Ive developed a lot of interest about these boxers. I'd like to hear from people on here that know there stuff about these two. I'd like to know if they would fit into the 60's 70's and who u think is the better boxer.
Gibbons was the better of the two and much more fluid and inventive. Loughran was a great textbook technician but not as creative in the ring as Gibbons. Gibbons just had that little something extra. I think Loughran is a little overrated today. That being said he could really handle himsself and was the kind of guy who could really give anyone problems but he had some really troubling "off" nights. His fights with Stribling, Roland Todd, Mctigue, and others leave the impression that he might have been the kind of guy who fought down to his level of opposition while he was still developing. His best years were 1925-1929 but his competition during that period while good wasnt really great. He didnt really have a great opponent to bring out the best in him. Lomski and Walker were his best. Guys like Slattery and McTigue had been pretty well exposed by that point, Latzo was limited and awfully small and Jimmy Braddock was absolutely horrible in that fight. One of the worst title challengers youll ever see. I wouldnt have wanted to fight him in Philly. He got some home cooking there. Some of the wins he notched past his prime show how good he was.
I really don't know much about Mike Gibbons. Tommy Gibbons is perhaps best remembered for going 15 rounds with Jack Dempsey in Shelby, Montana in 1923. He was a very clever boxer, durable, and had a long and distinguished career even though he never won a championship. Tommy Loughran was a consummate boxer and held the light heavyweight title for a couple years in the late 1920s. Nat Fleischer rated him #4 all-time as a LHW. He was only stopped twice in a long and distinguished career and that was after he had relinquished the LHW crown and began campaigning as a heavyweight. He reversed those stoppages, to Jack Sharkey and Steve Hamas, via decisions later. While he was a master boxer, he lacked a stiff punch, so most of his bouts went the distance. In Peter Heller's book "In This Corner" Loughran told of setting up mirrors on all walls in the basement so that he could see how he looked from all possible angles. He did this as an exercise in putting himself into his opponent's place in order to tighten up his defense and correct any flaws. Reportedly he injured his right hand or arm early in his career which accounted for the lack of a Sunday punch and more emphasis on defense. In Heller's book, Loughran also relates an incident where James J. Corbett paid him a high compliment by telling him that he always enjoyed coming to his fights and watching him do things in the ring that Corbett used to dream of. When Loughran asked him what he meant, Corbett replied that he only had twenty-something fights, while Loughran had over 200. His last LHW defense was a decision win against James J. Braddock, the future Cinderella Man. In spite of his KO loss to Sharkey in his early bout as a heavyweight, he did well in scoring a clear decision over Max Baer. After that bout, Baer came into his dressing room, grabbed Loughran's left hand and shouted "Show me how you do that with your left!" Loughran later gave Baer some tips. By the time Tommy got a heavyweight title fight, he was past his best and he was up against Primo Carnera. Their weight differential was 81 pounds, a record for weight disparity in a HW title fight. Loughran figured that Carnera would try to use his weight advantage in the contest, so just before the fight he slapped a handful of the most sickeningly sweet-smelling hair gel on the top of his head. When Carnera would lean on him, Tommy would stick his head as close as he could get it to Carnera's nose. Tommy laughed at the pictures of his head up against Primo with a real disgusted look on Carnera's face. Carnera won the fight (W15). Tommy saw two of his previous scalps win the heavy title - Baer followed by Braddock. After his boxing career ended, Tommy did some refereeing (I believe he refereed the first Moore-Durelle LHW title fight). He also worked as a sugar broker. On a personal note, in his later years I sent a photo to him, asking him to autograph it for me. He did, sending it back with a note on the back apologizing for his penmanship being a little shaky due to circulation problems. As he was in the ring and out, Tommy Loughran was a true gentleman and class act. As to who was the better boxer, I cannot say as I am not that familiar with Mike Gibbons' style. Both were standouts in very competitive eras, so I feel they would have done very well in any era.
Loughran was the quintessential technician. A guy you can describe as having the best jab—ever—and not get laughed at. An all-time great light heavyweight and more than carried his own at heavyweight. The Young Stribling losses have always bothered me. Loughran was in his very early 20s and fought some GREAT guys from 1923-1925 but, given his average weight, seemed to still be growing into a full light heavyweight.
What are the details in Gibbons stoppage victory over Kid Norfolk .. both were older at that point .. was the Kid totally shot ? Did Gibbons simply out perform him ?
Mike never fought Norfolk. His brother Tommy did. I'm sure you just misread the title (I did the same thing). Mike was obviously never big enough to handle that ****ing monster.
Norfolk was shot and half blind. Starting in 1917 promoters regularly tried to match Gibbons and Norfolk and Gibbons never wanted anything to with it. It was a well known fact he wanted none of Norfolk's game. He finally agreed to fight Norfolk when it was common knowledge that Norfolk was rapidly fading.
Hard to say who was the better boxer. Two very different styles, and they were each among the best at the styles in which they fought. Gibbons fought with his hands at his waist and used head movement and foot shifts as lynch pins for his defense. This enabled him to be ready to deliver leveraged counterblows quickly. If he could avoid punches with head movement and simple foot shifts he could remain in range to land telling counterblows. If the milling got too rough or if he found himself off balance or out of position, he would bail out and use foot speed to jump suddenly out of range. This tactic was particularly effective because he made a point of using it only as a last resort when he had to. I believe the combination of head movement with foot shifts and the occasional "fadeaway" was the reason he was called "the Phantom." He also knew how to fight in close, land a few uppercuts, and tie a fighter up if he had to. Loughran relied on a high guard and quick footwork. He knew how to judge distance and he could move left or right with equal facility. He had an excellent jab and a quick right, but he was always moving so consequently he didn't score many knockouts as Gibbons because he didn't set himself when he punched. He had excellent hand speed and very quick reactions which allowed him to parry blows as well as anyone I have ever seen. I confess that to me Gibbons was the more interesting and balanced fighter. I may be prejudiced so take my observations with a grain of salt. He had a much higher knockout percentage and consequently his fights probably were more interesting because you didn't know what to expect. Just my prejudice. We only have two films to judge him by -- his fights with Packey MacFarland and Mike O'Dowd. I see this is an old thread, but I just came across it. I apologize for dredging it up, but the topic moved me to put in my two cents worth.
