How good was he? When was he in his prime? His best performances were against who? Did he fulfil his potential? How does he fare in today's era? Where do you rank him in his division (s) overall?
A very good fighter at his best, but also a clearly flawed and frustrating one. i'd say he's one of the more interesting Hagler era challengers, most of whom were pretty obvious fighters with clear strengths weaknesses that were apparent without needing to see to many fights.Sibson was a bit more difficult to evaluate. He had some very good world skills and traits at his disposal.....Very strong, very well-balanced, fast hands and feet, threw every punch in the book well singularly and in combination and had vicious power in the left hook.Lesser, but still good power in the right.Offensively he was capable of being very formidable, not telegraphing anything and unleashing very good Rodrigo Valdez-esque combinations after working his way in behind an educated stiff, doubled or tripled jab and\or from slipping shots.Could fight at all ranges, but best at a Tyson\olivares-like mid-range just inside the typical jab. Well schooled defensively, with fluid upperbody movement.Good footwork on the frontfoot and from side-to-to side. His chin was solid, but nothing notable and he had very short T-rex arms that hampered his outfighting considerably, but most of his weaknesses were more intangible\mental. He just wasn't the best of ring-generals, nor the most determined\focused fighter in there.A lot of the time he seemed to be somewhat unsure of how best to apply his skillset and caught between styles. Should he take greater advantage of his power\combinations and fight as more of a come-forward seek and destroy fighter, more of a brawler and pure punching type?. Or should he use his good fundamentals to fight as more of a patient, smooth boxer-puncher, slowly working openings behind jabbing, countering and footwork?. He was also the type of fighter that struggled to stay sharp in what he was doing for a full 12-15.Tended to do his best work early and mid rounds. In the end a lot of the time he just didn't seem able to fully come to grips and get the best out of his skillset.you would get fights where he would be in boxing mode for too long when it wasn't needed\best suited or he wouldn't use his skills enough and be in too much of a come straight forward and throw bombs mindset. So you got loads of fights where he could look an excellent middleweight for 3-4 rounds and then a more limited, fundamentally ragged or unsure one for the next 3-4. His prime i would say was about 79 to 84.He turned pro young and learned on the job, still had a few technical improvements to make by the close Finnegan loss, but came into his own very quickly after, where he showed his peak form until the Lee fight. Hagler was just too good for him, that was an all-time middle giving one of his very best performances.He gave respect to Sibson's offensive abilities by using his mobility and matadoring Sibson with his much longer, great jab...then when Sibson started to get frustrated and more ragged, stepped up the offensive output to get the stoppage.Textbook stuff. Sibson came back later that year against the undefeated prospect John Collins, and was expected to lose, but destroyed Collins and didn't seem damaged by the Hagler fight, but he was ambushed by Don Lee in his next meaningful fight. I don't think Lee was a better overall fighter than Sibson(though he was himself a career underachiever that should have done more), but he was able to expose some of Sibson's stylistic limitations.He was much taller and rangier, and an excellent puncher that was able to make Sibson work hard enough on the outside for his openings with his t-rex arms, that he could land enough powershots to get the stoppage.Though Sibson seemed the more talented of the two througout much of the fight, he wasn't durable enough to brute-force through Lee, and didn't quite have the consistent 12 round reflexes to keep avoiding the long straight punches that each carried KO power. Needless to say, Hearns wouldn't have been a good stylistic match for Tony at middle. After that fight he had some good wins against Acaries and Kaylor, but became inactive and seemed to have lost a fair bit of heart in the sport.Performances had the feel of going through the motions, and with Hagler still champ(who he likely knew he would never be able to beat) and knowing there were other contenders out there capable of an ambush, he seemed demoralised. Ultimately he had a half-****d effort at a light-heavy belt against the limited Andries, but Sibson was thoroughly undersized and probably one of the least stylistically\physically suited middles of the era to try 175, and was physically ground down by Dennis. He was finished after that, but came back a year later to win a commonwealth belt and then get an undeserved IBF shot at Frank tate a few months later, where he was competitive, but gave a perfunctory effort and seemed there just for the last payday.Disappointing as Tate was flawed enough that a gutsier effort might have yielded greater results than Sibson seemed to believe he had in him at that time. Did he fulfil his potential? i think in the era he fought in, he did most of what he could...hagler was the man for all of his prime and if he had stayed dedicated for longer\had a longer prime in general, then there were better fighters around after to pick up the titles, like Hearns, McCallum, Kalambay, Nunn.He could have got a few bigger fights that would have been winnable against some of the other more well known American based contenders of his early 80s peak like Hamsho, Fletcher, Parker, Ramos, Scypion etc, but that was a matchmaking thing and he was high risk\low reward for them.
He wasn"t a Hall of famer, but no Tomato can either, he was a capable solid contender in the ultra competitive middle weight early 80"s... His prime -1983.. His best fight, id say a pretty 1 sided performance against Dwight Davison, a tough Detroiter from the Kronk gym.. Potential- i would say yes, if anything he over achieved, he was small not very athletic, but made the best of his modest talents, look everybody knew Hagler was gonna wax him, probably even Sibson himself. Today at 160- put the 1983 Sibson in with 160 lb current champ Cotto, ,and Sibson is a live underdog, a lot has changed over the last 32 years..
He was a solid top 10 fighter. Very strong and busy. Mediocre defense. Cut pretty easily. Lack of height and reach. From 80-83 was at his peak. Started to decline after being upset by the much taller and hard hitting Don Lee. That was a huge upset at the time. Gave Hagler a good workout. Out worked Dwight Davison. Blew away Irish hope John Collins. Cut up Alan Minter.
He didn't beat Minter on cuts.He caved his skull in with a brutal display of fast power punching. A really impressive win, as while Minter was past his best as a fighter, it was mostly to do with him becoming far too cautious after so many cuts losses(which cost him with an overly contained performance against HAmsho).He was still very tough and a good outfighter though. imo Sibson would destroy a 154 or 160 Cotto.He'd walk right through him, but i think little of Cotto above Welter.
cut up Minter? He broke his face and sent him to the floor and subsequently into retirement! I totally dissagree about his defense. His bob and weave style was complemented perfectly with his high guard. His reflexes and hand speed were first rate and his explosive power was dreaded from the top of the division on down Tony worked his way up the division in impressive fashion, bolting upwards from the middle of the ranks to the number three spot seemingly overnight by taking apart Minter, then all the way to number one by beating the 6-1 in. Davision, who had some impressive wins of his own (Parker, Seals, Scypion, a 1 rd KO of Sutherland) he had another year to get ready for Hagler but was caught too many times by the Hagler jab, and eventually opened up. A funny thing tho, his support cup came apart during the fight His next big fight was the Collins fight. It was sad watching John disintegrate from Tony's endless combinations fired in endless bursts. but I loved how Tony's jab offset John's right hand and snapped his head back. it is such a devastating weapon but just when you thought he was on the rebound, the sunset on his career the very next fight when faced by ham N egger Don Lee tony seemed to be having his way. When he just about touched him, Don went to the floor. but divine intervention was with him becuz as soon as he turned lefty, it threw Tony for a loop and flashbacks of the Hagler fight mustve came to mind, along with very long and wide cut over the eye. and just like in the Hagler fight, the end drew near upsets do happen tho. remember Terry Norris?
Sibbo was a very decent fighter, He broke Minters nose with a brutal left-hook. Minter now has a crease across his nose as a reminder. Sibson was a fighter who blew hot and cold, when cold he looked very mediocre, but hot he was devastating. Sibson was good enough to out-box Mark Kaylor, which gives you an idea of how good his boxing skills were. as a puncher he could really bang, as his victories over Minter, Collins & Salvamini show. Sibson fought some very good european fighters in the early 1980s and was a huge draw in the U.K.
