Miske and T. Gibbons

Gibbons seemed to be very highly regarded in his time. Miske less so although he may have fought a higher level of competition.

The long KO streaks and the fact that he rarely lost and even then only to the best probably made Gibbons more higher rated in his time. He did not face opponents like Jack Dillon, Battling Levinsky, O'Dowd, a prime Norfolk, Fulton or Brennan as frequently as Miske though.

 

Great A, Who was more highly regarded between Billy Miske and Tommy Gibbons ? Hard to say, but Gibbons as a lightheavyweight,was more well known. You and others I think have short changed Tommy Gibbons ko over Kid Norfolk in 1924 ,because Kid Norfolk was not in his "prime". Well i have read other posters also making such a claim,so I decided to check certain
bits of information. In 1924, when Tommy Gibbons kod Kid Norfolk, Tommy Gibbons born in 1891 was 33 years old,and was no spring chicken. Kid
Norfolk was born in 1893,and at age 31 years of age, Norfolk was Thirty One years old. And in Norfolk's last14 bouts prior to the Gibbons bout, won 13 of the 14 bouts ,including a 1rd ko of Tiger Flowers, ko of Jamaica Kid,
and was in a foul laced war with Harry Greb. So all in all ,the older Gibbons stopping the younger Norfolk in 1924, was a feather in Tommy Gibbons
hat,and Tommy should get the proper credit for his ko of esteemed Kid Norfolk, wouldn't you think so ? Gibbons at his best, to me is in the top 7 or so Lightheavies of alltime. He could do it all...

 

Norfolk was flattened in one round in his next fight which makes me think he wasn't quite the man he used to be. It has been said that Gibbons did not fancy taking him on earlier.

 

That is conjecture about Gibbons not taking Norfolk on earlier . The fact remains an older frayed Tommy Gibbons, stopped a younger Kid Norfolk,and Tommy Gibbons was only stopped but ONCE in 106 fights, by a PRIME Gene Tunney,one year later in 1925, for Gibbons last fight. We must give Gibbons his due, i should think...Cheers...

 

Remember though, how good Gibbons looked against Bloomfield only two months earlier. He had some fight left in him and was recognized as a top heavyweight contender. He put up a game effort against Tunney. Gibbons's left hand was still potent although his stamina was not what it was, especially with Tunney's consistent attack to the body. I think Gibbons, despite being a couple of years older, was at a better stage in his career than Norfolk.

Not that Gibbons couldn't beat Norfolk even in their primes. But we must agree that such a match-up never took place as both fighters had seen their best by their actual fight.

 

Yes such a match-up between Gibbons and Norfolk never took place when they were younger. Not at all. And yes Norfolk might have decisioned Gibbons [I doubt it though], it was possible, but GA the fact remains that Tommy Gibbons ONE year after taking powerful punches from a prime Dempsey [claimed bumps all over his head],was able to ko a younger
fighter Kid Norfolk,speaks for itself.

 

gibbons was easily the better fighter. hell they fought several times at all stages of their careers and tommy owned miske. the only time miske beat him was on a bogus dq in a bout tommy had dominated.

 

gibbons ducked norfolk for years. as early as 1916/17 promoters were trying to match them but gibbons wanted no part of it. i think its an intriguing match.

 

Is the consensus that Mike was the better of the Gibbons'? Obviously completely different fighters, but was the smaller brother definitely the more accomplished?

 

yes even tommy would have admitted mike was better. mike was superb.

 

Confirms my suspicions, thanks.

 

Tommy ,not as skillfull [who was ?], but bigger,and had the better equalizer-the punch.

 

K, I yield to you on this. But as in the case of Burley/ Robinson, we will never know,but the fact remains a 2 year older Gibbons, kod Kid Norfolk.