Jimmy Bivins vs Tiger Jack Fox

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 02 Mar 2006, 14:48

Prime for Prime who do you think wins this battle of vastly underated great light-H?

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 02 Mar 2006, 17:24

Brockton I may need a week to work on this. Good theoretical though.
I hate to be on the fence so I have to take some time with this.

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 02 Mar 2006, 18:38

Bivins by decision, fairly easily. He was much better. Fox wasn't vastly overrated. He almost always lost when he fought a top notch opponent.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 02 Mar 2006, 19:03

Hey Alp....way to give away the ending before I even crack the book.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 03 Mar 2006, 02:34

i have never seen fox on film, there is none. too bad because it seems there is more to him than his record. jersey joe walcott called tiger jack fox "the greatest fighter i ever fought." that certainly says something about tiger jack fox. I have seen bivins on film in his prime mid 1940s and bivins was a very good master boxer who style was perfectly schooled textbook fashion. Bivins was very elusive on his feet which helped him work his polished jab. Bivins at 175 was also a hard hitter. Bivins biggest problem was his lack of aggresion. I rate bivins in my top 15 light-H.

I also read recentley that charles-bivins II was a questionable decision that could have gone either way.

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 03 Mar 2006, 08:10

Decagon wrote:I kind of see this bout going similar to Klitschko-Peters, if Klitschko had a better chin, and if Klitschko and Peter were actually good.[/list]

Great line Dec. How do you think a prime Bivins would have done against Wlad?

Jaclem · Post by **Jaclem** » 03 Mar 2006, 13:57

..no way could i pass up the charles/bivins II without commenting. word from those who saw it said it was close but ezzard was a clear winner...on aggression alone. just to take carr of any uncertainty he knocked him out in four rounds four months later.

as to bivins/vfox....i...i've read about fox but don't have enough information to form an opinion....unlike buzzbox who will take a month to come up with the same anmswer

Matt · Post by **Matt** » 03 Mar 2006, 14:34

I've researched most of Fox's career from his arrival in Spokane in 1934. He had troubles with good boxers throughout his career, as he was a counterpuncher who liked to set traps. If Bivins was willing to stand in front of him, Fox could win. However, Bivins should've had enough ability to outbox him.

barry · Post by **barry** » 04 Mar 2006, 03:28

>>>Wlad eats small heavyweights for breakfast<<<

Like he did against Sam Peter? I didn't know if it was a reincarnation of John Ruiz, or Wlad that was in the ring that night and the only small heavyweights that Wlad has ever feasted on, with the exception of Chris Byrd, were inept fighters to start with, and he did not really eat Byrd for breakfast either! Wlad feasts on small B and C level heavyweights, but other than Byrd, he has never faced a small quality heavyweight who could actually fight and the Wlad fighting today is too timid and too frightened of being hit! Maybe the Wlad of five, or six years ago!

That being said, I agree with what Matt stated. If Bivins stood in and tried to slug with Fox then he would probably taste canvas, but that would not be likely as Bivins was not that kind of fighter and the probably outcome would be Bivins by decision, but it would not look anything like Wlad and Sam Peter…not even close as they are both a totally different type of fighter compared to Fox and Bivins!

JABARDELLI · Post by **JABARDELLI** » 18 Jun 2009, 22:53

Tiger Jack Fox knocks out Jimmy Bivins within 8 rounds. Bivins' boxing skills were not on a par with a Rosenbloom who could stave off Fox during the course of ten rounds. However, when Moore flattened Bivins in the 9th round, he did it with relative ease and pierced Bivins' defense with the same ease. Moore did not have Fox's power despite the career knockouts registered by Ancient Archie nor did Moore possess Fox's speed.

Take it up a notch and consider the fact that Ted Lowry fought both. Lowry fought Moore during the heighth of Moore's career and Fox near the end of Fox's career. When asked who he considered the greater ---Fox or Moore --- Lowry responded, "I would have to say Fox."

raylawpc · Post by **raylawpc** » 19 Jun 2009, 11:59

I disagree. Their careers really did not overlap that well, and certainly not prime v. prime. Bivins did not turn pro until 1940. Bivins went on a really incredible win streak from 1942 to 1945 winning the so-called "duration" light-heavyweight and heavyweight titles, and defeating the likes of Lesnevich, Billy Soose, Christofordis, Joey Maxium, Ezzard Charles, Archie Moore (by KO!!), Bettina, and Mauriello among others during that period. Fox was on the down-hill side of his career by 1940 - although still a very good fighter. But Fox, being a counterpuncher, would have been frustrated by a smooth boxing youngster like Bivins. I like Bivins by decision, and possibly a late round stoppage, during that period.

From 1945 to 1950 - when Fox retired - it would have been the case of a younger veteran defeating an older veteran. I still like Bivins by decision. Fox really didn't fight or beat anybody of note after 1945, except, perhaps, Freddie Beshore - to whom he lost a decision in his own hometown. During that same period, it pretty much took somebody in the caliber of a Moore or Charles to beat Bivins.

Prime v. prime is anybody guess. . . But in my mind, Bivins is too much from 1940 to 1950.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 19 Jun 2009, 16:00

raylawpc wrote:I disagree. Their careers really did not overlap that well, and certainly not prime v. prime. Bivins did not turn pro until 1940. Bivins went on a really incredible win streak from 1942 to 1945 winning the so-called "duration" light-heavyweight and heavyweight titles, and defeating the likes of Lesnevich, Billy Soose, Christofordis, Joey Maxium, Ezzard Charles, Archie Moore (by KO!!), Bettina, and Mauriello among others during that period. Fox was on the down-hill side of his career by 1940 - although still a very good fighter. But Fox, being a counterpuncher, would have been frustrated by a smooth boxing youngster like Bivins. I like Bivins by decision, and possibly a late round stoppage, during that period.

From 1945 to 1950 - when Fox retired - it would have been the case of a younger veteran defeating an older veteran. I still like Bivins by decision. Fox really didn't fight or beat anybody of note after 1945, except, perhaps, Freddie Beshore - to whom he lost a decision in his own hometown. During that same period, it pretty much took somebody in the caliber of a Moore or Charles to beat Bivins.

Prime v. prime is anybody guess. . . But in my mind, Bivins is too much from 1940 to 1950.

I had come to this same conclusion and would be willing to bet on Bivins in the prime vs prime hypothetical. I think that would have been the smart bet at any rate.

Collins2000 · Post by **Collins2000** » 19 Jun 2009, 17:17

More memories of Bazza!

Potentially, the greatest boxing historian ever!

Cut down in his prime.

Luckily for us, his understudy, Bobby Boxbuzz, was able to successfully step up to the plate.

(Add this one to the list, DaveV)

harrygreb · Post by **harrygreb** » 20 Jun 2009, 17:36

i rate JB and take him to win a wide one over fox

Jimmy Bivins vs Tiger Jack Fox

Jimmy Bivins vs Tiger Jack Fox

re

Re: Jimmy Bivins vs Tiger Jack Fox

Re: Jimmy Bivins vs Tiger Jack Fox

Re: Jimmy Bivins vs Tiger Jack Fox

Re: Jimmy Bivins vs Tiger Jack Fox

Re: Jimmy Bivins vs Tiger Jack Fox