How good was the Gibbons who fought Dempsey ?

No one who fought Dempsey was that good. In relevance to Dempseys opposition rate him as highly as you like.

 

it is a good question, and i too would like to hear what Klompton thinks on the topic. Perhaps i could bait him by suggesting that Gibbons, on his best day, was just slightly better than Harry Greb:good

 

he, I am not Klompton ,but if anyone on ESB, wants to have an idea of the true ability of Tommy Gibbons, please if you can see the film of the 34 year old Tommy Gibbons flatten
Jack Bloomfield in London,circa 1924-25. As I have posted I saw this film last year on youtube, and I was ASTOUNDED by Tommy Gibbons punching combinations wothy of an Archie Moore,easily... Folks,see this clip, and you will know how good was Tommy Gibbons,
and how astounding the smaller Harry Greb was !!! ONE PICTURE IS WORTH A THOUSAND WORDS !!!

 

Good enough to have decisively beaten a still-dangerous Billy Miske shortly beforehand, and good enough to have remained a leading contender (rated behind only Wills) with decisive wins over Carpentier and Kid Norfolk over the next year or so afterward. Which is to say, pretty good.

 

Well, it proved he didn't always knock them out, and could win over the distance against a good skillful boxer. If you watch the full fight you ought to be impressed by Dempsey's stamina and work-rate over 15 rounds too - contrary to his reputation and a short-fight fighter.
It showed Dempsey was a bit rusty, his timing off for much of the fight, but in hindsight the fact that he comes straight off a 2-year layoff to beat an active contender like that is quite impressive.

 

Reading Jason Kelly's Shelby's Folly, I would suggest as hard as Gibbons trained for that fight, quite early on in their bout, it was obvious that Tommy was going to do well just to here the final bell, such was the gulf in their abilities.

 

Miske was dying of Brights disease and Dempsey wouldn't fight Norfolk. Im not totally dismissing Dempsey, but lets not over rate things either.

 

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6uDuNfZGC7g[/ame]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLpjNT9ph18&feature=related[/ame]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tG7GU342Fro&feature=related[/ame]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9Af2Brx8VI&feature=related[/ame]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0g0tQpVii4&feature=related[/ame]


THANKS TO rsmorodinov

 

Yet despite his illness, no one else had been able to beat Miske in about 20 fights or so since losing to Dempsey, and he'd KO'd other contenders like Fred Fulton (in 1 round), Jack Renault, and Charley Weinert in that time. He was still good enough around that time that Wills declined to fight him.

I don't see what your point about Norfolk is.

 

Do we chalk this up to a great fighter or a weak era though?

My point about Norfolk is that Dempsey missed a lot of very good fighters in comparison to who he actually fought during his championship.

 

A very good LHW, arguably as good as Greb but not much worse than the version Tunney knocked out. Still he only weighed 175lbs and was clearly not strong enough to hold his own

 

This is a little off topic, PP, but how strong a challenger do you think a very good light heavyweight really is (i am generalising i know).

With the exception of Bob Foster, nearly every single very good light heavyweight who has ever fought for the heavyweight title has been a very, very good challenger.

Examples from older times are obviously better, such as Fitz, Conn, Burns, Tunney, Charles, Moore etc. But even in modern times, it was the light heavy champ Spinks who ended all time great Larry Holmes. And Light heavy champ (if you can even call him that good) Moorer beat Holyfield, Even today the former light heavy champ Adamek has as good a chance at beating a Klitchsko as anyone. So my question, is how good a challenger was that very good 175 lber? I tend to think that if he was very good, it is a good win.

Incidentally just touching on the Adamek situation, (getting further off topic). A win for him, certainly makes things very very interesting in todays time. Our heavyweight Champions two losses will be to a light heavyweight. And if Hopkins beats Dawson and then drops weight and beats Bute, it will be a light heavy who has just been beaten by a middleweight Champion! Either way, Adamek v Dawson or Adamek v Hopkins could be absolutely huge fights that take us way back to the bast. As unlikely as it is, i really hope Adamek beats klitchsko. I think it would spice up todays scene massively.

 

Food for thought no doubt.