BoxRec

Why doesn't anyone give credit to John L. Gardner for being a great boxer?

He did lack a great punch, which is probably the greatest thing a fighter should have, and a great chin.

Gardner had a 24 - 0 reign and he defeated hard hitting Neville Meade by TKO.

And Gardner never lost a title fight, finishing all of his title fights.

I think anyone with a 35 - 4 (29 KO's) record is a successful fighter, not just decent, maybe not the greatest, but way better than decent.

Was he really stabbed 14 times a few years ago?

records can be very decieving john had a very good record but was far from great an example of heavyweights having good records but being decieving is horace notice 16 wins 12 ko.s no defeats yes 16-0 and unbeaten but anyone who ever seen him would tell you he was far from great again very decent
sorry to pick on horace but just a very good example

I'm assuming you are a relation of some sort.

Gardner was a solid UK domestic-level fighter with a solid chin, good stamina, and pretty good inside fighting ability. Sorry to say though, not a great boxer. But definitely a pretty good fighter all things considered.

Gardner was allways the underdog & was guided well & earnt good wins.his ability to work people over & his determination & strentgh are overlooked.

he was shot against quarless & dokes at the time was the real deal & jimmy young was far to clever & the guy who banged him out done it too many top draw boy's.

gardner would of beat your chisoras & williams all day long.

I am of no known relation. However, I still feel he is underrated. Definitely not given credit for his dues.

Gardner defeated hard hitting future British champ Neville Meade by 6 - round TKO; European champ Lorenzo Zanon by KO; and Cruiserweight champ Ossie Ocasio by KO.

He only had four losses during his entire career, such as heavyweight contender Ibar Arrington who got a lucky punch, the great Jimmy Young, and the very dangerous Michael Dokes.

Every fighter has to fight "bums" the first half of his career, you can't put him in with the best. Gardner destroyed the average fighters. He was a very good, tough fighter.

Any details of his career would be appreciated.

Gardner was a 'great' fighter?

Get real

And "crusader", you are a 'great' fighter?

Get real.

How many fighters have finished the majority of their fights and won titles in their careers? He was at least good.

put it to bed mate you started the thread saying jonh was GREAT he was not great as anyone who saw him has said now its changed to good i still say pretty decent end of

coreygardner wrote:And "crusader", you are a 'great' fighter?

Get real.

How many fighters have finished the majority of their fights and won titles in their careers? He was at least good.

When did I say I was a great fighter?

You make a good point!

All I am saying is that I find John L. Gardner's record 35 - 4 (29 KO's) is a good record..

John L. Gardner was a game aggressive fighter. He beat Neville Meade, Paul Sykes (if that's anybody), Lorenzo Zanon (a world title challenger), and Ossie Ocasio, the Cruiserweight Champion of the World. His only losses were to top rated heavyweights.

Where is he now?

paul sykes he was a prison brawler from wakefield on the streets tough as they come in the ring different story tough but not very well schooled to be fair think he was 32 before he turned pro spent most of his life in prison think he was 6 wins 3 losses when he fought gardner .

like i said records can be very decieving look at gary mason { god bless his soul } but he had 37 wins 34ko.s and 1 defeat and that was to a great heavyweight lennox but there are not many people who will tell you gary was great he was a good heavyweight in world terms in his era

we could make a big list of heavyweights with great records and better records than john l gardner does not make them great in my book though

fair comments i did not realise he boxed for england as only heard of him as a pro so better than i thought . i just remember watching him box a few times and thought he was ok but as i said to be fair he was in his thirties before he turned pro. i remember him boxing malpass twice before he thought gardner though he lost 1 and drew1 if i remember correctly

i thought he was 6-3 -1 when he thought gardner maybe that was his record when he finished i know he did not have many after that fight if any

A lot of harsh judges on these message boards. John L Gardner was a very good boxer, boxed all over the world, fought in the Royal Albert Hall many times on the BBC, beat some solid pros, won some historic titles when they still meant something, all in all any of us on this forum would be very proud to have had the success Gardner had in the ring.

Gardner's best moment for me was when he made lunatic Paul Sykes literally turn his back and quit. Gardner stood up to the bully and destroyed him.