Tom or Mike Gibbons

Look up the wiki entry for that bout, it was a newspaper draw.

 

I don't remember what i scored it maybe i'll do that later tonight. The odd thing is that Mike probably lands some of his best right hands in the second half of the fight.

 

Bartfield.

 

Bartfield also beat Greb, TK Lewis, Britton, Papke

Well i think we've established that the root of our divergent outlook stems from us placing different value on certain things, which is fine, just wanted to understand your perspective. I am still slightly surprised by your rigid opinion on a couple aspect and you're resistance to what i feel if necessary context. Below as example.

Walker, Greb, SRR, Duran, Moore all lost more than Mayweather and that's a fact too but it doesn't stop you from rating them higher because of context. Had Floyd fought Cotto and Mosely earlier, Margarito, Williams, Casamayor, Pacquiao he may have some losses but he didn't and he doesn't. Regardless in spite of never losing to Lainge or Bartfield or Shorty Hogue he still isn't greater than those guys.

That's the point i was trying to make about tougher scheduales, i suppose you could consider it excuse making but i just feel its necessary context worthy of factoring in. You think Tommy's greater and i understand why now i just don't feel the same.

P.S. Sasha Grey's body is perfection, great face also, but she is too much of a *****. There is such a thing at least for me. Something else we may disagree on.

 

Carpentier: Shot or overrated or both. Take your pick. If beating Carpentier in 1924 is considered a reason for Tommy to have a better scalp on his record than Mike we can agree to disagree. Carpentier's career at this particular point was a farce. Nilles was nothing, his fight with Townely was an obvious dive. He retired for two years after his absolute domination losses to Tunney and Gibbons. It had been 3 years since he really fought a competetive matchup at the world level (Dempsey) and got his ass handed to him.

Norfolk: If you think the Norfolk-Greb fight was impressive we can again agree to disagree. The fight was a wrestling match and the only reason Norfolk "won" was because of the odd ruling of a referee that the local commissioner disagreed with. Norfolk was DQ in his very next fight for exactly the same tactics and yes he won several more fights but look at the competition. They were nothing special at all. ""Very decent" is a generous assessment when you consider that Tut Jackson was the best of the bunch. Jackson was well known for having a famously doctored and padded record. When he stepped up (Gibbons) he was easily beaten and never won another important fight in his life. He was shot and its as simple as that. Ive said before and I will say again: Gibbons fighting Norfolk at that time was a calculated decision. He had turned down MULTIPLE offers to face Norfolk from 1917 onwards and it was a well known fact that he wanted nothing of Norfolk's game while he was anywhere near his prime. Tunney even talks about this in his bio, and this coming from a guy who had the utmost respect for Gibbons.

 

Obviously but losing to Bartfield isn't a reason for me to place a ceiling on the level of class Greb, Lewis, Britton were the same way you appear to do for Mike.

Yes but there is a huge disparity in the quantity of unreasonable losses Cocoa suffered compared to the couple Mike did. What you're describing is reasonable with Cocoa because it was proven correct throughout his career with frequency.

Mike losing the rubbermatch to O'Dowd in his second last career fight, therby losing the series, is something you place signifcant weight on. Losing to Robson 6 months prior to retirement also isn't something i wouldn't use to diminish him.

No see this is what you clearly don't get with me and it isn't exclusive to Mike i do it with all boxers who share that type of career. The Barfield and Wiggins losses are legit and the only real losses against none top guys he had. I don't ignore those but i am forgiving if a boxer drops the occasional loss like that here or there when they have the quantity of fights, level of opposition and frequency of that opposition like Mike had. I view it as an inevitability to an extent. Mike basically fought as tough a schedule as was possible for him.

You think those two or three losses impedes Mike from being placed in a certain class but i think the total body of his work and career prove those were aberrations not evidence of his limitations as a fighter or being a lower level.

Greb. Robinson, Williams, Rosenbloom, Moore, Overlin,etc all have those types of losses as does anyone fighting that many fights and/or that quality of opposition that frequently. You can consider it excuse making but the occasional aberrational loss is far outweighed by the total body of work for me, it proves their quality as does the sheer depth of their win columns.

There is certianly a tipping point where too many of those losses starts becoming evidence a fighter isn't at a certain level but 2 in a 130 fight career definitely is it.

This isn't directly applicable but in the general field, i'm curious do you prefer Floyd's "undefeated" record without facing the best available and using studious career management or Pacquiao who in spite of the losses has been willing to face anybody. Floyd automatically a higher class and rated higher because he never officially lost?

 

After learning more, I feel that Mike Gibbons was a better boxer than his brother, Tommy Gibbons, by a large margin.

- Chuck Johnston