Mike Gibbons Appreciation Thread

It's actually my humble opinion that mike was never really defeated. His only ever losses during his prime were suffered in no decision fights. Fights were as a defensive master he would spend time perfecting the art of not being hit down the stretch.

Don't get me wrong, no decision fights have some merit and I give credit to he who the newspapers decide got the better of the action, but no one really loses these bouts imo, if mike was content defendind and avoiding getting knocked out then he's only fighting to the ruleset of the bout.

I remember reading him once saying something like "I didn't fight to prove who the better man was, I already know that, I was fighting to prove he couldn't lay a glove on me, and he didn't" I'm paraphrasing there but the gist is the same.

He proved he could fight when he had to, young ahearn (apologies if I got the name wrong I only recently woke up) was a title claimant and when mike got the fight with him he sparked him in the first.

Resume wise it's easy going for Tommy because a lot more is known about more of his opponents. This mw era is kinda dismissed as wishy washy because it was so fractured and some of the names haven't stood the test of time.

In terms of skill though, I don't think anyone at the time held Tommy above Mike and, from what ive read, holding Tommy above Mike is pretty revisionist.

 

As a side note, I'm pretty sure the soldier bartfield nws loss should be a nws draw. Papers are wholly split on that one.

 

:scaredas:

 

By revisionist I mean noone at the time seemed to rank Tommy higher.

I think Harry did beat better names at LHW than he did at MW but I'm not sure he was a better fighter at that division if that makes sense (irrelevent to your point, just something I was thinking about).

It's not so much that I don't count NWS fights, but when you tell a man that providing he doesn't get knocked out he won't lose the fight, especially a defensive wizard like Mike, it seems kinda harsh to hold it against him whe he doesn't get knocked out. I give full credit to those who get the NWS vote, I just can't hold it against the man who "loses" such a bout.

 

just to clarify McG, I'm not arguing for greatness in a traditional sense. I'm saying Mike was held in higher regards with respect to his skill level.

 

I think in terms of greatness there's many different criteria that come into play and I've no doubt that certain criteria favours Tommy, for instance he had better dominance and his win list features names that are held in higher regard today than can be said about mike. I'm not disputing any of that, I was talking from a pure skill level.

I think when this came up in your thread I agreed that Tommy was "greater" per se but Mike was "better".

 

Battling pissed me off btw, if ever there was a paper champ it was him. reminds me a bit of that MW guy who kept fighting ND bouts and just about surviving.

 

it seemed to be the done thing for so called "champions" back then. pick up a belt and hold it hostage, look at the guys frozen out during this period, T Gibbons, Greb, Tunney, M Gibbons, Darcy, McFarland some of the greatest boxers in history denied title shots in a given division because of the ND era.

annoying imo.

 

Why haven't I seen Packey-Gibbons footage?!?!

 

Imagine kalule v kalambay with white guys.