Gibbons, Yarosz, or Steele?

Ive seen plenty of Broulliard, Im not speaking out of ignorance here and he simply was neither that good nor that impressive.

 

I think he is much more conventional and orthodox than Fitz. He is one of the most fundamentally sound boxer-punchers (in fact from any style) of that era IMO.

I do not know a lot about the other two guys here, but I do think highly of Steele.

 

How do you justify a statement like that when his proven record contradicts it so thoroughly? Is it possible his style was simply not to your taste?

 

I think you could turn the "weak era" argument on its head and argue it was the toughest era ever. After all, the two men mentioned here, Steele and Yarosz, between them fought Conn, Lesnevich, Moore, Marshall, and Charles at middleweight, five fighters who would dominate the LIGHTHEAVYWEIGHT division from the late thirties into the sixties, plus Conn became the #1 heavyweight contender and gave a prime Louis his toughest fight only three years out of this middleweight division, Charles would actually become heavyweight champion, and Moore also a #1 heavyweight contender.

I don't agree that these men were all that green. Conn and Marshall were already rated fighters. Moore would be rated within a year. Ring Magazine had this to say about Conn in the October 1937 issue, several months before he lost to Yarosz:

"The most skeptical of critics have been won over. They are unanimous in stating that Conn will be the Smoky City's fifth champion in the world's middleweight division, a fighter who is more than likely to be even greater than the other four men, who wore the 160-pound toga--Frank Klaus, George Chip, Harry Greb, and Teddy Yarosz."

Harry Greb and Mickey Walker did remarkably well in the lightheavyweight and heavyweight divisions, but not as well as Conn, Moore, and Charles, who were dominant champions in the higher divisions. The obvious reason is they were taller and rangier than the 5'7' inch Walker and the 5' 8" Greb, and Mike Gibbons at 5' 9" is closer to those men than to the 6 foot or more Conn and Charles, or the 5' 11" Moore.

It has been mentioned that Gibbons helped establish boxing in the upper midwest. That is another reason I would doubt his era was actually stronger. Boxing was still illegal in most of the country. I don't have the exact figures, but Illinois in 1925 became the 22nd state to legalize boxing with it still illegal in 26 states. It barely had a foothold in continental Europe or Latin America. All that had changed by the 1930's. Boxing was not only established thoughout the United States, but in Europe and Latin America. Gibbons is an important pioneer, but I would argue that a mature sport probably trumps one still developing.

And few would argue that the Great Depression and the shredding of the color line didn't lead to an additional influx of talent.

 

This is a comparision of Yarosz with Sugar Ray Robinson's record against champions up to the age of 31, when Yarosz retired, and Robinson retired the first time.

Yarosz:

Tommy Freeman-----won 1
Vince Dundee-----won 3
Ben Jeby-----won 1
Pete Latzo-----won 1
Babe Risko-----won 1, lost 2
Solly Krieger-----won 1
Lou Brouillard-----won 1
Ken Overlin-----won 2
Billy Conn-----won 1, lost 2
Archie Moore-----won 1
Ezzard Charles-----lost 1

Fought-----11 champions

Defeated-----10 champions

Lost to-----3 champions

Never defeated-----1 champion

Won 13, lost 5


Sugar Ray Robinson:

Sammy Angott-----won 3
Fritzie Zivic-----won 2
Marty Servo-----won 2
Jake Lamotta-----won 5, lost 1
Henry Armstrong-----won 1
Kid Gavilan-----won 2
Bobo Olson-----won 2
Randy Turpin-----won 1, lost 1
Rocky Graziano-----won 1
Joey Maxim-----lost 1

Fought----10 champions

Defeated-----9 champions

Lost to------3 champions

Never defeated-----1 champion

Won 19, lost 3


*Considering Yarosz is being compared here to the consensus best p4p fighter ever, he stacks up pretty well. He actually defeated more champions to the same age, and lost to the same number. The double losses to Risko and Conn pull him down, but many didn't agree with the Conn decisions, and he suffered a severe leg injury which grossly hampered him against Risko in both of his losses. After a operation fixed his problem, he defeated Risko. Yarosz won his last fight with all ten champions he defeated. No one "figured him out" or "had his number" among this group. His loss to Charles came at the end when he was obviously slipping.

 

Whoa wait a minute, Greb wasnt as dominant at LHW as Conn, Moore, or Charles? Even Conn would admit that Greb had a greater LHW resume.

From 1917 on Greb defeated every future or past LHW champ that would get into the ring with him multiples times: claiment Bob Moha, Jack Dillon, Battling Levinsky, Mike McTigue, Tommy Loughran, Maxie Rosenbloom, and Jimmy Slattery. The other champions in the division during that time period: Carpentier, Siki, Berlenbach, and Delaney all turned down career high paydays (Carpentier's fight with Greb wouldnt have been a career high, that would have been Dempsey, but it would have been second only to the mammoth Dempsey payday and not by a whole lot either) in order NOT to face Greb. In the case of Siki, Carpentier, and Delaney they turned down numerous fights with Greb. That is essentially a 20 year run of champions (1914 t 1934) that Greb could claim defeats over. His record against those guys was Dillon 2-0, Levinsky 6-0, McTigue 2-0, Moha 6-0, Loughran 4-1-1 (both the draw and loss were heavily disputed), Slattery 1-0, and Rosenbloom 1-0. Take into account further that he barely lost a round against those guys in all of their fights. Furthermore of those champions he defeated listed above Dillon, Levinsky, Loughran, Slattery, and Rosenbloom are all in the hall of fame. Now, we all know that champions, particularly in that era are not always the best fighters so if you examine his fights with contenders you will see that during that same time period he fought and defeated such contenders as Gus Christie (3-0), Kid Norfolk (0-1-1 who was actually fighting as a HW in their first fight), Billy Miske (1-1-1 or 2-0-1 depending on the sources), Tommy Gibbons (2-2), Gene Tunney (officially 2-3 but according to ringside sources its more like 3-2), Clay Turner (6-0), Bob Roper (6-0), Billy Shade (2-0), Jimmy Delaney (3-0), and Tony Marullo (2-0). Of those guys 4 are in the hall of fame and he suffered only 5 to 6 losses in 32 fights. And this is from a guy who was not a legitimate LHW and who has a stacked record across both middleweight and HW during this same period, and a middleweight division that was as deep as at any time in history.

 

I'd say Gibbons does, given his greater durability, consistency, and longevity at the top level. Yarosz's two losses to Risko while smack dab in his prime years prevented him from achieving his full potential, while Steele's career was effectively ended by one bad beating from Apostoli. Plus I'd say Gibbons probably has the best resume of the three as well, if you count his newspaper decisions.

I'd say any of them could. As it is, Gibbons was credited with beating Greb.