Is Tommy Gibbons a top-20 LB4LB Great?

I have to say, leaving out the man who was the best light heavyweight in the world between 1890 and 1905 (15 years), is pretty bold decision, imo.

And your number 2, which light heavys, did he actually fight (when he himself was a light heavyweight)? In 1907, he dropped a decision to light heavy Jim Barry, and over the next year or two, he seemed to get some points decisions over him. By 1913, Sam was a heavyweight. Up until 1910, Sam was predominantly a middleweight, though he started to fight some heavyweights. I didnt really manage to pick out any decent light heavys on his resume, although Ketchell might suffice (a 6 rnd newspaper decision). It is unclear on his record, but it really does seem like Sam virtually skipped the light heavyweight division. He was obviously a very good middleweight, and would have beat many of the best light heavys, as a middleweight, but the problem was, he couldnt even beat all the best middleweights. I think you have Langford too high at the weight.

Of course, these weights are garnered mostly from Boxrec, and we all no Langford was a great. But at light heavy, the best he did was beat some average heavyweight contenders and some middleweights. How is this possibly a top 2 fighter, when Fitzsimmons cant crack the top 10, despite being a class above every other light heavyweight from his era, for a much much longer period of time.

 

Correct.

But, if you held the World heavyweight championship (and you weighed less than 175 when you did it, you were really the best light heavyweight champion). In reality, when Fitz beat Joe Choynski he pretty much beat the best light heavyweight in the world. Fitz was only a middleweight, but i cannot think of a better fighter in the world at the time, who was a light heavyweight.

Fitz was 40 when he won the light heavy title, but does that not increase his claims? If he could beat the best light heavy in his 40s, what would he have done against the best guys in his prime. Unlike Langford, Fitz actually fought every single fight at or below light heavy (including his heavyweight victories). Langford on the other hand, didnt really start to get his sensational record going until he actually moved to heavyweight himself.

 

I agree with Boilermaker. I rate Fitz slightly higher than Langford, not only as a Light Heavy, but pound for pound as well.

 

Tommy Gibbons did not hide behind the color line. Props to that.

 

Fair enough, I have no problem with not considering lists. It is probably best, since these careers have so many uncertainties. I also agree with the point of the thread, Gibbons is underated, but so are many others. I dont think he is a top 20 P4P fighter.

 

It should be mentioned Norfolk was past his prime when Gibbons beat him. In fact, Norfolk was blind in one eye.

 

I like that list very much, especially the high placings of Johnson and Lewis. Where do you rate Fitz and O´Brian, just out of curiosity?

 

With the colour line it is an argument. But you have to look if there were any deserving fighters that truly were activly "ducked" or if there just weren´t any or if it was just the circumstances preventing the fights. I think with Loughran it was a mix of those two things, I´m not too sure about Loughran though.

 

He indeed is. But nevertheless he was and still is a **** and shouldn´t be in aTop10, not even as a joke. Top30 could be argued I think but not higher. In the 90s there were at least 3 lhws better and greater than him.

 

Yeah but since that division did not exist, we can´t rank these for lhw.

There is some truth in it.

 

If I remember right, Klaus was already much past it when Gibbons beat him.