Tom or Mike Gibbons

http://boxrec.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=150605

 

Mike both greater and far more skillful and clever than Tommy for me.

 

Interesting arguments on there I'm making no pick as I don't feel qualified to do so.

 

I understand what you're saying but Mike still faced Greb twice and while his win may have been a 6 rounder he also never got pulverized by Greb like Tommy did. I realize you could make the argument that more rounds and fights may have resulted in that but fact is he still faced the him twice.

More importantly Mike fought the best of his day consistently and didn't shy away from challenging himself regardless of who it was Greb, O'Dowd, TK Lewis, Dillon x2, Jeff Smith x3, Houck x2, McGoorty x2, Clabby x2, Chip x2, Ahearn, McCarron, Christie x3, Bartfield x2, Ortega, Graves. Definitely more impressive than Tommy for me.

 

Tommy was never in the Tunney fight. Tunney was in complete control throughout. I have the entire fight and Tunney had an answer for everything Tommy did.

How did Tommy beat Greb in a series at LHW? They fought four times with Greb winning two and Tommy winning two. The first was at MW, the second was just above 160, the third was supposed to be at 163 but Gibbons refused to weigh in, breaking their contract (he had refused to weigh in for their second as well). Their fourth fight Gibbons weighed 171 and Greb 163 1/2. So Greb won the series at LHW and did so even with Gibbons refusing to honor his weight contracts.

If Tommy's best wins include a totally shot Norfolk, a totally shot Carpentier, and a totally overrated Miske then that really isnt much.

 

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by this statement? You're trying to discredit Mike and claim him inferior to Tommy by mentioning losses that all happened within 1 year of his retirement after a decade at the top consistently fighting the best around?

Also grouping O'Dowd in with Robson and Wiggins seems strange he was more than good and if not for the natural size disparity compared to Tommy, since Mike was a natural JMW, at his best i do think him beating Tommy was quite possible. Even with the size disparity had they fought when Tommy was at MW losing to O'Dowd was very possible.

That's part of the problem Tommy fought a very limited amount of the MW elite when he was there and aside from the stuck on ATG fighters he lost to he didn't fight a great deal of other top opposition. Miske, Levinsky, Chip, Christie, Crouse, old Carpatier/Norfolk is pretty much the extent of the good opposition he did beat aside from Greb.

How many times do you have to fight Christie, Chip, Martin and Turner why didn't he ever face O'Dowd, Smith, Dillon, Houck? Why did he wait until 1924 to fight Norfolk?

He did fight Greb and Dempsey but also seemed choosy about how, who and when he stepped up against certainly in comparison to Mike. Stepping up to fight the HW Champ in a totally undeserved title shot (that horrendous beating Greb did give him was the HW title eliminator yet he gets gifted it anyways) who has ungodly fame at the time is something near anyone would be willing to do. Guys off the street would take that payday, i would.

Am i missing something or was this just an oversight on your part? Greb won two of the three fights they had at LHW.

Mike's three wins over Jeff Smith are considerably better than Tommy's over Carpantier considering the version he beat and would be on par even if it had been a prime version. I know Georges won the one time him and Jeff did meet but looking at their overall careers and quality it would.

Mike's two wins over Dillon are better than old Norfolk who Tommy could have fought years earlier.

So Mike has multiple wins over those guys along with victories over O'Dowd, TK Lewis, Houck. The two wins over Greb gives Tommy the two greatest wins between the brothers but aside from that their best wins are comperable and Mike's competition is deeper and was fought more frequently.

Also as mentioned and well established in their own time everybody considered Mike the greater and more skilled fighter between the two.

 

He did, then he beat O'Dowd....then lost the rubbermatch in the last year before retirement. O'Dowd was also an exceptional fighter i get the feeling i rate him higher than you. He's an ATG MW inside the top 15, don't see any way one could place him outside 20.

You conceed that Mike fought better opposition but i don't think you're quite getting the reason behind me mentioning it beyond face value. Having been at the top for a decade fighting such opposition one after another with more fights and a much tougher schedule means he was likely more faded in the last couple years compared to Tommy in his very last.

Tommy may have only lost to ATG's but the other reason i mentioned it is because had Tommy fought Mike's competition and schedule its likely he would have the odd loss here or there. Maybe he comes up against an opponent with a unfavorable style, they always exist.

1) In terms of how the wins rate for each Gibbons brother definitely not considering the versions each faced.

2) Not sure the question. Do i think Georges would beat Smith every time they fought or are you asking if Georges is better fighter inside the ropes in a h2h sense against any opponent?

3) In general though, no. Does Kid Cocoa rate higher H2H than Williams since he clean up their series 8-3-1?

1) I Didn't compare the Dillon wins to the Miske wins i said it was a much better win than an old Norfolk which it is.

2) Even if you want to compare it to the Levinsky win, the first time Mike beat Dillon in 1916 Levinsky and Dillon went 2-2 against eachother that same year so it would be comperable.

Also regardless of their h2h results who is the greater LHW overall Levinsky or Dillon? Even if you think Norton won his series with Ali 2-1 if you were Ernie Shavers would you rather hold a win over Norton or Ali?

 

1919 bout between Mike Gibbons and Mike O'Dowd.
Some experts called it a draw, for example, Ray Pearson of Chicago Tribune, who attended the fight. Gibbons injured his right hand in the 6th round, up to that point he probably had a lead in the bout. Even if it were 3 years before Gibbons' final retirement, he was described as not being the Mike of old in this and several previous bouts, speed and timing being worse than they had been.