BoxRec

Simple, who is the greater fighter and where do you rank both all time in their respective divisions.

I would edge Tommy slightly over Mike. Both all-time greats; the best 'brother' tandem in boxing history. Would have to review my all-time 175 and 60 lists to see where they rank, but its up there for both. Overlooked fighters.

dempseyfire wrote:I would edge Tommy slightly over Mike. Both all-time greats; the best 'brother' tandem in boxing history. Would have to review my all-time 175 and 60 lists to see where they rank, but its up there for both. Overlooked fighters.

Tom seems to have been the better offensive fighter with genuine KO power, however in reports Mike sounds like an incredible defensive boxer.


I find it hard to pick between them...there is very little action footage that I have seen.

Mike for sure, even Tommy would admit it. Theres a reason Tommy lived in Mikes shadow for most of his career.

Mike has the better credentials.

Carlos & Klompton, where do you guys rank them all time?

Mike was one of the greatest fighters ever. Period. He was one of the first fighters to really be considered a pound for pound great in the manner of a Joe Gans, and later a SRR. Hes so underrated today because he never won a title. Thats deceptive for two reasons. 1: He was fighting in the ND era when champions were damn near impossible to unseat, 2: His best weight was just above WW and just below MW, he is the perfect argument for the junior weight divisions. Even so he was still a fantastic fighter in two divisions and this was almost universally recognized prior to WW1. The impact he had on boxing in the upper midwest was massive and laid the ground work for generations to come.

To me Tommy is more of a Jerry Quarry type. He was very very good at his best but he seemed to have a problem winning the big ones. He was undeniably one of the best MWs, LHWs, and HWs of his era but I think he was just shy have that special something. Mike had that.

An argument for either man can be made, but I'll go with Tommy. I like his opposition a little better.

I would have to lean towards Tommy as well. Had wins over Norfolk and Miske and gave Dempsey a lot of trouble. Had newspaper wins over Greb, Carpentier,Levinsky and Chip.
Mike had some nice results as well but it is not quite as impressive.

In regards to the Gibbons brothers, I would choose Mike over Tommy even though the latter was a tremendous fighter in his own right. It is probable that Gene Tunney as a youngster admired Mike more than any other boxer, writing that he learned quite a bit watching him spar.

- Chuck Johnston

Had this question been asked in 1925 or even maybe 30 years later, there would be no doubt. Mike was always held in much much higher esteem than Tommy, and his impact on the sport, technique, etc. was far more important than Tommy. As I said, even Tommy would have freely admitted Mike was the better fighter both in terms of legacy and ability. Both brothers legacy was hurt by the fact that they never won a title. That being said Tommy was pretty carefully matched, particularly during the period when he ran up something like 20 consecutive KOs before facing Greb in 1922. He did get two newspaper wins over Greb (and those are the best victories on his record) but his wins over Norfolk and Carpentier came when they were way past their best (Although Tommy would have always beaten Carpentier, yet he ducked Norfolk for about 7 years before finally facing him). I dont really credit his victories over Miske as that important. Miske is a fighter whose death has made him more important to some han his career ever would have, he certainly doesnt deserve to be in the HOF. Part of the reason why the gap seems to closed a bit between the legacies of Mike and Tommy is that several of Mikes big wins during his career have now become forgotten fighters. Guys like Bob McCallister and Wildcat Ferns were very highly regarded when Gibbons obliterated them (although McCallister was inexperienced as a pro he was being considered a sure champion) and both are now pretty much forgotten.

Interestingly Mike was pretty critical of his brother during his 1921/22 KO streak. Feeling that Tommy was beginning to believe in his own press and starting to get away from the St. Paul style.

Chuck: In re: to Tunney's appreciation of Mike. I think Tunney had a great respect for the St. Paul style in general. He ducked Tommy for years and later brought both Jock Malone and Mike Gibbons' protege Jimmy Delaney into his camps to work with him and drill him on the St. Paul style. By the time Tunney fought Tommy he was pretty much an expert in that style and there wasnt anything Tommy was going to to do (especially being past his prime) that Tunney didnt anticipate. You can see this in the film. Tunney has an answer for everything Gibbons does and Tommy isnt able to do anything with the ex marine.

Most would say Tommy IMHO......I'm part of "most".

I get the sense that there is an "alternate history" that places Mike above Tommy. But I'm not up to speed on what I would consider to be the "stealth" info that is apparently out there.

Some very educated people are choosing Mike.....so I may have much yet to learn.

Klompton....your not holding those wins over Greb against Tommy are you? Be honest now.

Not at all. As i say i consider those wins, particularly the 1920 win, very impressive. But remember, mike also beat greb in 1917.

There is no stealth info or conspiracy or whatever to rate mike over tommy. Just go back and read paper from 10s and 20s and you will see that Mike was much much more respected and famous. For years and years tommy was known simply as mikes brother. Read papers from the upper midwest well into 1950s and beyond and mike credited with putting the sport on the map there and influencing generations of boxers.

I agree with Klompton. Contemporaries of Mike and Tommy almost unanimously rated Mike as the superior fighter. Who am I to disagree with guys who saw both live, and ranked Mike as the better fighter?

My info on these two is clearly through the eyes of pop sports history, and general retrospectives sans the deeper day to day news accounts etc. It's interesting to hear of the apparent divide on opinion. Have you read the feedback from their common opponents? Might be the most credible I suppose. Tommy was the bigger banger from what I know. I thought he was every bit the technician...with perhaps a later start into the business?

raylawpc wrote:I agree with Klompton. Contemporaries of Mike and Tommy almost unanimously rated Mike as the superior fighter. Who am I to disagree with guys who saw both live, and ranked Mike as the better fighter?

A bit like Greb and Fitzsimmons?

Boilermaker wrote:

raylawpc wrote:I agree with Klompton. Contemporaries of Mike and Tommy almost unanimously rated Mike as the superior fighter. Who am I to disagree with guys who saw both live, and ranked Mike as the better fighter?

A bit like Greb and Fitzsimmons?

raylawpc wrote:I agree with Klompton. Contemporaries of Mike and Tommy almost unanimously rated Mike as the superior fighter. Who am I to disagree with guys who saw both live, and ranked Mike as the better fighter?

You are a person who can look at their records and make up your own mind. Sometimes one fighter was overrated, another was underrated, or a little of both. This kind of thing happens quite often.

I think Tommy's record is more impressive and I wanted to address some points:

-That Norfolk and Carpentier were past it. They were both probably not int heir absolute prime; but they certainly were not senior citizens. Both were just 30 when they fought Gibbons. Gibbons was 32 himself.

-Miske is not a big win? Miske was a very good heavyweight. I agree that he should not be in the HOF, but still thats a pretty nice win.

-Gibbons fought selected opponents? Look at his record. He fought tough competition during the early, middle and latter part of his career.

-Have not really heard much what the arguement for Mike is except that supposedly he was higher regarded at the time.

I just don't see this as a slam dunk at all. They had similar win/loss record and I would argue that Tommy fought the better competition of the two.

Ambling Alp wrote:

raylawpc wrote:I agree with Klompton. Contemporaries of Mike and Tommy almost unanimously rated Mike as the superior fighter. Who am I to disagree with guys who saw both live, and ranked Mike as the better fighter?

You are a person who can look at their records and make up your own mind. Sometimes one fighter was overrated, another was underrated, or a little of both. This kind of thing happens quite often.

Of course, one can rate fighters independent of what their contemporaries thought; indeed, sometimes we know things that the contemporaries didn't know - for example, I didn't know that Joe Frazier was vision impaired when he fought. But, in this case we have two fighters with OUTSTANDING resumes. In that instance, the opinion of the people who saw them live carries great weight with me.

One can look at the records, but they won't know how the bout went (robbery, close fight, one-sided, etc) and how was this or that boxer regarded at the time.

That is true. You can't tell everything just by looking at the wins and losses. However they give you a place to start. I am skeptical of giving too much credibility in how highly regarded a fighter was at the time.

I agree with raylaw that they both had impressive "resumes". However, I believe that Tommy's was the better of the two. Not by a huge margin, but clearly nevertheless. It would take a lot to overcome that for me. Just my opinion.

I use the same reasoning Alp, I see Tommy as the better fighter and having the better record. I'm not sure what else to base it on.

Is there any film of these guys?

Klompton....just how lopsided are the reviews? You seem to favor Mike based on the "collection of observations" of many of the writers at the time. Not a bad basis to form an opinion on, though I like the record aspect myself. But sometimes it's all about what you "could have" accomplished I suppose. Though both accomplished much, Tommy's record is the superior one, which is probably why he gets the more popular support in many of these conversations.

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.

Another fine post, cheers Klompton.

I think it helps in a modern world that Tommy fought mainly heavyweight fighters who are unknown to most. Althought Tommy fought mainly at light heavy, obviously most of the fighters he fought are known for their performances against heavies, which always makes them more well known nowadays. I agree with Klompton though, Mike clearly fought the best around and the better fighters. I dont know if i would go so far as to declare Miske overated but i have considered this position before.

There arent many middleweight fighters that Mike didnt fight, who could claim to be as good or better than him. Certainly not when you compare the good fighters at Tommy's weight that he failed to fight. Of course though, we are talking about pound for pound legacies.

Head to head might be a different story. Where does the board sit on this? I suppose the Greb fights are the starting point. Both fighters did well against Greb and were able to earn a victory. Would the heavyier Tommy be too big or do those who consider Mike the better fighter think that he would pull it off in a head to head fight?