I rarely see him mentioned when great middleweights are discussed, he seems to be a bit overlooked these days. He has wins (some of them Newspaper Decisions) over George Chip, Ted Lewis, Leo Houck, Soldier Bartfield, Jack Dillon and Harry Greb to name a few. 133 fights, 10 losses and he was never KO'd. Here's footage of him against Mike O' Dowd [yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRK_wir1GQw&feature=PlayList&p=51FFE04BEC02BE6D&playnext=1&index=17[/yt] And sparring with his brother, Tommy Gibbons [yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JbZ8Mb0MdT8&feature=related[/yt] And his record on boxrec http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11267&cat=boxer&pageID=1 And I don't know why both videos are posted twice. I guess it'd be cool if they hadn't.
Yes Mike Gibbons is a top 10 all time middleweight. He is also the fighter that Gene Tunney claimed he drew on most when developing his style.
That's an incredible record considering the depth of the division at the time and his sheer number of fights.
It is hard to decide on a place given the fog surounding some of his fights but I do think it is fair to say that his masterclass against Jack Dillon was one of the greatest single performances by any fighter of his weight. He not only beat another pound for pound great but gave him a boxing lesson.
Mike and Tommy Gibbons were brothers. Tommy thought that his brother was the more talented of the two though Tommy was obviously a larger fighter in a higher weight class.
cheers for that Janitor ive heard afew people say that a younger brother is always better than an older brother what your guys take
Gene Tunney rated both verry highly. He freely admited to avoiding Tommy but said that Mike was his role model. Tommy Gibbons said that he learned much of his technique from his older brother and saw himself as the understudy. I would be minded to say that Mike was probably slightly the better pound for pound but that he did not get as far in the divisions he campaigned in in part due to the fact that he failed to land some key fights or was avoided by key fighters.
"When Mike Gibbons eliminated the "dancing master," Jake Ahearn, at St. Paul recently by the decisive method of a knockout he clarified the middleweight situation considerably. He also made it very plain what a lead pipe cinch Packey McFarland would have annexing the welterweight title. With Ahearn out, the middleweight fight title now rests among three persons...Al McCoy, Mike Gibbons and Les Darcy, who challenged the winner of the Gibbons-Ahearn bout. McCoy is considered something of a joke, although very few of his foes have ever been able to make him appear laughable. Les Darcy, the new comet of the firmament, is one to whom Gibbons and McCoy owe thanks for having cleared from the title path such formidable obstacles as Jimmy Clabby, Eddie McGoorty and Jeff Smith. Undoubtedly Darcy and Gibbons are the only pair seriously considered, despite McCoy's technical claim to the title. If the Australian and the Twin City star should battle a long fight the winner would undoubtedly be hailed as the world's champion at the weight. McFarland held Gibbons even in their New York meeting. Many gave him the margin. Gibbons knocked out Ahearn and Ahearn held even, or better, the famous Jack Dillon, considered by all the best light heavyweight in the game and by many given a good chance to defeat Willard despite the disparity in their weight and size. This brings McFarland close up to the top of the lot. If he started in to defend the welterweight title there are few that would have the ghost of a chance with him." Brattleboro Daily Reformer, March 7, 1916, p. 4
Gibbons, Darcy, McCall, McFarland, Dillon. Not bad is it? How did Gibbons-Dillon go Janitor, do you know? Ringside seats would have been not to bad for that one.
Some newspaper acounts gave everry single round to Gibbons. Dillon as the Reformer article says, was seen as the top light heavyweight around, and some people were seriously picking him to beat Jess Willard afew months earlier. Here is the NYT acount of the fight. http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=1&res=9E01E0D8143BE633A25752C1A9679D946796D6CF
Thanks for the link. If it's even suggestable that he took every round form Dillon, that's an astonishing result.
Gibbons looked real bad against McFarland, as if he were scared, backing away (one time he plain ran away from opponent) and missing most of his punches, sometimes by a couple of feet, and even when he was landing very few landed clean. He claimed he was hurt by making weight, but then McFarland wasn't at his best either, having been out of the ring for 2 years and lacking confidence that he could go full 10 rounds at fast pace, so he held back. Otherwise Mike could have been totally outclassed. The majority of reporters scored for McFarland.
