Who beat T. Gibbons worse- Dempsey or Greb?

So your argument is quantity over quality?

Im not sure I agree with the whole "more good names argument". I dont think Miske beat any "better" competition than Gibbons did. Certainly Miske wasnt taken anywhere near as seriously from 1920 on as Gibbons was, and more to the point Gibbons actually beat Miske in dominant fashion both times they met afterwards despite losing on a controversial DQ. So I dont really get the whole "who had a better post championship career" argument anyway. Clearly any way you shake it that was Gibbons. He was a highly regarded contender until his retirement. Miske wasnt. He made a small fortune. Miske didnt. He took Dempsey 15 rounds, Miske was stopped in 3 in a dismal one sided performance. Post championship challenge Gibbons fought 3 HOFers and defeated two in one sided fashion. Miske fought one HOFer twice after his championship challenge and lost one and got a bogus DQ in the other which he was losing so badly that negotiations had begun for the Dempsey match after the "loss" to Miske... Food for thought there. Its great to toss around names like Brennan, Burke, Renault, Shade, and Weinert but look at their records. What Miske did with those guys wasnt exactly out of the ordinary. Burke could be outpointed by even modestly talented contenders. Weinert was coming off a loss to Greb in which he was dropped hard in the first and lost every round thereafter, and after Miske lost on a TKO to Harry Foley. Shade had lost three of his previous four going into the Miske bout and wasnt even the best fighter in his family much less the division. The guy ended his career with THIRTY losses. Renault was also coming off a very onesided loss to Greb and also ended his career with around 30 losses. I guess the point is these fights are impressive in that they were accomplished by a dying man but they were accomplished against "also-rans". Nobody at the time was singing the praises of Miske based on these victories. They were kept in their proper perspective as being keep busy fights and little more.

Gibbons fought less but his victories were more important, against marquee fighters, and frankly those fighters certainly werent any worse than ANYONE Miske was fighting. He faced Carpentier who was still probably the best LHW and HW in Europe at the time in what was supposed to be a stopover bout for Carp on the way to the big ticket Tunney fight and ended up beating the holy hell out of Carpentier before a massive audience. Great win. He beat Jack Bloomfield in front of another massive crowd in a highly publicized bout againts Britains best HW who was absolutely streaking at the time. Bloomfield had literally wrecked everyone they put in front of him for three years and was now having every one of his fights filmed. Gibbons put on a masterful performance and ruined Bloomfield so that the guy never fought again. Then he goes and fights Kid Norfolk who (though admittedly fading fast) was still a force and on a damn fine run barring a DQ loss to Lawson. Gibbons dominated and stopped him. Then goes 12 with Tunney despite already talking retirement and being well past his best. Keep in mind. Even in the Dempsey fight he was already 32 and slowing down. When he fought Tunney he was 34 and had promised his wife he would retire after the bout.

So yeah, Miske fought more. I dont see those guys being any better than Norfolk, Carpentier (even faded versions of those two), Jamieson, or Bloomfield. And when it came down to it Gibbons whipped Miske as well. So if you have two guys on a similar career trajectory (which Miske clearly wasnt at the time) and they fight and fighter A. beats fighter B., well, fighter B. kind of loses bragging rights dont you agree?

 

alas bill had a landlord

Miske Is Loser To Norfolk‎
Pittsburgh Press - Jun 10, 1919
One or two imagined that Big Bill had some sort of a brain storm In spots he surely acted more like a fourth rater than a first class
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=IkYbAAAAIBAJ&sjid=j0kEAAAAIBAJ&pg=3009,4316212&dq=miske&hl=en

 

Here Ill defend Miske. At least he fought Norfolk while he was still in his prime. They had been trying to match Gibbons and Norfolk at various venues since at least 1917 and Gibbons wanted no part of that fight for whatever reason. Personally I think stylistically its a helluva fight and would give Gibbons an even shot of beating a prime Norfolk but they didnt want it then for whatever thats worth.

 

Gibbons fought Greb 4 times.

1st time: It was either a draw or slight win for Gibbons although both men were green at the time.
2nd time: Gibbons won in a lopsided fashion.
3rd time: Greb won decisively. Gibbons was doing well until it started to rain in the 7th. Being the puncher, this made it difficult to get set for his shots and Greb handled the slippery canvas much better. Had it not rained, it might've gotten interesting.
4th time: I know that boxrec gives says that Greb won easy but I've read the round by round account of the fight from the NY times and it was very close. A 8-7 or 9-6 win for Greb. And apparently Gibbons hurt his hand in the 2nd round and came into the fight sick.

Dempsey and Gibbons only fought once and having watched the complete fight I have to say that its hard to give Gibbons a single round. He lands a punch here and there but he fights way to defensively, and doesn't let his hands go enough. Dempsey just outworks him in just about every round. I had it 12 Dempsey, 0 Gibbons, 3 even. The fight reminded me of Liston-Machen.

Overall you have to give the edge to Dempsey here. I think that if you look at most of their common opponents, Dempsey did slightly better than Greb against their common opponents. Even Tunney beat up Greb even more badly than he did Dempsey in 2 of their last 3 fights.

This is not to take away from Greb, for a smaller guy to do to Dempsey's opponents what he did is nothing short of phenomenal, he is definitely pound for pound a better fighter than Dempsey.