I've seen many people here judge Harris solely for his fight with Emile Griffith, as if he was exposed by Griffith and was all hype. I think that's unfair, since Harris proved he was a great fighter before the Griffith fight by defeating a middleweight top contender in Stanley Hayward and the current welterweight champion at the time in Curtis Cokes. These aren't ATG victories, but I think it's more than enough to prove that Gypsy Joe Harris wasn't just some hype train that looked good against bums and got exposed once he made the big leagues. Plus, there's no shame in losing to Emile Griffith. Thoughts?
I actually think hes a little overrated. He was an interesting and entertaining character but his wins over Hayward and Cokes should be taken into context. Hayward hadnt fought in a year. His previous fight had been a win over Bennie Briscoe but he had taken such a beating in the closing rounds that after the fight he began to hallucinate and scream wildly in the dressing room. He was rushed to the hospital and found to have a severe concussion. This is what caused his long layoff. Taking on such an unorthodox opponent in his first fight out after such an experience was a bad miscalculation and when he was cut early in the fight it further threw him off. Hayward was very vain and whenever he was cut he would simply stop fighting to win in order to protect his features. He told me this personally himself and the same thing happened when he fought Freddie Little for the title, was cut, and just went on the defensive and basically gave away the fight. Knowing that his fight with Harris was a non-title fight Cokes took the fight lightly and seemed to not really be trying his best. Several of the newspapers note this and stated that whenever Cokes actually looked to be trying he was the one in charge. By the time Harris was going to get a title shot he had basically grown out of the WW division and I dont see him being able to defeat the top guys at 154 and 160. Harris had hellacious fights with guys who werent anywhere near the best in any of the divisions he fought. Combine that with his terrible dedication to the sport, absolutely abysmal training and diet, and his struggles with weight and I just dont see him going much further. Griffith pretty much dominated him by not falling for any of Harris' schtick. I think the top fighters would likewise be too savvy for his tricks.
Unfortunately we'll never truly know, he never got the opportunity to prove any of us right or wrong.
I first heard of Gypsy Joe after his upset of Curtis Cokes in their non-title bout. He was an unorthodox, quirky, yet entertaining character. He was a highly rated contender for a time and I don't recall of hearing much of him after the Griffith fight. If I remember correctly, he retired from boxing after it came to light that he was blind in one eye. And I heard that he was the first to notice that Joe Frazier was also blind in one eye. Reportedly he privately told Joe something like it takes a blind fighter to notice another blind fighter and this was when Frazier was still fighting and it was largely unknown that Frazier had any eye troubles.
I'd like to actually see the Cokes fight so we can see if it was a fluke win or a legit victory by Harris.
I dont think it was a fluke. I think he legitimately beat him. I just dont know if he could have done it at 147 over 15 rounds. He'd only ever made 147 or below one time in his career and by the time he was ready for a title shot he was struggling to even make 154.
We've never seen Harris go 15, he was so early into his career when he retired. He probably would've lost at that time, but who knows, by the 1970s he could've been a top contender. I think that beating Cokes proves he probably could've hung with the top, and that win was early in his career.
I dont. I view him as more of an Emmanuel Augustus type. Talented, unorthodox, entertaining but ultimately not world class.
