How good was he ? I've read a myriad of opinions from excellent to past his best and I am asking those in the know was he a James Toney caliber guy when he fought Dempsey ofr at best a decent, blown up light heavy with a padded record at heavyweight ?
Some time ago I looked into Tommy and was impressed. He had wins over Greb, Billy Miske, Battling Levinsky and George Carpentier. And managed to avoid getting wiped out by Jack Dempsey, no small feat for the time. I believe he would have surprised a lot of historically good fighters from 160 to 175.
I think Tommy Gibbons is one of the most underrated boxers of all time, from a p4p perspective. He had a remarkable start to his career. In the 1910's he went 47-0-2, beating Harry Greb, 15lbs heavier Battling Levinksy, Billy Miske x 2, Willie KO Brennan, Buck Grouse, Gus Christie x 4, George Chip x 5, Clay Turner x 2 and Bob Moha. That's an absurdly good record. His record in the 1920's isn't bad either, 50-5-1. His only defeats were to Greb x 2, the bigger Dempsey, Tunney & a DQ loss. His wins in the 20's included beating Greb again, as well as HW's Billy Miske, Willie Meehan & Porky Dan Flynn, LHWs Kid Norfolk and Georges Carpentier. He also beat the 6 & 11-lbs heavier Clay Turner another two times (by then Turner was technically a HW himself). As for your question, going into the Dempsey fight, Tommy was 32, so he may have just begun to slip, but there isn't much in his record to suggest that he'd slipped significantly. Greb had started to get the better of Gibbons by then, but I think that had more to do with Greb getting better than Tommy slipping substantially. Gibbons was otherwise undefeated going into the Dempsey, aside from a DQ loss to Billy Miske, who Gibbons beat in a rematch. Tommy was never any bigger than a LHW, naturally. I think he was a decent contender for the HW title then, though Wills and Greb had better claims.
He was quite a lot better than "decent". He was a great lightheavy. And handled himself very well against bigger opponents. When you are considered one of the founders of a whole school of boxing, that says a lot. Of course, Dempsey was a bridge too far in terms of quality. Even at that, Jack felt the need to foul incessantly, leaving Tommy black and blue below the waist. The ever sanguine @klompton2 has a deep knowledge of the era and Gibbons in particular. He could chime in with some real insight.
Price basically said it all. Definitely an ATG. Gene Tunney waited for him to deteriorate before finally fighting him in 1925. Both he and his brother are criminally underrated.
Sanguine ... LOL. That aside I've read the accounts that Norfolk was shot when they fought and that Gibbons stiffs lat n his career for most part but others claim he was a terrific fighter .. I'm just curious what sort if win was he for a highly inactive Dempsey ?
He was a name. Not an outstanding heavyweight but the division was a bit moribund at the time, especially once you remove the fighters of darker complexion. Gibbons lost to Greb in what was to be a challenge eliminator.
Judging from his training footage in the leadup for Dempsey, as well as his very impressive showing in the Bloomfield fight, I'd say it's reasonable to say Gibbons still had something left in the tank at this stage.
