Heavyweight Jack Gardner.

[KOJOE90]

Former British & European Heavyweight Champion Jack Gardner never seems to get mentioned on this forum so I thought it was time he was. Having said that I know little about him apart from he beat Bruce Woodcock, tough Ken Shaw and had a series of fights with the very capable Johnny Williams.

Anyone here got any more views, opinions or information?

http://www.boxrec.com/boxer_display.php?boxer_id=037345

[jimglen]

I understand Jack Gardner was a very 'usefull' capable fighter, a good boxer, big with a nice long reach and an effective jab... like his predessor Bruce Woodcock whom Jack beat at the end of Woodcock's career, Britain at the time was SO Desperate for the Heavyweight title that Jack too was 'rushed a bit...

But unlike Woodcock, Gardner "wasn't alone", with him were Johnny Williams and because of medical problems and the weight gainning that went with it there was also Don Cockell, who because of the condition was LITERALLY a 'blown-up L-HW...

Anyway between the 3 I believe Gardner was the finer boxer, but like Woodcock could have used more time, I think he split some wins & losses with Williams (can't remember) and Cockell became the most promising 'among' the Bigmen over shadowing both Gardner and Williams even as a L-HW and then of course eventually HW.

Jack Gardner was good and British boxing could have gotten a lot more out of him, but just like Bruce Woodcock (whom MAY have been Britains Best HW) the need of a world title among the bigmen was too Desperate, hurried!

[KOJOE90]

Jack Gardner was good and British boxing could have gotten a lot more out of him, but just like Bruce Woodcock (whom MAY have been Britains Best HW) the need of a world title among the bigmen was too Desperate, hurried!

Hi Jim.

Just for clarification, do you think Woodcock could have been the best British Heavyweight ever, or just the best of that era?

Also did you ever hear that story from around 1990(ish) where an elderly Bruce Woodcock found two teenagers breaking into his garden shed. Old Bruce uncorked his famed righ hand and knocked them both spark out.

Good old Bruce!!!!

I think is was reported in Boxing Monthly.

[jimglen]

Hi KoJoe,

As far as I'm concerned Woodcock IS the best, with Tommy Farr right behind, beside or just ahead of him depending on who's making the comparisons...but here's what I think.

Woodcock was an excellent 'basic' boxer with the left lead & basic 1-2 punching, but Bruce hit like a 'efen' frieght train, he wasn't 'shifty or cagey' just a very good, strong basic stand up with much more not quite developed...

Tommy Farr was more rugged & durable (maybe), but Woodcock overall was noticably better, Woodcock was undoubtably 'wasted' by British boxing, his loss to Mauriello was down to just not quite ready for an 'eliminator' for Joe Louis, Woodcock was leading and the American public and reporters loved him and truly gave him good press, but his "inexperienced" bad habit of leading with his chin got him 'spanked', yet another year at top level I believe would have soon broke the habit and he was also WELL ahead of Savold before the cut eye...

I think he was better and tougher than Cooper and Lennox Lewis, though a fine boxer just isn't made of the same stuff as the affore mentioned, little-own Farr & Woodcock...

Would he ever have beaten Joe Louis, well based on what we know "doubtfull", but I'll tell you this, if he would have been steered a bit longer and got the fight with Ol' Joe, you can bet we (boxing history), would have been remembering him with much more affection & credibility!!!

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

i have film of both woodcock vs mills fights. woodcock impressed me, especially the power in his right hand and his brute strength. but no way was woodcock the best, he had several flaws.

i believe talented boxers like cockell, and especially tommy farr would have outboxed woodock.


farr IMO was in a higher class than woodcock

[KOJOE90]

My top ten British Heavyweights I have SEEN in action, either in the flesh or on film.

1. Lennox Lewis
2. Joe Bugner
3. Tommy Farr
4. Frank Bruno
5. Henry Cooper
6. Bruce Woodcock
7. Don Cockell
8. Brian London
9. Joe Erskine
10. Gary Mason.

I reseve the right to change my mind at any given moment, as I am sure I will.

[BoxBuzz]

I gotta go with Joe Bugner....very very underated and seemingly having some bad luck. But the skills were there. If he had fought in another era it would have been more productive for him IMHO.

Could Lewis have beaten him? Possibly maybe probably but the difference in weight and size was pretty dramatic wasn't it? Going from memory here.

[KOJOE90]

Could Lewis have beaten him? Possibly maybe probably but the difference in weight and size was pretty dramatic wasn't it? Going from memory here.

Bugner was 6'4" and weighed around 215-220lbs in his prime, so the size difference wasn't a massive one. Bugner for me is always a hard one to rate as you never knew which Bugner would turn up. He appeared to have all the physical tools to be a threat to any Heavyweight, but as is often the case with some fighters wasn't always 'on' when it came to fight time. To me he didn't lack heart but appeared to on some nights lack the determination to win 'fire in the belly' as some may say.

Like Lennox Lewis he was a big guy with a defence mindset, he lacked Lewis' one shot power but may have had the better chin.

I think stylewise Lewis vs Bugner may not have made for a very exciting fight, but if Lennox landed a few heavy right hands and stiff jabs early he may just be able to keep Bugner 'honest' and take a points victory.

[BoxBuzz]

I considered Bugner the faster fighter and might eek out a points win with cleverness. I feel even more confident of that outcome knowing that there was no great size disparity.

But your right about him being unpredictable.