Yay or nay, what do you say? It's absolutely clear that Mike was more highly regarded in terms of skill during their respective careers, that's not up for grabs. But what about real world achievements in the ring? Does anyone else lean towards Tommy here? Tommy lost to three men - Greb, Dempsey and Tunney, all ATGs for their divisions (he has a DQ loss to Miske too, but got the better of him either three or four times). He also got the better of Greb a couple of times though, and was up against the referee in the Dempsey fight, also making the distance, not common for Dempsey foes. Wins: Kid Norfolk, Geroges Carpentier, Billy Miske, Harry Greb, Willie Meehan (KO1!), George Chip, Battling Levinsky, Bob Moha, most of them more than once. He was a real force at both weights. What do you think?
I'd rate Mike higher at middleweight than I'd rate Tommy at light-heavy, but I'd rate Tommy higher, pound-for-pound. Aside from having two wins over Greb, he was unbelievably consistent in an era where that's not the norm. I normally don't care for things like that, but it's hard to overlook it when there were really only three around that time who could manage it (Tunney, Gibbons and McFarland). And let's not forget, he wasn't protecting his '0' by not facing the best. He was literally beating the greatest fighter ever, not that Mike didn't as well.
Mike Gibbons had a lot of good wins. Jimmy Clabby, Eddie McGoorty, Mike O'Dowd, Jeff Smith, Ted Kid Lewis, Jack Dillon. Harry Greb too, but early in Greb's career. I'm not sure, maybe a very slight edge to Tommy, but I go back and forth.
I think that Mike was more highly regarded at the time for reason. He kept beating fighters who were feared, and was often beating them very convincingly.
This I got Mike Gibbons , Tommy has some duds in his resume (I like both brothers) but Mike has the resume over Tommy!
