BoxRec

elmersalsa wrote: ↑19 Apr 2021, 11:58

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑18 Apr 2021, 13:38 There is a reason why several people have disagreed with you on this and nobody agrees. He won several no-decisions over great fighters. I know that you don't get it (like everyone else does) but that has to count for something.

Non decisions don't count, Alp. End of story.

elmersalsa wrote: ↑19 Apr 2021, 15:01 How about these two guys that caught my attention?:
Johnny Risko (heavyweight)
Percy Bassett (featherweight)

elmersalsa wrote: ↑18 Apr 2021, 11:29

kasimirkid wrote: ↑16 Apr 2021, 23:04

elmersalsa wrote: ↑15 Apr 2021, 17:29

Tommy was better, klompton

No way. Except for being heavier, Tommy was a mediocre copy of his brother.

Mike Gibbons did not do that much. I checked his record. Tommy accomplished much more.

klompton wrote: ↑19 Apr 2021, 20:35

elmersalsa wrote: ↑18 Apr 2021, 11:29

kasimirkid wrote: ↑16 Apr 2021, 23:04

No way. Except for being heavier, Tommy was a mediocre copy of his brother.

Mike Gibbons did not do that much. I checked his record. Tommy accomplished much more.

What more exactly did Tommy accomplish?? Mike was considered the pound for pound best boxer in the world during his pre WW1 career. Tommy was never considered the pound for pound best and never even considered the best in any division he fought in. Even Tommy, until the end of his days was happy to admit that his brother was the better more accomplished boxer.

"I checked his record" spoken like a true boxrec warrior who has no clue what hes talking about. Mike Gibbons defeated Jimmy Clabby, Eddie McGoorty, Jack Dillon, George Chip, Al McCoy, Harry Greb, Leo Houck, Ted Kid Lewis, Perry Graves, Bob Moha, Gus Christie, Jeff Smith, and Mike ODowd. He essentially ruled the MW division prior to WW1 and was almost universally considered the best man in the division. There wasnt a premier middleweight between 1910 and 1917 that Gibbons didnt defeat with the exception of Les Darcy who turned down a career high payday which was ten times more than hed ever earned for a single fight rather than face Gibbons. Mike Gibbons fought seven hall of famers and his record against them was: 10-4-1 (if you count the McFarland fight as a draw which having seen the long film of the fight I dont. Mike won it handily) and by the way Mike never lost to a HOFer before he was taken out of the sport for WW1 which essentially ended his prime. Mike was considered one of the greatest and most influential fighters in the sport for decades and the imprint he had on the sport carried on long after he retired. By comparison Tommy spent the vast majority of his career in Mikes in shadow, often referred to simply as "Mike's brother". Like Mike Tommy also faced seven hall of famers and his record against them was 8-5-1. But consider that three of those wins came against Billy Miske who is damn near the bottom of the barrel of hall of famers and never deserved to get in. His win over Norfolk came nearly a decade after Tommy first began turning down offers to face him. It was no secret at the time that Tommy wanted nothing to do with Norfolk and finally took the fight when Norfolk was blind. Notice how from the time he starts fighting top fighters in 1914 until 1921 when he tries to make a run at Dempsey he has only six KOs in 7 years. Then, as Mike was very open about, Tommy's level of competition goes WAY down and his KOs go up. It was smoke and mirrors. Period. It was designed entirely to get publicity for a title shot and just as he was on the verge of that title shot he lost an almost complete shutout to a middleweight and somehow still managed to get the title shot. Thats the sum total of Tommy's accomplishments. If he didnt share the last name that Mike made famous we likely wouldnt be talking about him today as anything more than the guy who took Dempsey 15 rounds.

And please, dont broadcast your ignorance by telling us that newspaper decisions dont matter.

scartissue wrote: ↑19 Apr 2021, 18:25

elmersalsa wrote: ↑19 Apr 2021, 15:01 How about these two guys that caught my attention?:
Johnny Risko (heavyweight)
Percy Bassett (featherweight)

I always liked Percy Bassett, a fighter who never received his just dues and who never received a title shot. Over his career, he beat: Jimmy Carter, Lew Jenkins, Harold Dade, Orlando Zulueta, Teddy Davis, Charley Riley and Ray Famechon.

A number more I think is deserving to this list is Jack Chase who beat Archie Moore, Lloyd Marshall, Eddie Booker, Aaron (Tiger) Wade and Harry (Kid) Matthews.

Kenny Lane, who beat Carlos Ortiz, Virgil Akins, Carlos Hernandez, Ralph Dupas, Orlando Zulueta, Len Matthews and Doug Vaillant.

Tiger Jack Fox, who beat Jersey Joe Walcott (twice), Maxie Rosenbloom, Bob Olin, Lou Broullaird and Al Gainer.

Wes Ramey, who beat Tony Canzoneri, Lew Jenkins, Johnny Jadick, Battling Shaw, Leo Rodak, Cocoa Kid, Ray Miller and Benny Bass.

Freddie Dawson, who beat Joe Brown, Bernard Docusen, Tommy Bell, Vic Patrick and George Barnes, Also lost a squeaker to Ike Williams for the title.

More later.

Onetimeonly wrote: ↑20 Apr 2021, 14:03 It now has to be a dozen people that disagree with you yet you typed the board disagreed with me!

elmersalsa wrote: ↑20 Apr 2021, 14:11

Onetimeonly wrote: ↑20 Apr 2021, 14:03 It now has to be a dozen people that disagree with you yet you typed the board disagreed with me!

No. I am not sold on Mike Gibbons. Sorry.

elmersalsa wrote: ↑20 Apr 2021, 13:35

klompton wrote: ↑19 Apr 2021, 20:35

elmersalsa wrote: ↑18 Apr 2021, 11:29

Mike Gibbons did not do that much. I checked his record. Tommy accomplished much more.

What more exactly did Tommy accomplish?? Mike was considered the pound for pound best boxer in the world during his pre WW1 career. Tommy was never considered the pound for pound best and never even considered the best in any division he fought in. Even Tommy, until the end of his days was happy to admit that his brother was the better more accomplished boxer.

"I checked his record" spoken like a true boxrec warrior who has no clue what hes talking about. Mike Gibbons defeated Jimmy Clabby, Eddie McGoorty, Jack Dillon, George Chip, Al McCoy, Harry Greb, Leo Houck, Ted Kid Lewis, Perry Graves, Bob Moha, Gus Christie, Jeff Smith, and Mike ODowd. He essentially ruled the MW division prior to WW1 and was almost universally considered the best man in the division. There wasnt a premier middleweight between 1910 and 1917 that Gibbons didnt defeat with the exception of Les Darcy who turned down a career high payday which was ten times more than hed ever earned for a single fight rather than face Gibbons. Mike Gibbons fought seven hall of famers and his record against them was: 10-4-1 (if you count the McFarland fight as a draw which having seen the long film of the fight I dont. Mike won it handily) and by the way Mike never lost to a HOFer before he was taken out of the sport for WW1 which essentially ended his prime. Mike was considered one of the greatest and most influential fighters in the sport for decades and the imprint he had on the sport carried on long after he retired. By comparison Tommy spent the vast majority of his career in Mikes in shadow, often referred to simply as "Mike's brother". Like Mike Tommy also faced seven hall of famers and his record against them was 8-5-1. But consider that three of those wins came against Billy Miske who is damn near the bottom of the barrel of hall of famers and never deserved to get in. His win over Norfolk came nearly a decade after Tommy first began turning down offers to face him. It was no secret at the time that Tommy wanted nothing to do with Norfolk and finally took the fight when Norfolk was blind. Notice how from the time he starts fighting top fighters in 1914 until 1921 when he tries to make a run at Dempsey he has only six KOs in 7 years. Then, as Mike was very open about, Tommy's level of competition goes WAY down and his KOs go up. It was smoke and mirrors. Period. It was designed entirely to get publicity for a title shot and just as he was on the verge of that title shot he lost an almost complete shutout to a middleweight and somehow still managed to get the title shot. Thats the sum total of Tommy's accomplishments. If he didnt share the last name that Mike made famous we likely wouldnt be talking about him today as anything more than the guy who took Dempsey 15 rounds.

And please, dont broadcast your ignorance by telling us that newspaper decisions dont matter.

Most of those wins were non decisions, pal.
Mike Gibbons was never the best fighter of the 1910s decade. That honor belongs to that great Jimmy Wilde of Wales.

Was Mike Gibbons good? Yes. Great? Yes. Top 100 p4p? Perhaps in other people's minds.

He only had 1 defeat in his first 131 fights, in which 65 of them were non-decisions. That does not mean nothing to me. Either you win or you lose. That is what matters.

So, in that time he was 64-1-1 (65NDs) with 36KOs. Impressive? Yes. Did he beat anyone great in the 100 p4p all time rankings? Not one!

His defining fight? ND10 Harry Greb (II)...June 23, 1919...."Gave all he could handle against future all-time great"

Other defining bouts: W10 Willie "KO" Brennan, W12 George "KO" Brown, WKO5 Eddie McGoorty (III), WTKO7 Battling Ortega, WKO1 Battling Ortega (II) and L12 Mike O'Dowd (III)

That's it??? Not good enough for an ignorant boy like me. Bye bye, klompton! Nice try.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑20 Apr 2021, 16:37

elmersalsa wrote: ↑20 Apr 2021, 13:35

klompton wrote: ↑19 Apr 2021, 20:35

What more exactly did Tommy accomplish?? Mike was considered the pound for pound best boxer in the world during his pre WW1 career. Tommy was never considered the pound for pound best and never even considered the best in any division he fought in. Even Tommy, until the end of his days was happy to admit that his brother was the better more accomplished boxer.

"I checked his record" spoken like a true boxrec warrior who has no clue what hes talking about. Mike Gibbons defeated Jimmy Clabby, Eddie McGoorty, Jack Dillon, George Chip, Al McCoy, Harry Greb, Leo Houck, Ted Kid Lewis, Perry Graves, Bob Moha, Gus Christie, Jeff Smith, and Mike ODowd. He essentially ruled the MW division prior to WW1 and was almost universally considered the best man in the division. There wasnt a premier middleweight between 1910 and 1917 that Gibbons didnt defeat with the exception of Les Darcy who turned down a career high payday which was ten times more than hed ever earned for a single fight rather than face Gibbons. Mike Gibbons fought seven hall of famers and his record against them was: 10-4-1 (if you count the McFarland fight as a draw which having seen the long film of the fight I dont. Mike won it handily) and by the way Mike never lost to a HOFer before he was taken out of the sport for WW1 which essentially ended his prime. Mike was considered one of the greatest and most influential fighters in the sport for decades and the imprint he had on the sport carried on long after he retired. By comparison Tommy spent the vast majority of his career in Mikes in shadow, often referred to simply as "Mike's brother". Like Mike Tommy also faced seven hall of famers and his record against them was 8-5-1. But consider that three of those wins came against Billy Miske who is damn near the bottom of the barrel of hall of famers and never deserved to get in. His win over Norfolk came nearly a decade after Tommy first began turning down offers to face him. It was no secret at the time that Tommy wanted nothing to do with Norfolk and finally took the fight when Norfolk was blind. Notice how from the time he starts fighting top fighters in 1914 until 1921 when he tries to make a run at Dempsey he has only six KOs in 7 years. Then, as Mike was very open about, Tommy's level of competition goes WAY down and his KOs go up. It was smoke and mirrors. Period. It was designed entirely to get publicity for a title shot and just as he was on the verge of that title shot he lost an almost complete shutout to a middleweight and somehow still managed to get the title shot. Thats the sum total of Tommy's accomplishments. If he didnt share the last name that Mike made famous we likely wouldnt be talking about him today as anything more than the guy who took Dempsey 15 rounds.

And please, dont broadcast your ignorance by telling us that newspaper decisions dont matter.

Most of those wins were non decisions, pal.
Mike Gibbons was never the best fighter of the 1910s decade. That honor belongs to that great Jimmy Wilde of Wales.

Was Mike Gibbons good? Yes. Great? Yes. Top 100 p4p? Perhaps in other people's minds.

He only had 1 defeat in his first 131 fights, in which 65 of them were non-decisions. That does not mean nothing to me. Either you win or you lose. That is what matters.

So, in that time he was 64-1-1 (65NDs) with 36KOs. Impressive? Yes. Did he beat anyone great in the 100 p4p all time rankings? Not one!

His defining fight? ND10 Harry Greb (II)...June 23, 1919...."Gave all he could handle against future all-time great"

Other defining bouts: W10 Willie "KO" Brennan, W12 George "KO" Brown, WKO5 Eddie McGoorty (III), WTKO7 Battling Ortega, WKO1 Battling Ortega (II) and L12 Mike O'Dowd (III)

That's it??? Not good enough for an ignorant boy like me. Bye bye, klompton! Nice try.

The ignorant boy part is your most accurate statement.

Two of your lines I found particularly interesting:

Mike Gibbons was never the best fighter of the 1910s decade. That honor belongs to that great Jimmy Wilde of Wales.
So, in that time he was 64-1-1 (65NDs) with 36KOs. Impressive? Yes. Did he (Gibbons) beat anyone great in the 100 p4p all time rankings? Not one!
I know Wilde is one of your favorites. You even have him your All time top 10.
What fighter in the Top 100 did Wilde beat? Do tell.

elmersalsa wrote: ↑20 Apr 2021, 23:26

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑20 Apr 2021, 16:37

elmersalsa wrote: ↑20 Apr 2021, 13:35

Most of those wins were non decisions, pal.
Mike Gibbons was never the best fighter of the 1910s decade. That honor belongs to that great Jimmy Wilde of Wales.

Was Mike Gibbons good? Yes. Great? Yes. Top 100 p4p? Perhaps in other people's minds.

He only had 1 defeat in his first 131 fights, in which 65 of them were non-decisions. That does not mean nothing to me. Either you win or you lose. That is what matters.

So, in that time he was 64-1-1 (65NDs) with 36KOs. Impressive? Yes. Did he beat anyone great in the 100 p4p all time rankings? Not one!

His defining fight? ND10 Harry Greb (II)...June 23, 1919...."Gave all he could handle against future all-time great"

Other defining bouts: W10 Willie "KO" Brennan, W12 George "KO" Brown, WKO5 Eddie McGoorty (III), WTKO7 Battling Ortega, WKO1 Battling Ortega (II) and L12 Mike O'Dowd (III)

That's it??? Not good enough for an ignorant boy like me. Bye bye, klompton! Nice try.

The ignorant boy part is your most accurate statement.

Two of your lines I found particularly interesting:

Mike Gibbons was never the best fighter of the 1910s decade. That honor belongs to that great Jimmy Wilde of Wales.
So, in that time he was 64-1-1 (65NDs) with 36KOs. Impressive? Yes. Did he (Gibbons) beat anyone great in the 100 p4p all time rankings? Not one!
I know Wilde is one of your favorites. You even have him your All time top 10.
What fighter in the Top 100 did Wilde beat? Do tell.

Jimmy Wilde did way much more better than Mike Gibbons. He won 91 straight fights! A world record I believe. Match that!

Big up for the little guy from Wales! He did not had Non decisions like Mike Gibbons.

chrisjs1985 wrote: ↑21 Apr 2021, 11:30 Still no consideration for Jose Medel? Surely he's a better and more accomplished boxer than some of the one's already listed?

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑21 Apr 2021, 15:59 I think had he beat Corbett, you could make a decent argument for him. That was his big chance. He did beat Frank Slavin and the original George Godfrey, but that is not enough to rate him where elmer does.

I just love how not (officially )beating someone in the Top 100 kills Gibbons, but for Jimmy Wilde it doesn't matter.

Actually, if he would just simply switch Mike Gibbons with Jackson, most people could live with that.

chrisjs1985 wrote: ↑21 Apr 2021, 11:30 Still no consideration for Jose Medel? Surely he's a better and more accomplished boxer than some of the one's already listed?

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑21 Apr 2021, 11:17

elmersalsa wrote: ↑20 Apr 2021, 23:26

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑20 Apr 2021, 16:37

The ignorant boy part is your most accurate statement.

Two of your lines I found particularly interesting:

Mike Gibbons was never the best fighter of the 1910s decade. That honor belongs to that great Jimmy Wilde of Wales.
So, in that time he was 64-1-1 (65NDs) with 36KOs. Impressive? Yes. Did he (Gibbons) beat anyone great in the 100 p4p all time rankings? Not one!
I know Wilde is one of your favorites. You even have him your All time top 10.
What fighter in the Top 100 did Wilde beat? Do tell.

Jimmy Wilde did way much more better than Mike Gibbons. He won 91 straight fights! A world record I believe. Match that!

Big up for the little guy from Wales! He did not had Non decisions like Mike Gibbons.

You care more about Wilde beating 91 guys that nobody knows anything about than you do Gibbon winning newspaper decisions over great opponents. That is simply stupid.


Jimmy Wilde did way more? He never beat a guy in the Top 100. For you that hurts Gibbons, but doesn't matter with Wilde. Yet another case of your bias.
It should matter that compared to Gibbons, Wilde's competition was a joke.
Wilde did not have no-decisions? That simply is not true. Wilde had several no-decisions in his career.

I think part of the problem is that elmer doesn't understand no-decisions. (not that understand much anything else).
In certain locations, it was actually illegal to have judges decisions. The guys would fight anyway because they were fighting for a living, not impress somebody 100 years in the future.
If one of the fighters got stopped, then it didn't matter. It goes down in the record books as a KO/TKO.
However, often it would go the distance. Newspapers would give their opinion. Hence the term newspaper decision.

I just don't see how you pretend like the fight never happened. If Mike Gibbons completely outboxed a great fighter, and got a newspaper decision, it is evidence that he himself was great.

graham middleton wrote: ↑21 Apr 2021, 20:00 I suggest that Australian welterweight champion of the 1930's, Jack Carrol who was undefeated for the last 6 years of his career and who defeated many top liners including Bep Van Klavernan , Jimmy Leto, Izzy Janazzo, Ron Richards and others should be in the list of great boxers who did not get an opportunity to fight for a world title. I invite others to check his record and his high ring rating.
Unforetunatly during the Great Depression the money was not available to Australian promoters to bring a world champion to Australia for a title defence.
Graham Middleton