Champions, Contenders, Gatekeepers?

[coreygardner]

I'm writing a book which mentions a short bio on former British/European Heavyweight Champion Jack Gardner, the #8 Contender of the 1950's. He never fought any world champions, but he did beat world rated Bruce Woodcock and Johnny Williams and lost a close decision to Cesar Brion, which pretty much ended his hopes of being the world champ.
28 - 6 (23 KO's) good record, high percentage of KO's, and he never lost by KO.

How would you rate him on world level, a contender, or a gatekeeper?



What about John L. Gardner of the 70's and 80's? Contender or gatekeeper?

I had seen somewhere he was the #6 Contender, then #15 or something. He wasn't naturally talented, just tough and aggressive. I would say John Gardner was a great fighter, but decent as a boxer.
Gardner KO'd former title challenger Lorenzo Zanon and he also KO'd future WBA Cruiserweight Champion Ossie Ocasio, and was knocked out by future WBA Heavyweight Champion Michael Dokes.
35 - 4 (29 KO's), good record, finished most opponents, and never had a string of losses.


Jack Gardner seemed to have natural talent, one punch KO power, a great chin, but lacked the ambition to go further in his career.

John L. Gardner seemed to only have a good chin, good enough power (against Zanon), and was a hard worker, plenty of ambition, but lacked talent as a boxer, but still a tough guy.


Here is my chapter:

PRIZEFIGHTERS
"Awful" GARDNER, the Prize - Fighter
Oscar GARDNER, the "Omaha Kid"
George GARDNER, the Celtic Warrior
"Pink" GARDNER, the Wrestler
Jack GARDNER, the "Fighting Guardsman"
John L. GARDNER, the Heavyweight Champion
Tony GARDNER, the "KO King"

[Ambling Alp II]

I really wouldn't rate either as a serious contender; at least at the world level. Jack Gardner was at best a gatekeeper (though the term implies he fought a lot of contenders, which he really didn't.) He was really just a capable fighter.
John L was a bit better, I guess you could call him a fringe contender, but that is about as far as you could go.

[sweetsci]

Was the Ali-Gardner fight scrapped because of the MAPS scandal?

[HomicideHenry]

The problem with European/British boxing (at least until the last ten years or so) is that the majority of these guys were considered domestic/regional level fighters at best, not world class, regardless of effort and accomplishment. The most beloved of Commonwealth champions (Henry Cooper) was easy to root for, but fell flat on his face whenever he fought someone in the top ten like Patterson or Ali. No disrespect to John L. Gardener, because I do think he was better than alot of British champions, but he came about in arguably the second weakest era in history (late 70's, early 80's) and even then he showed his limitations with Dokes and others. HOWEVER, if he were around today, I can't help but think that he would of pulverised guys like David Price and Richard Towers, and other giant heavies who are around in England today. There just was no quit in Gardener.

[coreygardner]

I really wouldn't rate either as a serious contender; at least at the world level. Jack Gardner was at best a gatekeeper (though the term implies he fought a lot of contenders, which he really didn't.) He was really just a capable fighter.
John L was a bit better, I guess you could call him a fringe contender, but that is about as far as you could go.

I agree in some ways.

If Jack Gardner and John L. Gardner fought, I can't help but think Jack Gardner would win though. He was 6' 2, 220 lbs., one shot KO power, great chin, but seemed to lack the ambition, I think he was satisfied being Champion at British/European level and had no real ambitions of the World title.

John L. Gardner was almost six feet tall, 205 pounds, but not a physical speciman like Jack Gardner.

I'd say if these two aggressive heavyweights fought one another, Jack would win by knockout if all went well, but John L. probably could win by TKO due to cuts. They would have made a great fight.

Neither of them fall into the category of a journeyman, a typical fighter with a record of 18 - 21, or 26 - 18, or 38 - 22, or 20 - 13, an even record.

Records like 38 - 5, 28 - 6, and 35 - 5, belong to gatekeepers, contenders, and champions.


I'd rate Jack Gardner a contender at best at world level, but overall he falls into the category of gatekeeper. Same thing with John L. Gardner, a contender at best, who fell into the category of a gatekeeper.

Jack Gardner had 7 first round knockouts early in his career. However, his best victories as far as importance were over contenders like Johnny Williams, Bruce Woodcock, and I guess Jo Weidin in some ways.

Jack Gardner primed in 1980 with knockouts over Lorenzo Zanon and Ossie Ocasio, both world heavyweight title challengers, one later being the WBA Cruiserweight Champion.



Here is my chapter in my book:
PRIZEFIGHTERS
'Awful' GARDNER, 1 - 1 record, famous 19th Century prizefighter, seemed to be a contender, but more of an outlaw than boxer.
Oscar GARDNER, 72 - 19 (53 KO's), fought for World Featherweight Title three times, definitely a contender.
Geoge GARDNER, 44 - 12 (32 KO's), World Light Heavyweight Champion, truly a champion, always a contender, and at his worst a gatekeeper in the later years.
Jack GARDNER, 28 - 6 (23 KO's), champion at Euro level, contender at world level, but fell into being a gatekeeper, had a short, but glamourous career.
John L. GARDNER, 35 - 4 (29 KO's), champion at Euro level, contender at world level, again, really a gatekeeper, never had the popularity of a contender.
Tony GARDNER , 52 - 23 (40 KO's), journeyman gatekeeper contender title challenger, had a string of 25 straight victories, 22 by KO, 19 straight KO's, he was a great fighter, but hated to train and probably could have gone further. He had the popularity of a contender in Oklahoma City and really never beat any other contenders that I know of. Strange, but interesting career. Gardner had deadly KO power.