Gibbons' footwork would keep him out of harm's way against the mauling Zivic...and Gibbons might even teach Zivic a thing or two up close. I'd take Gibbons by solid decision.
Gibbons is a more fluid, skilled fighter. He was hard to land a solid shot on (the "St. Paul Phantom", remember?) and the occasional shot Fritzie did land would be absorbed with little difficulty. Zivic is clever and deceptively skilled as well but he can't show Mike anything he hasn't already seen x1000. Gibbons by a wide UD.
If Ray Robinson as a young man 20-1 years old could dominate erratic Fritzie Zivic,who had lost about 20 times ,until Robinson beat him, Mike Gibbons would have outboxed and outsped Zivic.Mike Gibbons was that good in his heyday...
Another 'different class of fighters thread'. I've come to believe mike was one of the best ever. Zivic was not.
I think the ref plays a role here, a competent modern ref and ruleset DQ's Fritzie in 4-6 rounds for thumbing, butting, lacing, low blows, deliberately foot smashing, elbows, holding and hitting, rabbit punching, kidney punching, he even bit when he thought he could get away with it. And that would be just the FIRST round! He wrote a book on the art of fouling in a fight (no joke). I have often wondered who was the dirtier fighter Zivic or Gerb. Greb came by it 'naturally' Fritzie honed it as an art within the art of boxing. If there is a 'relaxed attitude' on the rules Firtzie may well do enough early damage to slow down and wear down Mike. The damage he could do outside his considerable boxing skills wore down even Henry Armstrong... Who is the better boxer - Mike with little doubt. The better fighter? The Zivic that beat hank would be a handful for anyone south of 160. I'll take Mike by UD in a clean boxing match and I might still go with him by SD in a bloodbath 'let the boys fight' kind of match - but it would not be pretty and I'm not too sure about that one.
