Battling Levinsky rates Tommy Gibbons as the best/cleverest boxer he ever faced

Dempsey looked better than Gibbons for the vast majority of the fight.
It was like a terrier mauling a cat who keeps wriggling free.
Gibbons had skills, but he looked overwhelmed in there for the most of 15 rounds.

 

I've gotta say, I discovered the gibbon's brothers at the same time. So I didn't have any pre-conceptions regarding them.

I have tommy in the 17-20 range as a lhw.

I have mike in the 24-34 range as a mw.

I think that whilst mike was established first, tommy was the greater brother.

Victories over miske, levinsky, greb, carpentier, chip, norfolk, murray etc. Losing only as a prime fighter to greb, miske and dempsey.

In an era of who's who in the lhw division tommy held his own and were he able to defeat tunney he'd be a lock for my top ten.

 

Like I said, "didn't look that comfortable". Also "divides opinions". Most of the opinions stating that Dempsey looked bad in the fight have more to do with the fact that he was the younger HW 'panther' fighting an older LHW and as such was expected to crush Gibbons in a blink. The fact that Gibbons only genuine losses were against prime versions of Greb and Tunney (besides that DQ against Miske), seem to be thrown out of the window as soon as you hear HW, LHW, 28 & 32. Tommy seems to be respected but always slightly underestimated (specially when it comes to the Dempsey fight).

 

George Chip weighs in:

"Tom would deviate from boxing and fight you, but Mike, he was a master. He studied you out and never let you get loaded to discharge. Just when you about worked yourself into a position to let go, he would reach out with the left and shove your right shoulder and off balance you'd go. And again he might stick out his right and shove your left shoulder- and off you'd go again. You could not get set to discharge on him." --New Castle News, 2/4/1943

For what it's worth :smoke

 

Nice piece.:good
I think Mike himself criticized Tommy for 'straying' from the St. Paul school and fighting more than he should once in a while.

 

Very interesting quote by George Chip on Mike Gibbons...He was so HIGHLY regarded by everyone in his time as a master boxer...Having never seen any of his bouts on film, I envision Mike Gibbons to be an earler and MORE GIFTED edition of the MW boxer Joey Archer, who outslicked the powerful Dick Tiger in 1964...

 

Indeed.

I think Jock Malone was probably the greatest pupil/exponent of Gibbons' St. Paul School:

http://boxrec.com/media/index.php?title=Human:13663

Too bad he came along in the era that produced Mickey Walker and Tiger Flowers or he may have become champ.

 

Gibbons and Rosenbloom are horribly underrated ATGs.

 

There's a two minutes clip of one of his fights with Mike O'Dowd on harrygreb.com (or used to at least). Beautifully shot I might add.

 

It's interesting to note that the way to offset the "St.Paul School" seems to be by swarming and punch output. Walker and Flowers beat Jock Malone the same way in which Greb beat Mike Gibbons years earlier- constant pressure, keep opponent on the defensive and never let him get set.

Tiger Flowers fought that way anyway, but I wonder if Walker took a cue from Greb after Malone laced him in their first fight (1922)

 

I think Tommy is one of those fighters who are respected but underestimated. A lot people put him somewhere on their list based on his record but take him down a few pegs cause he doesn't look too 'flashy' on video, or cause he was not the biggest 'paper seller' of his time.

 

Agreed.

I feel Flowers is in that same sort of great but underappreciated group as well.

 

You know how difficult it is to fight a southpaw....Well Tiger Flowers WAS a southpaw,and in addition threw punches [ala Greb] tirelessly for an entire bout...A difficult package to beat for anyone...Only one man had his number...The great Jack Delaney flattened Tiger flowers three times in two bouts with right crosses...