Could either of the Gibbons bros have beaten Langford?

I consider Tommy the greater of the two, but given Mike was prime at 160lbs, whilst Tommy and Sam were both pre-prime at that weight, then the answer is probably that both "could ", whilst Mike at MW would have the best chance.

Tommy would obviously have the better chance at LHW and HW, but I'd favour a prime Sam more strongly vs Tommy at those weights, than I would a pre-prime Langford vs Mike at MW.

 

I'd say a prime Tommy Gibbons is a 50/5 fight with Sam. I can see multiple fights where each of them takes some wins and losses.

 

Tommy Gibbon's was a top shelf Lightheavyweight. He was elite. He could take massive shots as evident by Dempsey film. So Langford would have a hard time getting a KO. Langford came straight forward with lil movement, Gibbons would give him fits. But Langford could overcome quite a bit. I'm not sure who I would favor here. But Likely Langford would be a dramatic favorite in real life. If Langford could walk through Norfolk then Gibbons he would likely mow down also but he would need some distance like a 20 round bout. Gibbon's would fold eventually I would guess. Langford isn't getting KO'ed that's almost certain. He could get a TKO loss with cuts or something.

I say fight 1 Langford 20W (to me Norfolk is top shelf) Langford proved his style held up against more modern fighters like Kid Norfolk. So never doubt the man. He was just such an athlete he overcame just about anything with the most simplistic style.

To Take Langford out you need elite power & just overwhelm him. Or get luck with Cuts..which is a path to victory as displayed by Fireman Flynn against Langford.

 

Boy, who knows. Gibbons had a chin of granite and underdiscussed punching power to go along with all his skills. Sam is simply one of the very best to ever step inside a ring, though some of that estimation is given weight from lighter divisions. I think it goes the distance is all I can say. And it would be tight. I would favor Sam because there are reasons he is discussed as the GOAT and Tommy really isn't.

 

Mike is being severely undersold here. Its one thing to go on about Tommy having a granite chin but lets not forget Mike was never stopped in his career. Mike also had a deeper resume than Tommy. He has some serious scalps on his belt: Jimmy Clabby, Jeff Smith, Jack Dillon, Eddie McGoorty, Harry Greb, Leo Houck to name a few. When Gibbons beat those guys he usually beat them in dominant fashion. Langford struggled with plenty of fighters at middleweight so I dont see it as a lock that hes beating Mike Gibbons who I think was an overall better fighter than Tommy. Langford would have to bring more to the table than his punching power here because both brothers were extremely tough and two of the slickest defensive fighters in history.

 

Could be. Mike was a small MW though. Tommy so much bigger. Mike was definitely the better athlete being he was a dominant wrestler before he started to box.. So I can see your case

 

Langford won his LHW title in 1911 and thereafter did not fight many LHWs or LHW/HWs. Langfords got about 100 fights against major HW opponents.....but only about 10 against LHW ones. And over half thats his series with Lee Anderson he lost 2-3-1 in the 20s. Langford could win easily or he could lose we really don't have the information to make an educated guess here.

You've got to assume Langford would destroy Mike. Tommys the interesting matchup here.

 

Who ever destroyed Mike? What great middleweights did Langford destroy?

 

At the stages of their careers when they would have had comparable weights, Mike would have been a match for Sam, IMO. Throughout their careers, Minnesota boxing experts credited Mike as being a better fighter than Tommy.

 

He didn't fight them at MW but Ketchel, Schreck and O Brien. Langford knocked out Tiger Flowers when he was old. Young Peter Jackson and George Guntfher are really solid opponents as well.

Nothing wrong with Mike Gibbons his resume just doesn't compare with Tommys. Gibbons started his career 52-0 against mostly good competition.

 

Langord was a heavyweight when he knocked out a relatively green Flowers who is one of the chinniest mw champions in history. So ill take your answer as an agreement that Langford didnt destroy any great MWs or LHWs considering Obrien was WAY past his prime, he never stopped Jackson (who wasnt great anyway and who scored the only stoppage of their series against Langford) and Gunther never saw the day anyone considered him great.

Unless you let Langford come in at 185 and match him with a green or a past his prime half blind Mike, he isnt “destroying” Gibbons.

As for who was better between Mike and Tommy ill leave that to the experts of the day who all considered Mike the much better brother. Among those experts who considered Mike better: Tommy.

 

Their contemporaries had the advantage of watching both live, but not the luxury of seeing their entire career records at the push of a button.

It wouldn't surprise me if Mike appeared more flashy, more skilled even, the more aesthetically pleasing fighter. Their respective records suggest Tommy was an even more effective fighter than Mike, who himself has an ATG record.

There is value in hindsight, if properly applied, Mr. Compton, sir.

 

I would favor Sam Langford over either of them. That is no shame for the Gibbons brothers. Sam was one of the all time greats, the best to never win a Lineal World Championship (in my opinion).

 

Apparently you think nobody had the Gibbons brothers complete record before the last few years and that anyone who can string an argument together is Compton.

So what fights were missing from the Gibbons brothers’ record back then that suddenly changed the prevailing wisdom that Mike was the better fighter? I guess Tommy himself, who as I said considered Mike the better fighter, had missed some of his fights when making that calculation?