRTUALLY ENDED JOES HOPES OF A COMEBACK.
JACK JOHNSON AND LARRY HOLMES I WOULD SAY ARE THE TWO MOST HATED. JACK JOHNSON BY FARRRR.
ITS TOO BAD EZZARD CHARLES HAD TO COME UP IN A TIME WHERE HE HAD TO LIVE IN JOE LOUIS SHADOW AND NO ONE GAVE HIM ANY RESPECT FOR HIS TITLE FIGHTS. ITS ALSO TOO BAD THAT ROCKY MARCIANO COME ALONG AND OVERSHADOW HIM . CHARLES UNFORTUNELY CAME IN A TIME WHERE HE WAS STUCK IN THE MIDDLE OF TWO GREAT HEAVYWEIGHTS OF ALL TIME WHO WERE HIGHLY RESPECTED.
Its like big brother, middle brother, younger brother. the big brother joe is the first child so he gets a lot of respect and poeple looke up to him and he gets the leader role. now rcoky marciano the youngest brother, is the last child and the baby so he gets all the attention and people groom him to be just like his older brother joe. NOW WHERES EZZARD??? stuck in the middle. no one pays attention to the middle. the middle is middle. its too bad him and walcott were stuck like that.
I THINK EZZARDS TWO BATTLES WITH ROCKY MARCIANO HELPED HIM MORE THAN HURT HIM. HE GAINED A LOT OF RESPECT BY GIVING MARCIANO TOUGH COMPETETIVE FIGHTS. HE GAINED RESPECT AFTER THOSE TWO BOUTS. HE LOST ALL HIS MOTIVATIO AFTER THE 2ND MARCIANO FIGHT AND SHOULD HAVE RETIRED. HE DIDNT HAVE IT NAYMORE, HE LEFT EVERYTHING IN THE RING WITH MARCIANO. HIS LATE LOSSES ALSO COST HIM SOME RESPECT WHICH CLEARLY SHOULDNT BE COUNTED.
EZZARD WAS NOT LIKED BECAUSE HE BEAT JOE LOUIS AND VIRTUALLY ENDED JOES HOPES OF A COMEBACK.
JACK JOHNSON AND LARRY HOLMES I WOULD SAY ARE THE TWO MOST HATED. JACK JOHNSON BY FARRRR.
ITS TOO BAD EZZARD CHARLES HAD TO COME UP IN A TIME WHERE HE HAD TO LIVE IN JOE LOUIS SHADOW AND NO ONE GAVE HIM ANY RESPECT FOR HIS TITLE FIGHTS. ITS ALSO TOO BAD THAT ROCKY MARCIANO COME ALONG AND OVERSHADOW HIM . CHARLES UNFORTUNELY CAME IN A TIME WHERE HE WAS STUCK IN THE MIDDLE OF TWO GREAT HEAVYWEIGHTS OF ALL TIME WHO WERE HIGHLY RESPECTED.
Its like big brother, middle brother, younger brother. the big brother joe is the first child so he gets a lot of respect and poeple looke up to him and he gets the leader role. now rcoky marciano the youngest brother, is the last child and the baby so he gets all the attention and people groom him to be just like his older brother joe. NOW WHERES EZZARD??? stuck in the middle. no one pays attention to the middle. the middle is middle. its too bad him and walcott were stuck like that.
I THINK EZZARDS TWO BATTLES WITH ROCKY MARCIANO HELPED HIM MORE THAN HURT HIM. HE GAINED A LOT OF RESPECT BY GIVING MARCIANO TOUGH COMPETETIVE FIGHTS. HE GAINED RESPECT AFTER THOSE TWO BOUTS. HE LOST ALL HIS MOTIVATIO AFTER THE 2ND MARCIANO FIGHT AND SHOULD HAVE RETIRED. HE DIDNT HAVE IT NAYMORE, HE LEFT EVERYTHING IN THE RING WITH MARCIANO. HIS LATE LOSSES ALSO COST HIM SOME RESPECT WHICH CLEARLY SHOULDNT BE COUNTED.
-
elmersalsa
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 15660
- Joined: 02 Feb 2003, 03:50
I like this analogy and opinion. It was PERFECT!!!BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:Ezzard Charles was not hated. He was just not liked. he was a quiet man who never spoke much about other fighters. the only thing i ever heard him talk about was praise of marciano and louis.
EZZARD WAS NOT LIKED BECAUSE HE BEAT JOE LOUIS AND VIRTUALLY ENDED JOES HOPES OF A COMEBACK.
JACK JOHNSON AND LARRY HOLMES I WOULD SAY ARE THE TWO MOST HATED. JACK JOHNSON BY FARRRR.
ITS TOO BAD EZZARD CHARLES HAD TO COME UP IN A TIME WHERE HE HAD TO LIVE IN JOE LOUIS SHADOW AND NO ONE GAVE HIM ANY RESPECT FOR HIS TITLE FIGHTS. ITS ALSO TOO BAD THAT ROCKY MARCIANO COME ALONG AND OVERSHADOW HIM . CHARLES UNFORTUNELY CAME IN A TIME WHERE HE WAS STUCK IN THE MIDDLE OF TWO GREAT HEAVYWEIGHTS OF ALL TIME WHO WERE HIGHLY RESPECTED.
Its like big brother, middle brother, younger brother. the big brother joe is the first child so he gets a lot of respect and poeple looke up to him and he gets the leader role. now rcoky marciano the youngest brother, is the last child and the baby so he gets all the attention and people groom him to be just like his older brother joe. NOW WHERES EZZARD??? stuck in the middle. no one pays attention to the middle. the middle is middle. its too bad him and walcott were stuck like that.
I THINK EZZARDS TWO BATTLES WITH ROCKY MARCIANO HELPED HIM MORE THAN HURT HIM. HE GAINED A LOT OF RESPECT BY GIVING MARCIANO TOUGH COMPETETIVE FIGHTS. HE GAINED RESPECT AFTER THOSE TWO BOUTS. HE LOST ALL HIS MOTIVATIO AFTER THE 2ND MARCIANO FIGHT AND SHOULD HAVE RETIRED. HE DIDNT HAVE IT NAYMORE, HE LEFT EVERYTHING IN THE RING WITH MARCIANO. HIS LATE LOSSES ALSO COST HIM SOME RESPECT WHICH CLEARLY SHOULDNT BE COUNTED.
But anyway, Charles was the best of the great black fighters of the 1940s that were denied a title shot. He became champion in a weight class that was not his (heavyweight) and took him 9 years as a professional to reach the top. He easily would have been a triple crown champ (Middleweight, Lightheavyweight and Heavyweight). He whupped the best fighters of his era: Charley Burley, Joey Maxim, Archie Moore, Jersey Joe Walcott, Jimmy Bivins, Lloyd Marshall, Gus Lesnevich, Joe Louis, Bob Satterfield, etc, etc
Let's see his repertoire of victories with other all time greats. Is there an all-time great that has beaten so many GREAT and GOOD quality opponents as Charles did??? What you guys think??? Let's compare him with the very best!!!
..everyone who's been here a while knows i consider ezzard to be the greatest lightheavy of all time and one of the top five greatest fighters p4p.....
...as i've written somewhere...jimmy bivins and lloyd marshall hold the records (they're one and two...forget which order)...for beating ...at one time or other...the most champions...and never got a title shot. ezz lost to both when he was in the army and didn't have a chance to train...and later defeated them .....he had to get off the floor to kayo marhsall...which he did with a one punch knockout....he also kayoed bivins with one punch.
...as i've written somewhere...jimmy bivins and lloyd marshall hold the records (they're one and two...forget which order)...for beating ...at one time or other...the most champions...and never got a title shot. ezz lost to both when he was in the army and didn't have a chance to train...and later defeated them .....he had to get off the floor to kayo marhsall...which he did with a one punch knockout....he also kayoed bivins with one punch.
Marshall
Marshall beat 9 of 12 world champions he faced. He also had his hands tied for many of his fights. It is really difficult for some to appreciate him because of his overall record. It is good that he, Charles, Bivins et al. are getting some love on this board.
I have footage of Charles against Marshall (not great) and Bivins (better quality). Marshall's destruction of Freddie Mills is something to see. If these guys were around today....
I have footage of Charles against Marshall (not great) and Bivins (better quality). Marshall's destruction of Freddie Mills is something to see. If these guys were around today....
-
jamesmcdonnell
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 45213
- Joined: 12 Nov 2003, 06:11
Ezzard Charles and Archie Moore were both two of my favourite fighters, though of course I've seen little of their fights.
In today's game, they would have won titles from middleweight to cruiserweight without a doubt, and probably heavyweight too with all the belts flying around. Ezzard never even got a shot at LH, and Archie waited 10 years for his.
It fucks me off when everyone goes on about how dlh is a 'six weight champ' when he's nothing of the sort. dont get me wrong, Oscar is a modern great, but there's nobody in the last 20 years who holds a candle to the records of the likes of willie pepp, moore, charles and robinson.
In today's game, they would have won titles from middleweight to cruiserweight without a doubt, and probably heavyweight too with all the belts flying around. Ezzard never even got a shot at LH, and Archie waited 10 years for his.
It fucks me off when everyone goes on about how dlh is a 'six weight champ' when he's nothing of the sort. dont get me wrong, Oscar is a modern great, but there's nobody in the last 20 years who holds a candle to the records of the likes of willie pepp, moore, charles and robinson.
.....jimmymc... right on! In this era of so many weight divisions and so many sanctioning bodies the number of titles a guy holds isn't all that great a deal. if those titles had existed when weight divisions were separated by pounds instead of ounces....and one title to a customer..there's no telling how many the greats mentioned here would have. they still can't compare to henry armstrong holding 3/8 of the existing undisputed world titles and all at one time, at that.
the REAL sugar ray started at lightweight..and it's convceivable that he could have held lightweight, junior welter, welter, junior middle and super middle during hnis career. plus....if had engaged in a phoney light heavy "title" match as the candy ass ray leonard did, with the champion coming down to a lesser weight than the legit 175 he might have held that one as well. as it was he did okay against the strong, solid chinned and highly talented maxim.....and we know how that one ended.
the film of robinson/marshall is probably the same one I've seen....taken from a seat a few rows back, right? I did see charles fight bivins on live tv
but that was late for jimmy and charles at near peak. not sure if i saw more than onme or not.
the REAL sugar ray started at lightweight..and it's convceivable that he could have held lightweight, junior welter, welter, junior middle and super middle during hnis career. plus....if had engaged in a phoney light heavy "title" match as the candy ass ray leonard did, with the champion coming down to a lesser weight than the legit 175 he might have held that one as well. as it was he did okay against the strong, solid chinned and highly talented maxim.....and we know how that one ended.
the film of robinson/marshall is probably the same one I've seen....taken from a seat a few rows back, right? I did see charles fight bivins on live tv
but that was late for jimmy and charles at near peak. not sure if i saw more than onme or not.
Marshall
Jaclem,
I think you meant to say Charles/Marshall (not Robinson) - but, yes! This is the footage from a few rows back with the smoke over the ring and both guys moving perhaps a little faster than they did at the time. Charles wins on a KO.
The Charles/Bivins footage is un-edited stuff taken from a number of different angles. Some of the shots look as if they were taken from one of the corners or ringside. At one point (at the end) it is like the camera is in the ring while they await the decision, have their gloves taken off etc. It is almost like being at the fight - except it is is B&W. They are not complete rounds or anything like a full fight, but it is great stuff.
You are so right about Leonard. As much as I used to like watching him - before his 1st 'retirement' - I grew to really dislike him over time. I remember he and Hearns were in competition almost to get the 5th 'world' title. Leonard was allowed to fight for the SMW and the LHW titles 'IN THE SAME FIGHT!!!' What the F'*#k was that about.
Boxing has changed quite a bit over the years. That's one reason I like reading these boards - especially this one (and the CBZ of course - I have no doubt it will be back to normal sooner rather than later, but what happened there was a tragedy). The depth of knowledge is unbelievable.
I think you meant to say Charles/Marshall (not Robinson) - but, yes! This is the footage from a few rows back with the smoke over the ring and both guys moving perhaps a little faster than they did at the time. Charles wins on a KO.
The Charles/Bivins footage is un-edited stuff taken from a number of different angles. Some of the shots look as if they were taken from one of the corners or ringside. At one point (at the end) it is like the camera is in the ring while they await the decision, have their gloves taken off etc. It is almost like being at the fight - except it is is B&W. They are not complete rounds or anything like a full fight, but it is great stuff.
You are so right about Leonard. As much as I used to like watching him - before his 1st 'retirement' - I grew to really dislike him over time. I remember he and Hearns were in competition almost to get the 5th 'world' title. Leonard was allowed to fight for the SMW and the LHW titles 'IN THE SAME FIGHT!!!' What the F'*#k was that about.
Boxing has changed quite a bit over the years. That's one reason I like reading these boards - especially this one (and the CBZ of course - I have no doubt it will be back to normal sooner rather than later, but what happened there was a tragedy). The depth of knowledge is unbelievable.
...boxscribe.....very interesting and informative post. yeah, i did mean charles/marshall....thanks for catching it.
many of the film from ringside or ringside seats were made by some member of the elkus family, who managed ezzard during the time in question.... and this is how i saw them. i don't know about the bivins one, though...have never seen it.
boxing forums go with the waxing and waning of boxing itself..so maybe a waxing period is in the future.
many of the film from ringside or ringside seats were made by some member of the elkus family, who managed ezzard during the time in question.... and this is how i saw them. i don't know about the bivins one, though...have never seen it.
boxing forums go with the waxing and waning of boxing itself..so maybe a waxing period is in the future.
-
elmersalsa
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 15660
- Joined: 02 Feb 2003, 03:50
The depth of boxing knowledge here is great...EXTRICTLY, WORLD CLASS!!! 
I checked Henry Armstrong's, Ray Robinson's and Jimmy McLarnin's records and they also beat up to 15 world champions. I think McLarnin beat more Hall of Famers than anybody else. They could give Ezzard Charles quality of opposition record a run for his money.
Tomorrow, I will count who has beaten more good quality fighters (world class opposition) than anybody else
I checked Henry Armstrong's, Ray Robinson's and Jimmy McLarnin's records and they also beat up to 15 world champions. I think McLarnin beat more Hall of Famers than anybody else. They could give Ezzard Charles quality of opposition record a run for his money.
Tomorrow, I will count who has beaten more good quality fighters (world class opposition) than anybody else
-
jamesmcdonnell
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 45213
- Joined: 12 Nov 2003, 06:11
Henry Armstrong's record as Welterweight champion is probably the most remarkable I've ever seen, 19 defences in 2 years, and he was never even a genuine welterweight. He also had a hotly disputed draw for a version of the Middleweight title which many at the time felt he should have won. Had he got the nod there, that would have made him a pretty genuine 4 weight champ in an era of only 8 belts.