Battling Levinsky rates Tommy Gibbons as the best/cleverest boxer he ever faced

Yeah, the fact that he brother Mike was an even greater fighter and established himself a few years before him, was probably the origin of Tommy being less-esteemed that some comparable peers.

So many great fighters in that era though.

 

I'm not sure if it's clear.
As far as estimations of his ability goes, he may have benefitted a lot from being the first to come along in comparisons with Tommy.

He very possibly edges it on resume anyway though. I'd err on the side of received wisdom and say Mike was better.
But I haven't researched him deeply at all.

 

Good stuff........Gibbons an ATG legend.

 

Which Gibbons brothers better? Wheres George Barton when you need him!

 

Gibbons was a great fighter. And the fact he is given such raise is great. HOWEVER it proves just how great Greb was. Seeing as he beat Gibbons more convincingly than any other fighter he faced. Gibbons made Dempsey look awful, fought competitve with Tunney before being caught, however Greb showed up Gibbons twice. In the first he "manhandled" Gibbons and in the second "landed one million punches."

However back to Gibbons, he deserves far more respect than he gets. He only lost to the best and he beat a lot of great ones also.

 

He was a tremendos middle/welter weight and I believe could have fought on longer and possibly challenged for a title if it wasn't for bad vision.

Although skill and IQ wise I think Tommy was better. Mike was the far more athletic brother. He was the Jones Jr and his brother the Hopkins (for example lol)

 

Like Hopkins does. Even when he loses its never a clear loss and his opponent never looks good winning it. Gibbons wouldn't let Dempsey get off and always kept him off balance.

 

An excellent win for Dempsey considering the 2-year lay-off.

 

Certainly a top lhw of his day and the best in the world for a few months.

He did lose to dempsey though and the size difference wasn't that great was it?

 

It's quite possible Mike looked better cause he preferred to use his footwork and body movement in close range (at least considering the limited footage I've seen) while Tommy liked to tie his man while picking shots in close. It's not clear which one of them was better, though. While Mike gets points for influencing both Tunney and Tommy himself in terms of style, Tommy was the one who had the idea of keeping a book of study about every possible opponent in the horizon (possibly Tunney's best tool). Tommy has a cleaner record while Mike fought considerably more (25 fights or so). Mike was rarely badly hurt (though he seemed to take less risks too, sometimes even at cost of the fight) and was never stopped, while Tommy was only stopped by Tunney in his last fight ever at 34. Mike twice beaten Jack Dillon that for some reason never faced Tommy (one hell of a 'match that never was' that slipped my mind), while Tommy was one of the scarce few to decisively beat Harry Greb when he was already a true pro (possibly in his peak) and with both eyes in perfect condition. They seem very closely matched to me. Tommy's victory over Greb kinda stands out though.

 

Is funny how this fight divides opinions. People are so used to watch Dempsey's firework shows that when he is on the ring and nothing explodes (like when he is boxing Tommy, and actually not doing all that bad), people don't know what to make of it. Tommy might be landing some clean shots and making Jack miss big sometimes, but the fight is not like a Johnson-Pastrano where the accurate fighter is also the one that looks more bothered. Gibbons don't look that comfortable even when he is successfully frustrating Dempsey in the early rounds. Besides some rounds in the first half, he isn't looking all that better than Dempsey himself.