Mike or Tommy Gibbons?

[BoxBuzz]

being brothers...would Mike say the same of Tommy? Seems a bit of a throw away line/event.

Klompton whether I agree or not, you've put a lot of thought, and research into your opinion. Regards to you!

Wish I could have seen them demonstrate their skill!

[klompton]

Ive never seen Mike say that Tommy was better than him. He stated that Tommy had more potential to attain than he did because Tommy was bigger and as such could get the bigger fights and bigger money but he also felt that Tommy never fully capitalized on his potential.

You can see them demonstrate their skill. There is footage of Mike Vs. McFarland and Vs. ODowd. The O'Dowd footage actually has mike sparring Tommy. This would be 1919 when Tommy was in his prime and Mike was a little faded but Mike is in control IMO. There is footage of Tommy against Dempsey, Bloomfield, and Tunney. In addition to that there is training footage of both including sparring so you can get a good sense of the style that Mike developed and both made famous. The problem is that against McFarland Gibbons had to make an unnaturally low weight for him which made him very weak, this combined with the fact that both fighters are defensive masters makes the fight not the best example of Gibbons. The O'Dowd footage is a revelation (arguably the best boxing film of the first half of the twentieth century) in terms of both O'Dowd and Gibbons. Gibbons looks fantastic and very very clever BUT he is past his best at this point. Its a shame we dont have his one round obliteration of Young Ahearn in 1915 which was filmed. Ahearn was in his absolute prime with several high profile wins against big names. Ahearn and his manager had been popping off about how Gibbons four KO of Ahearn two years earlier was a fluke and how bad they would beat Mike this time around to make him pay. Pissing off the uber talented but mild mannered Gibbons was a bad idea. Gibbons went out guns blazing and damn near killed Ahearn. I have a photo of Gibbons lifting Ahearn off the canvas after he was counted out with a terrible look of fear in his eyes, he was afraid he had seriously injured or killed Ahearn. That would have given us an excellent idea of Gibbons ability. They used to say of Mike Gibbons that his footwork was so good he looked like he was gliding around on roller skates. This description fits perfectly as you can see when hes shadow boxing in the 1919 training footage for ODowd.

Head to head? The only time it would be a realistic matchup would have been prior to 1920. If Tommy makes weight I favore Mike. One of the factors in Greb's defeat to Tommy in 1920 was that they signed to weigh in at 162 (if memory serves) and Gibbons refused to make the weight. By 1920 he was already too big for the MW division. In the footage of he and Mike sparring in 1919 the size difference doesnt seem that great at all.

[Chuck1052]

I have seen the footage of the bout between Mike Gibbons and Mike O'Dowd, coming away with the conviction that it was by far the best fight film that I seen from the era. The quality of the photography, camera angle shots and editing are absolutely incrediable. In fact, I was thinking that a professional film director must been in charge of the producing the film.

In terms of quality, the best fight footage of Joe Louis in action was when he fought Jack Roper. I think that a major reason that the quality of the film footage was so good was that the bout took place in Los Angeles, which meant that there were plenty of top film technicians living nearby.

- Chuck Johnston

[Ezzard]

I thought Tommy too when I first saw this. But it’s threads like this that make me love Boxrec. Thanks for the info, Klompton. You make it sound like Mike should be a P4P consideration for us all.

[klompton]

He was for a long time. Its only within the last 30 or so years that hes being forgotten.

[Ambling Alp]

Well, lets clarify a few things: We all know age in boxing isnt measured by years but by ring wear. Kid Norfolk had been boxing since at least 1910 (his record is incomplete) and he had been in against far stiffer competition than Gibbons (Langford, Wills, Clarke, Jeanette, Mcvea, Gunboat Smith, and so on). As early as 1917 several promoters had tried to match Gibbons and Norfolk with Gibbons always refusing. That right there tells you something. It wasnt until 1924 when Norfolk was blind in one eye (which was well known and reported in the papers at the time) and had turned in several poor performances in a row (Jim Mcreary, Lee Anderson, Harry Greb, Bob Lawson) that Gibbons agreed to that fight. Its revealing that in his next fight Norfolk was KOd in one round, and then struggled to victorys over sub par fighters like Reddick, and Farmer, lost to Floyd Johnson, and was stopped by middleweights Frank Moody and Ted Moore, all in just over a year of fighting after Gibbons. Yes both were past their primes but Gibbons had a lot more left in the tank than Norfolk. He even admitted as such stating later that he could have made another $100,000 in the ring after his loss to Tunney but had promised his family to retire win lose or draw (which is also documented at the time in the papers).

Likewise Carpentier had turned pro 3 years before Gibbons and had fought his way up the ranks and weight classes. Remember this is a guy who was never the best WW, MW, LHW, HW in any era he ever fought and had been stopped at all of those weights before fighting Gibbons (sometimes brutally). Even still at this point in his career Carpentier was more a showman than a fighter. His fight against Townely previous to Gibbons was an obvious dive on the part of Townely and bouts against Nilles and Beckett were hardly world class affairs. Once again Carpentiers worth can easily be seen his bouts immediately after Gibbons (he lost to Tunney and Loughran getting dropped in the process and got a gift draw against Eddie Huffman).

What do you see in Tommys record that is so overly impressive compared to Mikes? Mike fought and defeated: McGoorty, Clabby, Dillon, TK Lewis, Jeff Smith, Kid Graves, Leo Houck in their primes and usually won in one sided fashion. His bout with McFarland was one of the first fights ever staged between what would now be considered two pound for pound greats and one of the most anticipated fights of that era. Add to that all of the other terrific contenders and fighters that Gibbons was able to beat even when past his prime and over his best weight after WW I and in my opinion its no contest. The best win on Gibbons record is his victory over Greb in 1920 but again, Mike got Greb as well. If you wish to rely on also rans who couldnt cut the mustard like Miske, so be it but also keep in mind that Miske would not have even been a fighter if not for Mike, just like O'Dowd, Tommy, Jock Malone, Jimmy Delaney, and countless others who credited MIKE NOT TOMMY with bringing them into the sport and being their idol. Im just not that impressed by Miske. Beyond Greb and Miske you have two faded fighters in Carpentier and Norfolk both of whom were essentially finished and after that Tommy's record falls off dramatically. George Chip was past his best and Mike beat him around the same time in one sided fashion. Levinsky was already past his best at that point and typically during this time period he was known to skate along in his ND fights so as simply to survive and protect his title, winning wasnt exactly his priority at this point in his career in ND fights.

Most of the other top contenders who were at or near their prime when Tommy fought them (which was at MW before he moved up) Mike had faced and defeated as easily or easier than Tommy. Also keep in mind that Mike was so good, and so respected that it even when Tommy was fighting contenders very early in his career he was considered to have an advantage being that he was the sparring partner of what most considered to be the greatest fighter in the world.

So yeah, Tommy was underrated but like I said, even he would admit his brother was better, and he did, several times.

Some of this I agree with, but there are some things that I feel must be addresssed.

-That Norfolk and Carpentier were way past it when they fought Tommy Gibbons. It can be deceiving what a fighter does after losing a big fight. You get a much better idea by going with what a fighter did before in the last several fights before the big fight. Gibbons had about as many fights as Norfolk and Carpentier. Perhaps a few have not been recorded for Norfolk, could be the same for Gibbons.
It really is not that important that Capentier and Norfolk had begun their careers earlier tjhan Gibbons. If anything they were able to spread the punishment out longer and have less wear and tear.
Carpentier and Norfolk was still near the top when they fought Gibbons.

-No way in the world you can think Levinsky was past it when Tommy Gibbons beat him. He was 25 years old and had just won the light heavyweight title a few months earlier when Tommy beat him on a newspaper decision.

-This notion that Gibbons was not fighting good competition. Besides Norfolk and Carpetier He took on Tunney, Dempsey, Miske (5 times) Greb (3 times) Chip (3 times) and Levinsky. He also beat decent fighters like Chuck Wiggins and Gus Christie.
-Ted Kid Lewis was a great fighter, but he was a weight class below Mike Gibbons when they fought. McFarland was really a much smaller man than mike Gibbons and still won the newspaper decison (Atleast by some newspapers.)

-You have to look at the losses as well. Mike had official losses to Tommy Robson and Mike O'Dowd. Not exactly legends.
The only offical losses Tommy had were to Dempsey, Tunney, Greb and a DQ loss to Billy Miske. Not exactly embarrassing.
Mike had several newspaper decision losses-,Jack Denning, Soldier Barfield,Jeff Smith, Jack McCrron, McGootry, Jeff Smith and Chuck Wiggins.
Tommy had no newspaper decision losses.

Mikes had a great career. I just think Tommy had an even better one.

[Tomasino]

O'Dowd is a legend.

[klompton]

Kid Norfolk and Carpentier were WELL past their shelf life when they fought Gibbons. That is a cold hard fact. Both were finished as top fighters, as was seen by their performances. They are glossy names but nothing changes the fact that Gibbons ducked Norfolk for 7 years when beating him would have actually meant something and that Carpentier was coasting on fumes and cashing on his star power at this point.

The point was that Battling Levinsky at this point in his career was coasting in ND fights and thus his performances are hardly indicative of his ability. His newspaper reports are littered with losses in this era (many of which are oddly not reflected in his boxrec record) many of which come to fighters of lesser ability and reknown than Tommy. Take that as you will.

During what most consider his prime and his most impressive run Gibbons was not fighting the best. His record is littered with has beens and never weres to pump up his KO percentage and make headlines. Mike even commented and criticised this in his own brother. He lost to Dempsey and essentially gave up by going defensive after 6 rounds against a guy who had never gone 15 and who hadnt fought in two years. You list Christie, Chip, and Wiggins but ignore that Mike (who supposedly had a lesser record) beat those guys as well (in the case of Chip and Christie he did so before Tommy). They both beat Greb (great win for both) and as I said I dont think much of Miske so we can agree to disagree (When will people learn the difference between a good story and a great fighter... Braddock anyone?).

Mike's losses to Robson and O'Dowd came when he was well past his prime. And yes, O'Dowd should be a legend. He is so underrated and should have been in the HOF LONG before Norfolk and Miske. Losing to O'Dowd is no shame but even past his prime Mike notched a win against him.

TK Lewis was a smaller fighter but Mike was a small MW and TK was known for fighting larger guys. Its not like the fight was a mismatch. In fact TK Lewis was one of the most successful fighters in history at fighting larger men. Its true McFarland was smaller (although not a massive size disparity, its important to remember that Gibbons was really a light MW at best, fighting around 152) but he was also considered one of the greatest fighters in history. Gibbons made an unnaturally low weight as dictated by McFarland (the weights listed on Boxrec are incorrect) and was weak. This combined with the fact that both fighters were defensive fighters and one was weak and the other rusty made for a notoriously bad fight and difficult to score. This fight was more of a side show than indicative of what either was able to accomplish in the ring when at their best. It was essentially Trinidad-Jones (lets throw two big names in the ring together and see what happens... oh they look like shit. nevermind).

As for the ND losses you list for Mike this is where we can differ as well. The names you list that Mike lost to were all remarkable fighters. They may not be remembered today but Denning, Bartfield, Smith, McCarron, and McGoorty were all championship calibre fighters. Its no shame to lose to them because all of those fights occured when those guys were in their primes, something Tommy rarely did. The Wiggins fight and Robson fights would be more troubling had Mike not lost those bouts when he past his prime. Basically after Mike got out of the army after WW1 he was no longer the same fighter. This is well documented during the time as well.

[Ambling Alp]

I am willing to throw out the O'Dowd fight, otherwise most of the rest makes little sense to me. It seems like spinning to me. We are miles apart and I don't really see any reason to continue this.

[Senya13]

The weights listed for Gibbons-McFarland are correct ringside weight. Yes, they weighed in at 147 pounds at 3 P.M., but the reported ringside weights take precedence of the weigh-in ones in this situation.

[klompton]

The weights listed for Gibbons-McFarland are correct ringside weight. Yes, they weighed in at 147 pounds at 3 P.M., but the reported ringside weights take precedence of the weigh-in ones in this situation.

First off why would unofficial weights take precedent? If thats the case why not use the unofficial weights given by HBO on the night of the fight for those fights? Secondly, I have never found any indication that they actually weighed in ringside, which means the weights announced by Humphries as 152 and 153 were estimates given to him by the managers of the fighters or the fighters themselves, which was not uncommon at this time. For all intents and purposes both weighed in UNDER the 147 pound limit as stipulated by the contract at 3pm. I see no reason to use unofficial weights as this ignores the fact that the men actually had to make a much lower weight on the day of the fight.

If we are going to start using unofficial weights we might as well start listing Gatti's weights for his JWW fights in the 160s and so on.

[Senya13]

If we go by your argumentation, no weights should have been listed at all. I used words *in this situation* for a reason. We have exact numbers as their weights at ringside, and we have no exact numbers for them at 3 PM (we can't enter "less or equal to 147 lbs"). To me, what weights should be entered in the database, to be displayed on their records, in this situation, is obvious. I'd enter the information about 147 pounds at 3 PM in the commentary box, but I was told it already contains too much information to add anything else. It was even suggested to list all the newspapers that offered their opinion about the winner, in the wiki only, because the list is too large, but I persisted in current variant.

[klompton]

I still disagree because the ringside weights are unofficial and not what was contracted for. If you dont have the official weights (which were given as "ounces under 147" then leave it blank. I ask again, why place an unofficial result that is no more accurate than the the official result you dont have and thus gives an inaccurate view of the fight particularly when the official weight was such an important part of even bringing these two fighters together.

This is another situation where i strongly disagree that something is better than nothing, when that something gives skewed version of reality.

[Senya13]

Ringside weights were announced, weigh-in weights were not. We are here to record the facts. Ringside weights were not refuted by anyone as being wrong. If somebody is going to draw conclusions by simply looking at the boxrec records without actually reading the reports (most of which mention them making 147 pounds at 3 PM), it's their problem. They wouldn't know whether Gibbons had problems making 147 or not, anyway. If you want to give your own view on the fight and weights, please do so in the wiki. If somebody is interested in this particular fight, they will read what's written there as well, after looking at the fighters' records.

[klompton]

I guess I need to go and start editing all of the boxrec records to record unofficial weights...

[Senya13]

If there are no exact weigh-in numbers and the ringside weights were announced officially prior to the bout, I think that may be a good idea, for old bouts, at least.

[klompton]

BUT THEY WERENT OFFICIAL that is the point. The ringside weights are not official. Period.

[Boilermaker]

the reality is regardless of what is and isnt reported, you can never know for sure what is 100 percent correct, the best you can do is get a genuine idea of what is the case.

Surely the solution is something as simple as something like putting the weights in, but putting an asterix or italics to indicate taht they are not official weights?

[Tomasino]

being brothers...would Mike say the same of Tommy? Seems a bit of a throw away line/event.

Klompton whether I agree or not, you've put a lot of thought, and research into your opinion. Regards to you!

Wish I could have seen them demonstrate their skill!

There is a video on youtube from the Gibbons Appreciation Society, a quote attributed to Mike during and exhibition with Tommy. "we will dance around for three rounds then you can knock me down". "sounds good Mike, when do you get to knock me down?". "anytime I feel like it".

[Chuck1052]

The boxing writers of Mike Gibbons' generation generally seemed to think that Stanley Ketchell was the "cat's meow," notably Nat Fleischer. Of course, the same boxing writers also felt that no post-1910 could measure up to the likes of Ketchell, Jack Johnson, Jim Jeffries, Bob Fitzsimmons, Joe Gans, Joe Walcott or Terry McGovern. I myself wonder how the such fighters can be so great when boxing under the Marquis of Queensberry Rules was in vogue for only about thirty years by 1910. It defies logic, to put it mildly.

- Chuck Johnston

[raylawpc]

Personally, I think Nat Fleischer picked old-timers to his top ten lists to enhance his reputation as the expert's expert - which was largely self-created and promulgated by The Ring magazine. Think about it: After the 1910 Johnson-Jeffries fight, Congress banned the interstate shipment of boxing films, so very few people actually saw the old-timers that Fleischer named as "the greatest' - including Fleischer himself. What films there were stayed in the can until Jimmy Jacobs began collecting them in the 1960s. Like most of us, we tend to lionize the heros of our youth, so the writers who actually saw those guys didn't dispute Nat. There was nobody to dispute Fleischer's judgment. It was actually a pretty fool proof idea.

[Chuck1052]

Personally, I think Nat Fleischer picked old-timers to his top ten lists to enhance his reputation as the expert's expert - which was largely self-created and promulgated by The Ring magazine. Think about it: After the 1910 Johnson-Jeffries fight, Congress banned the interstate shipment of boxing films, so very few people actually saw the old-timers that Fleischer named as "the greatest' - including Fleischer himself. What films there were stayed in the can until Jimmy Jacobs began collecting them in the 1960s. Like most of us, we tend to lionize the heros of our youth, so the writers who actually saw those guys didn't dispute Nat. There was nobody to dispute Fleischer's judgment. It was actually a pretty fool proof idea.

Tom- It is ironic that Jim Jacobs thought that the modern boxers were better for the most part after watching the films of pre-1910 boxers.

- Chuck Johnston

[raylawpc]

Personally, I think Nat Fleischer picked old-timers to his top ten lists to enhance his reputation as the expert's expert - which was largely self-created and promulgated by The Ring magazine. Think about it: After the 1910 Johnson-Jeffries fight, Congress banned the interstate shipment of boxing films, so very few people actually saw the old-timers that Fleischer named as "the greatest' - including Fleischer himself. What films there were stayed in the can until Jimmy Jacobs began collecting them in the 1960s. Like most of us, we tend to lionize the heros of our youth, so the writers who actually saw those guys didn't dispute Nat. There was nobody to dispute Fleischer's judgment. It was actually a pretty fool proof idea.

Tom- It is ironic that Jim Jacobs thought that the modern boxers were better for the most part after watching the films of pre-1910 boxers.

- Chuck Johnston

He and Nat had a memorable debate about it in one issue of Ring magazine.

[Goodnight, Irene]

Jacobs was very high on Jack Johnson, however (a view I do not share).

What was Fleischer's take on Johnson?

[BoxBuzz]

The boxing writers of Mike Gibbons' generation generally seemed to think that Stanley Ketchell was the "cat's meow," notably Nat Fleischer. Of course, the same boxing writers also felt that no post-1910 could measure up to the likes of Ketchell, Jack Johnson, Jim Jeffries, Bob Fitzsimmons, Joe Gans, Joe Walcott or Terry McGovern. I myself wonder how the such fighters can be so great when boxing under the Marquis of Queensberry Rules was in vogue for only about thirty years by 1910. It defies logic, to put it mildly.

- Chuck Johnston

Chuck, It is rumored that Logic has become very saddened and frustrated these last few years, as he experiences defiance and disrespect on a chronic basis within these very threads. I hear he's becoming quite bitter, and considering retiring altogether.