Record wise, which of the two Gibbons brothers do you rank higher in your p4p all time list? Here's some stats: Fights against World Champions: Mike Gibbons: 15 Tommy Gibbons: 15 Wins against World Champions: Mike Gibbons: 12 Tommy Gibbons: 11 World Champions beaten: Mike Gibbons: 9 Tommy Gibbons: 6 Fights against HOF's: Mike Gibbons: 15 Tommy Gibbons: 14 Wins against HOF's: Mike Gibbons: 10 Tommy Gibbons: 8 HOF''s beaten: Mike Gibbons: 6 Tommy Gibbons: 5 World Title Fights: Mike Gibbons: 0 Tommy Gibbons: 1 Career KO victories: Mike Gibbons: 38 Tommy Gibbons: 48 Career Fights Record: Mike Gibbons: 112-12-8 Tommy Gibbons: 97-5-3 Who you got ahead?
I think your 2 x career defeats for Mike is a typo & should be 12. I have Mike #6 all time at MW, which is higher than any division I rank Tommy in, #11 at LHW being his highest. That said, I only factor in fights contested in around that weight for my divisional rankings. Mike was pretty much a career MW, whereas Tommy did notable work at MW, LHW & even HW. I think Tommy Gibbons has a decent shout as being one of the most underrated boxers of all time. He's clearly ahead of Mike, P4P, factoring in their entire career records, imo. I rank Tommy #4 & Mike #7 p4p in the 1910's, based solely on fights contested in that decade. Based purely on their fights in the 1910's: Record - Mike = 72-8-4; Tommy = 47-0-2 Losses - Mike = Jimmy Clabby avenged (1-1-1), Jack McCarron 6R NWS avenged (1-1), Eddie McGoorty avenged (2-1), 7lbs lighter Soldier Bartfield avenged x 3 (3-1), smaller Packey McFarland in his final fight post a 2-year retirement, Harry Greb (1-1) & Mike O'Dowd age 32; Tommy = 0 Key wins - Mike = Harry Greb (1-1), Jack Dillon x 2, Al McCoy, Jeff Smith (2-1), the smaller Soldier Bartfield (3-1), George Chip x 3, smaller Ted Kid Lewis, Leo Houck x 2, Bob Moha DQ, Young Ahearn, Willie KO Brennan x 2, Eddie McGoorty (2-1), Gus Christie x 4; Tommy = Harry Greb, 15lbs heavier Battling Levinsky, Billy Miske (2-0-1), Willie KO Brennan, Buck Grouse, Gus Christie x 4 (he must have hated these brothers), George Chip x 5 (likewise), Clay Turner x 2 & Bob Moha Their win resumes for the decade are both extremely impressive, without much to chose between them. What separates them in the decade for me, just, is Tommy's consistency. That's an extraordinary run of fights to come out of unbeaten. What further separates them is their respective records in the 1920's. Mike had a few nice wins, as well as some losses, in the 25 x fights he contested in the 1920's, but didn't come close to making my top 25 fighters of the decade. Whereas I rank Tommy #11 based only on fights contested in the 1920's. He went 50-5-1 in the 20's & beat Harry Greb, again, HW Willie Meehan, Kid Norfolk, George Carpentier, Clay Turner twice more (who outweighed him by 11lbs & 6lbs respectively), Billy Miske again (who outweighed him by 13.5lbs) and HW Porky Dan Flynn.
Yes it was a typo, it's 12 and not 2. Sorry for the mistake. All good now on post. You made interesting points, thank you for the reply. In the stats considering Champions and HOF's faced and beaten, there is no great difference between the two if one view each of those stats individually. Even so, Mike edges his brother in all those stats but one, that ended in a draw. If one join togheter all Champs and HOF's stats between them, than the difference between them starts to look bigger, favoring Mike again. Considering title fights, Tommy had one title fight against Jack Dempsey that he lost on points and Mike had no title fights. Again, there's a small difference between them, favoring Tommy on this one off course. Considering KO's achieved in they're careers and although this stat is relative, Tommy edges his brother although Tommy himself was not a KO artist. The only advantage Mike have over his brother in KO's, is that he beaten 2 undefeated fighters by KO (Bob McCallister in 1914 and Roy Moore in 1908) while Tommy only beaten 1 (Tommy Nelson in 1912). Again, a small and almost irrelevant difference. Till here, the difference between them is close, which for p4P purposes, one can say that Tommy's edge over his brother relies in the fact that he fought in more divisions than Mike, off course. That said, what makes me to put Mike slightly higher than Tommy, is the stats regarding Champions and HOF's faced and beaten (specially if combined together) and the year of 1921. In that year, Mike cameback to the rings after a 17 month "layoff" (which was amazing for a 32/33 year old fighter back in the days) and still got wins over Mike O'Dowd (revenge of the 1919 bout), Dave R o s e n b e r g, Gus Platts, Eddie McGoorty, Jeff Smith and Battling Ortega, finishing the "comeback" year at the age of 33 with a year record of 19-2. If one makes a p4p list of that year alone, Mike - in my opinion and criteria - would be a solid top 5 of the year, entering in the discussion along with Harry Greb, Johnny Dundee, Benny Leonard and Rocky Kansas, although without a single title fight. Tommy had more than 20 fights in that same year but the level of opposition is not close to the one's Mike faced. I have both brothers many times in the Year p4p top 10 along they're careers. Continuing in the 1920's, one have to say that Tommy Gibbons also had an impressive 1920 (1-1 against Harry Greb on top of wins over Ray Turner and Boy McCormick), and a very strong 1924 (Carpentier, Bloomfield and Kid Norfolk mixed with a few wins over debutans), although by this time he was about to retire, which only contributes to give more credit to the great Tommy. Tommy was younger and fought more years in the 1920's than Mike, but although this is true, Mike's 1921 alone on top of all the work that he built against champions and all time greats in the 1910's (although he started his career in 1907 but with no significant fights in the early years), give - for me - a slight edge over his brother. To be franc, I have both very close in my all time list..very close indeed. 1916 was also a special year for Mike (wins over Young Ahearn in a Middleweight World Title claim that didn't came to fruition, along with wins over Ted Kid Lewis, Jeff Smith and Jack Dillon) and the same for Tommy in 1915, which he ended with only 3 fights but all with wins over Harry Greb, Billy Miske and Bill Murray. 1917 was a good year for both brothers. Mike finished the year with wins over Harry Greb, Jack Dillon and George Chip and Tommy's finished the year with wins over Battling Lewinsky, George Chip and Bob Moha. 1911 and 1912 saw Mike facing tough opposition with different outcomes (1st fight against Eddie McGoorty, Jeff Smith, Young Erne, Willie Lewis, Jimmy Clabby, the tough Jack Denning and also the tough Gus Christie, among others). One can go almost year by year comparing the both, and it will be very tough to rate one over the other for 2 consecutive years between 1913 and 1921 (not including 1920 because Mike was out of the rings that year). It's a close call for me, and I give the Champs and HOF's stats the factor that gives Mike a slight edge over Tommy. Peace
No problem and no need to apologise. Excellent post. Clearly criteria is key to ranking. We are probably applying different criteria to one another. I respect your opinion, its clearly formed from detailed research, excellent knowledge and careful consideration. As I said, imo, their win resumes in the 1910's are comparable, whilst Tommy was more dominant, going unbeaten. Take a look again at the wins I listed for him in that decade. A 47-0-2 run against that competition is one of the finest runs in boxing history, imo. Mike's win resume is equally as impressive, but he had those 8 losses too. Tommy edges the 10's imo. The 1920's, taken as a whole, are a no contest between the 2, with Tommy well ahead. I'm comfortable that Tommy is clearly ahead, p4p, by my eye, but it's all about opinions, so it's cool you see it differently.
Tommy admitted that Mike was the better fighter, in every sense, and he was right. Mike was a better fighter, more highly regarded, and more important in a historical sense.
