# Mike Gibbons vs Mike O'Dowd Footage Is A Diamond In Boxing History



## Vysotsky (Jun 6, 2013)

Our very own Flea is going to be providing us fortunate souls with a piece of footage that truly is a certified diamond among boxing film rarities. Klompton our resident historian and boxing scholar once described it as being "the greatest fight film of the era" the significance of which genuinely cannot be overstated. Sadly the sport of boxing is littered with great fighters who are largely forgotten and underappreciated with their accomplishments no longer known by the sports most ardent followers.

In the Middleweight division boxers such as Harry Greb, Charley Burley, Holman Williams used to hold that designation during the second half of the 20th century until the extent of their achievements were rediscovered. Currently Mike Gibbons and Mike O'Dowd could possibly be the two leading candidates for the greatest Middleweights who are least spoken about and unknown by the majority of boxing fans today. The Middleweight division they fought in is considered by alot of knowledgeable people to be the best in history and during that incredibly talent rich era Harry Greb, Mike Gibbons, and Mike O'Dowd were the trinity of the Middleweight elite during the mid to late teens and the Gibbons/O'Dowd trilogy a crown jewel in competition. 

Alot of talk revolves around the evolution of boxing technique, it's advancement and the boxers who helped bring it along to its most refined form with guys in that era like Gene Tunney, Tommy Loughran, Benny Leonard, and Tommy Gibbons being discussed often. Mike Gibbons came along slightly before these fighters and was regard by boxers, journalists, and fans alike as being one of the most skilled boxers of the day, a defensive specialist, and was a shining example of this advancement. In contrast to today he was universally regarded as being more skilled than his brother Tommy but due to his lack of footage and the rarity of the film which does exist his important role is almost entirely forgotten. O'Dowd on the other hand was a far more aggressive and offensive minded fighter but he wasn't absent an educated defense or the ability to box when needed and was slightly undersized for the division. I have only seen one round of footage with O'Dowd so his style is largely a mystery to me but thanks to Flea that will no longer be the case. 

Looking over these guys win column, especially Gibbons, is a who's who of the Middleweight division

*Mike Gibbons (113-10-9)*
McFarland - Reports of the day have it a draw or loss for Gibbons but Klompton's opinion having seen the full fight is Mike won clearly
Harry Greb 1-1 (6 rounds W, L 10 rounds)
Mike O'Dowd 1-2
Jeff Smith 3-1
Leo Houck 2-0
Jack Dillon 2-0
Jimmy Clabby 2-0-1
Eddie McGoorty 2-1
Kid Lewis 1-0
Gus Christie 4-0
George Chip 3-0
Augie Ratner 2-0
Soldier Bartfield 2-1 (loss was a probable draw)
Willie KO Brennan 2-0
Jack McCarron 1-1
Young Ahearn 2-0 
Al McCoy 1-0
Bob Moha 1-0
Chuck Wiggins 1-1
Battling Ortega 2-0

*Mike O'Dowd (93-17-6)*
Harry Greb Draw 10 Rounds (Mike's hometown papers where the fight took place were divided according to Slakka)
Mike Gibbons 2-1
Kid Lewis 3-2
Jack Britton 2-3
Jeff Smith 1-0
Soldier Bartfield 4-0
Al McCoy 2-0
Jack McCarron 2-0
Augie Ratner 2-0
Jackie Clarke 2-0

EDIT - Video on page 3


----------



## McGrain (Jul 6, 2012)

That's the tits, can't wait.

You surprise me though! Surely Steele is he most underated?


----------



## Vysotsky (Jun 6, 2013)

McGrain said:


> That's the tits, can't wait.
> 
> You surprise me though! Surely Steele is he most underated?


lol O'Dowd is almost entirely forgotten which is a travesty, Gibbons slightly less but both probably more so than Steele. In terms of being underrated i do think Steele's win column, undefeated streak and dominance could possibly make him the most overlooked MW. Any boxer, any era, any division with the type of career these three had deserve their due and recognition though.

P.S. There is such a thing as too much enthusiasm and Sasha Grey is the embodiment of that, too much of a dirty whore. Physically she's utterly perfect imo, that ass, but got damn she needs to be muted.


----------



## McGrain (Jul 6, 2012)

Sasha Grey or Mike O'Dowd?


----------



## Sittin Sonny (Jun 10, 2013)

So the entire fight is going to be uploaded? I've only ever seen a couple rounds of it.

Gibbons was probably one of the best fighters in the world from around 1915 to his initial retirement in 1917. During that time he fought at a very high level of competition and typically dominated most of his opponents. When he returned to the ring a couple years later, it seems he wasn't quite the same fighter, although he was still very good.

Gibbons and O'Dowd were from the same hometown and were considered rivals for many years, but reportedly the fight didn't happen until O'Dowd's people believed that Gibbons had slowed down just enough that their man could take him.

I do agree that it's ironic that Tommy is the more celebrated of the two Gibbons today, based largely on his having challenged for the HW title. Back in their day, Tommy was often accused of being a more protected fighter with a padded record.


----------



## Vysotsky (Jun 6, 2013)

McGrain said:


> Sasha Grey or Mike O'Dowd?


Well considering Sasha's footage is so plentiful i'd obviously prefer to watch O'Dowd.



Sittin Sonny said:


> So the entire fight is going to be uploaded? I've only ever seen a couple rounds of it.
> 
> Gibbons was probably one of the best fighters in the world from around 1915 to his initial retirement in 1917. During that time he fought at a very high level of competition and typically dominated most of his opponents. When he returned to the ring a couple years later, it seems he wasn't quite the same fighter, although he was still very good.
> 
> ...


The complete fight according to Flea.

Well McGrain disagrees. Tommy's undefeated streak and dominance weigh heavy for alot of people and is better but i do agree that Mike had more of a Harry Greb anytime anywhere attitude which his record reflects. O'Dowd seems to have the M.O you describe which his dealings with Greb and why a rematch never happened appear to support.


----------



## Vysotsky (Jun 6, 2013)

Here is Kompton's breakdown of the circumstances surrounding the O'Dowd vs Greb fight, decision and why no rematch.



klompton said:


> Slakka is right, for the most part. I dont agree that making 158 was a huge handicap for Greb. his best weight was about five pounds heavier but he could make 158 and still be better than the vastly underrated O'Dowd. That being said he did indeed over shoot the weight by spending all night in a turkish bath. He weighed in at 155 1/2 and of the six twin cities papers in operation at the time they were split down the middle (I have them all too). The great George Barton, dean of twin cities newspapermen, ex fighter, mentor of Mike Gibbons, and one of the greatest referees ever stated that he thought Greb won. Keep in mind that these were hometown papers, a hometown crowd, a hometown venue, and hometown officiating. Would the result have been more unanimous somewhere else. Maybe. But while he was still champion O'Dowd refused to fight Greb in Pittsburgh or anywhere other than the twin cities for anything less than a kings ransom.


----------



## McGrain (Jul 6, 2012)

Vysotsky said:


> Well considering Sasha's footage is so plentiful i'd obviously prefer to watch O'Dowd.


I guess it depends upon your mood...

...I do think there's a pretty serious difference between O'Dowd and Gibbons, as in Gibbons was clearly superior any way you cut it. He tended to beat the best he met, O'Dowd always dropped losses to quality, whether that quality was considerably smaller or not.



> Well McGrain disagrees. Tommy's undefeated streak and dominance weigh heavy for alot of people and is better but i do agree that Mike had more of a Harry Greb anytime anywhere attitude which his record reflects. O'Dowd seems to have the M.O you describe which his dealings with Greb and why a rematch never happened appear to support.


I'm interested that SS states that he was protected - I have only ever seen him described as avoided. But I think the general point that he went spells without matching real quality is reasonable. However, I would point out that he also almost always proved himself when the crossroads loomed.


----------



## Surf-Bat (Jun 6, 2013)

The post-Ketchel MWs of the 1910s and the post-Walker MWs of the 1930s were replete with underrated greats. There were so many people claiming the title that it became all but impossible to figure out who was champ back then. the 10s had O'Dowd, Clabby, McGoorty, Jeff Smith, Leo Houck, Klaus, etc. The 30s had Steele, Yarosz, Apostoli, Hostak, Thil, etc. All underrated fighters. I'm not even sure that if Ketch and Mick had managed to stick around that they could have held onto their titles with that kind of opposition awaiting them.


----------



## Vysotsky (Jun 6, 2013)

McGrain said:


> I guess it depends upon your mood...
> 
> ...I do think there's a pretty serious difference between O'Dowd and Gibbons, as in Gibbons was clearly superior any way you cut it. He tended to beat the best he met, O'Dowd always dropped losses to quality, whether that quality was considerably smaller or not.
> 
> I'm interested that SS states that he was protected - I have only ever seen him described as avoided. But I think the general point that he went spells without matching real quality is reasonable. However, I would point out that he also almost always proved himself when the crossroads loomed.


Gibbons proved his dominance in the era far more than O'Dowd no question about that, fought alot more of the top MW's and had much better consistancy but losing their series h2h is a terrific result for O'Dowd even if Mike was not quite at his peak. For Tommy his schedule against top opposition was nowhere near as frequent as Mike but like you say when he did step in the ring with the elite his record is exceptional.


----------



## O59 (Jul 8, 2012)

Vysotsky said:


> Well considering Sasha's footage is so plentiful i'd obviously prefer to watch O'Dowd.
> 
> *
> The complete fight according to Flea.*
> ...


Praise be! Cannot wait.


----------



## McGrain (Jul 6, 2012)

Surf-Bat said:


> The post-Ketchel MWs of the 1910s and the post-Walker MWs of the 1930s were replete with underrated greats. There were so many people claiming the title that it became all but impossible to figure out who was champ back then. the 10s had O'Dowd, Clabby, McGoorty, Jeff Smith, Leo Houck, Klaus, etc. The 30s had Steele, Yarosz, Apostoli, Hostak, Thil, etc. All underrated fighters. I'm not even sure that if Ketch and Mick had managed to stick around that they could have held onto their titles with that kind of opposition awaiting them.


They are underated because they never proved themselves in the same way. Proving yourself is a huge part of boxing greatness. I always think that a counter-claim that isn't addressed raises question marks over the greatest of reigns. These guys aren't lauded in the same way because they failed to do what the other men you mention did, namely prove that they are the best, beyond all question.

Guys who proved themselves the best beyond or almost beyond question who still get underrated are extremely, extremely rare.


----------



## Powerpuncher (May 20, 2013)

Interested to watch this, wasn't O'Dowd considered quicker than Greb?


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

I'm sure it's every round but not the full three minutes but I _think_ it's everything of the fight there is. Am re-watching now before uploading, some lovely moments and I'm sure you gents will enjoy.

Most importantly, you get to see the deft head and upper body movement of Mike Gibbons, and of course his footwork. If it's right that Tommy learned from him, the evidence is in the similar moves we see him use against Bloomfield to evade and take the edge off of his opponents offence. Pretty slick.


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

which fight is it? 1st, 2nd or 3rd?


----------



## Vysotsky (Jun 6, 2013)

Luf said:


> which fight is it? 1st, 2nd or 3rd?


Flea said he wasn't 100% but it has to be their 1st fight for the Middleweight Title in 1919, i have a one round clip from the fight and that's the date listed along with Gibbons cut eye matching up with their 1st fight description (can someone else confirm?). Their other fights were in 1921 and 1922 so its the best versions of them during their trilogy if thats indeed correct. Keep in mind that both had their career interrupted during WWI and neither was absolute prime afterwards although they were still the best of the best. Mike O'Dowd is apparently the only World Champion to have fought on the front lines and in the trenches in WWI during his time with the US Army so im sure he was physcially never the same after that, psychologically too for that matter.


----------



## Surf-Bat (Jun 6, 2013)

McGrain said:


> They are underated because they never proved themselves in the same way. Proving yourself is a huge part of boxing greatness. I always think that a counter-claim that isn't addressed raises question marks over the greatest of reigns. These guys aren't lauded in the same way because they failed to do what the other men you mention did, namely prove that they are the best, beyond all question.
> 
> Guys who proved themselves the best beyond or almost beyond question who still get underrated are extremely, extremely rare.


As ever, you make a good point. But I would argue that it was MUCH tougher to prove yourself as the best in the division AFTER Ketchel's or Walker's MW era. What great or even dangerous MWs did Ketchel have to beat? Papke. Maybe one more. Walker? Ace Hudkins. Flowers. There were some solid ones in both eras, but nothing like those eras that followed. What I wrote is only a partial list.


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

Vysotsky said:


> Flea said he wasn't 100% but it has to be their 1st fight for the Middleweight Title in 1919, i have a one round clip from the fight and that's the date listed along with Gibbons cut eye matching up with their 1st fight description (can someone else confirm?). Their other fights were in 1921 and 1922 so its the best versions of them during their trilogy if thats indeed correct. Keep in mind that both had their career interrupted during WWI and neither was absolute prime afterwards although they were still the best of the best. Mike O'Dowd is apparently the only World Champion to have fought on the front lines and in the trenches in WWI during his time with the US Army so im sure he was physcially never the same after that, psychologically too for that matter.


he did certainly cut his eye in the first. It is reported as a close decision that could have gone to either man from the little I've read so it will be good to see prime versions of both.


----------



## Surf-Bat (Jun 6, 2013)

As long as they steered clear of the middleweight version of Langford (and accepted that they would have to walk through hell with Billy Papke),I think that Mike Gibbons, Les Darcy, Jack Dillon or Jeff Smith could absolutely dominate Ketchel's era. However, I don't know that Ketch could dominate theirs. Maybe, but he'd have a hell of a lot harder of a time of it. I think that Freddie Steele (provided he could avoid Dave Shade and survive Hudkin's fury) and Teddy Yarosz could top Walker's era. I'm not sure how dominant Walker is in theirs (I think he could be number one, but with a helluva lot more of a struggle than what he experienced during his time)


----------



## Vysotsky (Jun 6, 2013)

Surf-Bat said:


> As ever, you make a good point. But I would argue that it was MUCH tougher to prove yourself as the best in the division AFTER Ketchel's or Walker's MW era. What great or even dangerous MWs did Ketchel have to beat? Papke. Maybe one more. Walker? Ace Hudkins. Flowers. There were some solid ones in both eras, but nothing like those eras that followed. What I wrote is only a partial list.


I agree on that point big time. That aspect getting overlooked when ranking ATG's and the emphasis that is commonly placed on dominance or title defenses with the context of eras being ignored is something that frustrates me quite a bit tbh.

Here is a more complete list of the boxers who fought at Middleweight during the 1930-1940's from a thread i did about it. I don't care if you're Robinson, Monzon, or Hagler no Middleweight in history is going to dominate this era.

Billy Conn
Freddie Steele
Teddy Yarosz
Holman Williams
Charly Burley
Ezzard Charles 
Fred Apostoli
Ken Overlin
Lloyd Marshall 
Archie Moore
Tony Zale
Mickey Walker * tale end 
Georgie Abrams
Eddie Booker
Billy Soose
Al Hostak
Young Corbett III
Ceferino Garcia
Solly Kreiger
Babe Risko
Vince Dundee
Marcel Thil
Kid Tunero
Cocoa Kid
Jack Chase
Aaron Wade
Erich Seelig
Jock McAvoy

Other notables : Shorty Hogue, Chmielewski, Belloise, Kid Azteca, Brown, Henneberry, Christoforidis, DeJohn, Brouillard, Bolden, Balsamo, Matthews, Gorilla Jones


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

Luf said:


> which fight is it? 1st, 2nd or 3rd?


First, Gibbons eye is a mess. Gibbons could take the title only if he stopped O'Dowd. The champion is as advertised, a scrappy little fighter who pushes a fast pace. Gibbons looks better than he supposedly did in his last two fights against Smith and Greb, unless he was even better than this from say, Packey to Chip. Klompton would know, having seen the footage of Gibbons-Macfarland. As would S_S he's seen it, but I don't know whether he's here :think

I tell you what, some damn good cinematography here. All sorts of angles, overhead, close-ups, all sorts, very interesting to watch.

I hope for a lot of analysis, debate and links to reports or typed up reports people have, this is a nice bit of footage.


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

Is O'Dowd sparring Delaney at the beginning perhaps:think


----------



## Vysotsky (Jun 6, 2013)

Flea Man said:


> First, Gibbons eye is a mess. Gibbons could take the title only if he stopped O'Dowd. The champion is as advertised, a scrappy little fighter who pushes a fast pace. Gibbons looks better than he supposedly did in his last two fights against Smith and Greb, unless he was even better than this from say, Packey to Chip. Klompton would know, having seen the footage of Gibbons-Macfarland. As would S_S he's seen it, but I don't know whether he's here :think
> 
> *I tell you what, some damn good cinematography here. All sorts of angles, overhead, close-ups, all sorts, very interesting to watch*.
> 
> I hope for a lot of analysis, debate and links to reports or typed up reports people have, this is a nice bit of footage.


Don't know if its true but i remember reading somebody claim that O'Dowd personally paid to have the fight filmed which seems unique. If anyone can elaborate or confirm that it would be interesting to hear about. Klompton said the sparring footage is with Delaney and Bob Armstrong.


----------



## O59 (Jul 8, 2012)

This is more exciting than tonight's fights, to be honest.


----------



## Vysotsky (Jun 6, 2013)

orriray59 said:


> This is more exciting than tonight's fights, to be honest.


Paulie/Broner
Mitchell/Banks vs two ATG Middleweights who both fought on even terms with Harry Greb
Bika/Periban

If your feelings were ever to the contrary i think you should be permanently ostracized :smile


----------



## O59 (Jul 8, 2012)

Vysotsky said:


> Paulie/Broner
> Mitchell/Banks vs two ATG Middleweights who both fought on even terms with Harry Greb
> Bika/Periban
> 
> If your feelings were ever to the contrary i think you should be suspended from the Classic at least a month :smile


Well, to be fair, seeing Periban operate makes it a tight decision. :lol:


----------



## Vysotsky (Jun 6, 2013)

orriray59 said:


> Well, to be fair, seeing Periban operate makes it a tight decision. :lol:


lol You quoted too soon, i reflected and decided a suspension wasn't severe enough.


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

On the way.....

Just to confirm, it's their first bout. Gibbons has fought, and lost to Greb around 5 months before, so again, can reaffirm some people's views on Greb. Greb beat O'Dowd the previous year.


----------



## LittleRed (Jun 4, 2013)

Flea is bestest uploader.


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

LittleRed said:


> Flea is bestest uploader.


Nah, not enough videos, too many midgets. TheGreatA, McGrain, rayrobinson333, that RareBoxing guy that used to be around, all post rarer stuff than me.


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)




----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

Gibbons looks good there to me. I'd say as good as James Toney for instance.

He doesn't appear to have been blessed with the biggest of hearts though. His reflexes as top notch and he isn't afraid to spoil when need be, but he didn't adapt to well to the cut and in previous fight reports he never seemed to enjoy taking the initiative in fights.

Quality upload especially showing how a relatively forgotten man was able to cause such problems to such a well regarded great fighter. It seemed a well contested fight but like all no decisions I can't help but feel the end result isn't entirely reflective on the ability of the men in the ring.


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

Luf said:


> Gibbons looks good there to me. I'd say as good as James Toney for instance.
> 
> He doesn't appear to have been blessed with the biggest of hearts though. His reflexes as top notch and he isn't afraid to spoil when need be, but he didn't adapt to well to the cut and in previous fight reports he never seemed to enjoy taking the initiative in fights.
> 
> Quality upload especially showing how a relatively forgotten man was able to cause such problems to such a well regarded great fighter. It seemed a well contested fight but like all no decisions I can't help but feel the end result isn't entirely reflective on the ability of the men in the ring.


Based on O'Dowd's approach, who's the best aggressive middleweight champ' you'd take Gibbons to beat? How about Basilio? Hagler?

And what do you think of his ability/skill level compared to his brother now? These questions are to everyone but still, morning Luf.


----------



## McGrain (Jul 6, 2012)

Best bit: "Gibbons ability to hit O'Dowd almost at will draws cheers from the crowd."

Straight out of the fucking corner, headbutt :lol:


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

Flea Man said:


> Based on O'Dowd's approach, who's the best aggressive middleweight champ' you'd take Gibbons to beat? How about Basilio? Hagler?
> 
> And what do you think of his ability/skill level compared to his brother now? These questions are to everyone but still, morning Luf.


it's hard to say. I would definitely favour hagler though.

I wouldn't be massively surprised if he could replicate the jobs sumbu and toney carried out on mike and nunn respectively. But someone like zale, graziano, basilio, walker, the none stop aggression types, I'm not too confident of his chances. For the first 2 rounds that's probably as good a version of gibbons you'd ever see (barring the knockout shots he delivered to ahearn etc). The beauty of this fight, for me, is we get to see gibbons at his best and worst (as a prime fighter). When in control he looks fantastic to me, but cut him, keep in his face and based on what we see here I think he's not gonna shine. And in this, the biggest fight of his career, right in his prime, i think there's enough to make a solid judgement on him.

My analytical skills are crap, of course, as posters like lora, mcg and powerpuncher love to point out on ocassion, but I'm gonna say as talented as he was, i wouldn't make him a clear favourite over graziano.


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

:lol:

Would love to hear your thoughts when you've fully digested it @McGrain


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

Luf said:


> it's hard to say. I would definitely favour hagler though.
> 
> I wouldn't be massively surprised if he could replicate the jobs sumbu and toney carried out on mike and nunn respectively. But someone like zale, graziano, basilio, walker, the none stop aggression types, I'm not too confident of his chances. For the first 2 rounds that's probably as good a version of gibbons you'd ever see (barring the knockout shots he delivered to ahearn etc). The beauty of this fight, for me, is we get to see gibbons at his best and worst (as a prime fighter). When in control he looks fantastic to me, but cut him, keep in his face and based on what we see here I think he's not gonna shine. And in this, the biggest fight of his career, right in his prime, i think there's enough to make a solid judgement on him.
> 
> My analytical skills are crap, of course, as posters like lora, mcg and powerpuncher love to point out on ocassion, but I'm gonna say as talented as he was, i wouldn't make him a clear favourite over graziano.


I guess that comes down to how you rate Graziano in comparison to O'Dowd. Rocky hit harder, but O'Dowd was more experienced and smarter at applying his game. I'm happy to say O'Dowd is a far greater fighter than Graziano. But I'm not sure how that translates into the matchup.

I saw enough in Gibbons that if take him to outbox Graziano.

A bit scrappy at times but a pretty good fight IMO. And I felt privelaged to have a chance to see these two.


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

Flip the question; how do we feel about O'Dowd as a champion, and how does he look on film? I think @Powerpuncher will crucify them both.


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

I imagine @Powerpuncher will rate him as a poor mans Hopkins with less of an outside game and a more limited offence.


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

Flea Man said:


> I guess that comes down to how you rate Graziano in comparison to O'Dowd. Rocky hit harder, but O'Dowd was more experienced and smarter at applying his game. I'm happy to say O'Dowd is a far greater fighter than Graziano. But I'm not sure how that translates into the matchup.
> 
> I saw enough in Gibbons that if take him to outbox Graziano.
> 
> A bit scrappy at times but a pretty good fight IMO. And I felt privelaged to have a chance to see these two.


I think it's a great upload. If there is one fight that can shine the biggest possible light on mike, it's this one.

The question for me is what could O'Dowd do that Graziano couldn't. I'm not gonna compare the two in terms of resume or achievement as we could be here all day. I'm just gonna say upon watching that fight and upon watching graziano at his best, I don't think it's inherently obvious that graziano was the lesser of the two talents.


----------



## Powerpuncher (May 20, 2013)

Which is in the long shorts and which in the shorter shorts?


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

Powerpuncher said:


> Which is in the long shorts and which in the shorter shorts?


gibbons is the one who gets cut in the 3rd it bleeds throughout the fight


----------



## O59 (Jul 8, 2012)

Powerpuncher said:


> Which is in the long shorts and which in the shorter shorts?


The shit one is Gibbons. The other horrendously shitty fighter is O'Dowd.


----------



## Powerpuncher (May 20, 2013)

Luf said:


> gibbons is the one who gets cut in the 3rd it bleeds throughout the fight


Couldn't really make out who was cut in that footage. I'd guess Gibbons is in the longer shorts as he has the better more varied skill set, more in common with Tommy Gibbons and looks smaller.

The guy in the shorter shorts looks more of a spoiler, bigger, what he does works for him but ultimately limited

Would agree with the Toney comparisons somewhat with his shoulder rolling right counter. I think he looks better than Benny Leonard and certainly much more complete than Dempsey.



Flea Man said:


> I think @Powerpuncher will crucify them both.


Long shorts impresses me to be honest mate, cheers for the upload


----------



## Vysotsky (Jun 6, 2013)

Just about to watch it


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

Powerpuncher said:


> Couldn't really make out who was cut in that footage. I'd guess Gibbons is in the longer shorts as he has the better more varied skill set, more in common with Tommy Gibbons and looks smaller.
> 
> The guy in the shorter shorts looks more of a spoiler, bigger, what he does works for him but ultimately limited
> 
> ...


you really think he looks better than Leonard? Have you seen the tendler fight because in that he looks like one of the best in history to me.

Speaking of Toney I was watching again today amazing how he's so slick given how flat footed he seems at times.


----------



## Vysotsky (Jun 6, 2013)

Powerpuncher said:


> Couldn't really make out who was cut in that footage. I'd guess Gibbons is in the longer shorts as he has the better more varied skill set, more in common with Tommy Gibbons and looks smaller.
> 
> The guy in the shorter shorts looks more of a spoiler, bigger, what he does works for him but ultimately limited
> 
> ...


O'Dowd is the guy with longer shorts.

Flea - who are the boxers in the second fight that starts at 47:30?


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

I don't know :lol: I thought one of 'em looked like Max Schmeling, but then I looked closer and realised I didn't know.


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

Flea Man said:


> I don't know :lol: I thought one of 'em looked like Max Schmeling, but then I looked closer and realised I didn't know.


:lol:


----------



## Jdempsey85 (Jan 6, 2013)

Thanks great upload.Even the refs got a jack dempsey hair cut.The 2nd fight was that freddie steele in action?


----------



## Sittin Sonny (Jun 10, 2013)

Vysotsky said:


> Flea - who are the boxers in the second fight that starts at 47:30?


Long lost Harry Greb footage!!!!!! :yikes :happy:cheers


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

Auditorium, Saint Paul, Minnesota, USA 
Mike O'Dowd W Mike Gibbons NWS 10 10 
Jack Stroud W Lewis Rose KO 2 6 
Al Van Ryan D Barney Walsh NWS 6 6 
Buddy McDonald W George Bowers NWS 4 4 
Jack Josephs W Bud McCarthy KO 3


----------



## Sittin Sonny (Jun 10, 2013)

Luf said:


> Auditorium, Saint Paul, Minnesota, USA
> Mike O'Dowd W Mike Gibbons NWS 10 10
> Jack Stroud W Lewis Rose KO 2 6
> Al Van Ryan D Barney Walsh NWS 6 6
> ...


It's not one of the fights on the undercard. The footage is from a later decade, probably the '30s.


----------



## Sittin Sonny (Jun 10, 2013)

Jdempsey85 said:


> The 2nd fight was that freddie steele in action?


He has similar facial features, but his hair appears to be blonde and he seems to be using his jab more than Steele typically does.


----------



## LittleRed (Jun 4, 2013)

They seem like big guys. Middle or shoo I think...


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

Definitely later, looks early 30s to me. Complete guess.


----------



## Guest (Jun 24, 2013)

Just a guess... but could the guy in the darker trunks be Len Harvey??


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

Be cool if it was!!! @McGrain any idea? @scartissue ?


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

Please gents, stylistic analysis of both men today please....


----------



## Boxed Ears (Jun 13, 2012)

Thank you, Fleasmith, but I can't watch right now. Streaming videos is utter hell with my connection at the moment. Mike Gibbons is a fokin' wizard though and anyone who says otherwise is some kind of...fake wizard. :blood Okay, I don't know what that means. But you've known me long enough to probably unravel the basic intention behind it, even if it made no sense.


----------



## Powerpuncher (May 20, 2013)

Vysotsky said:


> O'Dowd is the guy with longer shorts.


Cheers, I'm certainly coming round to the logic that O'Dowd is probably the most underrated of MW Champs, especially historic ones. Looks great on film, beat Greb and Mike Gibbons. He falls off towards the end, but when he was on he was certainly 1 of the best.



Flea Man said:


> Please gents, stylistic analysis of both men today please....


O'Dowd looks like a more aggressive Toney, almost like Qawi or Walker. Gibbons is much stiffer, jabbing and grabbing a fair bit and uppercutting inside but I think he had problems with O'Dowd's speed. O'Dowd has good footwork, half steps, using distance and angles well, his worst punch is probably his left hook, it's not bad just not a strength.

I know it's only 1 fight but I think O'Dowd's and not Gibbons is the real diamond find tbh He looks better than Loughran, Dempsey, both Gibbons brothers and Micky Walker. Only Tunney and Leonard of this era are up there with him imo.



Luf said:


> you really think he looks better than Leonard? Have you seen the tendler fight because in that he looks like one of the best in history to me.
> 
> Speaking of Toney I was watching again today amazing how he's so slick given how flat footed he seems at times.


It's debatable, Leonard fleetfooted hit and not hit style is very much based on athleticism and speed, where as O'Dowd is showing great skill fighting in the pocket and pressuring his taller opponent. Tour comparison of O'Dowd to Toney is a good one though, where as Benny Leonard is similar to Mayweather Jr when he's using movement


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

Lovely stuff! And great for O'Dowd to get his due.


----------



## Brownies (Jun 7, 2013)

First thing : it would be easy to watch one minute of that and see two old guys clubbing each other : these damn old films will discourage most. However, we clearly get to see the greatness of both guys. Only O'Dowd was KOed (once) over the spam of their career, so it's not surprising that what impressed me the most is their defence. Lots of punches slipped, good footwork to maintain distance and both guys clinched a lot. Put two guys in there with these kind of surviving skills and you get that kind of chess match.

I've watched it 2 times and first noticed O'Dowd's slickness. I'd say he's got a style that is more admired in modern days, he does have some Toney moment here and there. His stance, balance, fluidity and footwork are impressive. 

On the second watch, I tried to follow Gibbons more carefully and noticed many things I didn't before. His head movement was more subtle, but probably more effective. Like comparing a Duran to a Whitaker, it will take more time to notice the good defense of Duran. He appeared as the superior fighter on second thoughts, specially if he really injured his hand in the fight and considering his cut. Of this fight alone, I believe we could make a montage of all the punches he evaded that would do him justice. He looked phenomenal in the first round, doing his best mangoose impression. the way he goes in an out, evading punches on the front foot while tagging O'Dowd was impressive. He does a lot of feinting and achieves to create openings here and there. He did slow down a bit after the cut.

What I like of both fighters is their versatility. We get to see a lot of both on the front or the back foot. Both guys are fleet footed most of the time and are good at keeping distance, so I don't think that any of them was really in trouble at any point. O'Dowd got hit with a solid right in the 9, but I don't think he was hurt. 

Not an in depth analysis and I'm certainly not the best guy to produce one anyway, but these were my two cents. Thanks for sharing, guys,


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

Powerpuncher said:


> Cheers, I'm certainly coming round to the logic that O'Dowd is probably the most underrated of MW Champs, especially historic ones. Looks great on film, beat Greb and Mike Gibbons. He falls off towards the end, but when he was on he was certainly 1 of the best.
> 
> O'Dowd looks like a more aggressive Toney, almost like Qawi or Walker. Gibbons is much stiffer, jabbing and grabbing a fair bit and uppercutting inside but I think he had problems with O'Dowd's speed. O'Dowd has good footwork, half steps, using distance and angles well, his worst punch is probably his left hook, it's not bad just not a strength.
> 
> ...


I think utilising athletic abilities is a great skill itself.

When I first watched it I only noticed his in your face aggression but he certainly looks better after further viewings. Not sure I'm fully on board with how highly you rate him but he did give gibbons problems and we all know how highly he was rated. And this is Gibbons at his prime in his biggest fight.

Gibbons starts off brilliantly for me though, he just didn't seem to handle the but or keep O'Dowd off him and I'm not sure if that's due to the style or the aggression.

Based on the footage, how would you rate graziano and his chances against gibbons?


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

Brownies said:


> First thing : it would be easy to watch one minute of that and see two old guys clubbing each other : these damn old films will discourage most. However, we clearly get to see the greatness of both guys. Only O'Dowd was KOed (once) over the spam of their career, so it's not surprising that what impressed me the most is their defence. Lots of punches slipped, good footwork to maintain distance and both guys clinched a lot. Put two guys in there with these kind of surviving skills and you get that kind of chess match.
> 
> I've watched it 2 times and first noticed O'Dowd's slickness. I'd say he's got a style that is more admired in modern days, he does have some Toney moment here and there. His stance, balance, fluidity and footwork are impressive.
> 
> ...


Wonderful post. Thank you very much, this is exactly why I post from my collection!


----------



## Powerpuncher (May 20, 2013)

Flea how did you manage to get this footage?



Luf said:


> I think utilising athletic abilities is a great skill itself.
> 
> When I first watched it I only noticed his in your face aggression but he certainly looks better after further viewings. Not sure I'm fully on board with how highly you rate him but he did give gibbons problems and we all know how highly he was rated. And this is Gibbons at his prime in his biggest fight.
> 
> ...


Nah it's not just aggression, it's his punch picking, his counters and his defense. I wouldn't have a problem with someone rating Leonard higher though. Both O'Dowd and Gibbons workrate is pretty impressive.

TBH I'd need to see Gibbons winning to figure out how good he was, O'Dowd makes him look bad allot of the time. But I'd pick to at least outbox someone as sloppy as Graziano, he's certainly boxing at a higher level. When you go up a level I think you need to see more of a boxer. O'Dowd is very accurate and Gibbons rolls away from punches at times and uses good movement but in other way Gibbons is a bit hittable by better boxers than Graziano I think.


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

Powerpuncher said:


> Flea how did you manage to get this footage?
> 
> Nah it's not just aggression, it's his punch picking, his counters and his defense. I wouldn't have a problem with someone rating Leonard higher though. Both O'Dowd and Gibbons workrate is pretty impressive.
> 
> TBH I'd need to see Gibbons winning to figure out how good he was, O'Dowd makes him look bad allot of the time. But I'd pick to at least outbox someone as sloppy as Graziano, he's certainly boxing at a higher level. When you go up a level I think you need to see more of a boxer. O'Dowd is very accurate and Gibbons rolls away from punches at times and uses good movement but in other way Gibbons is a bit hittable by better boxers than Graziano I think.


yeah I am a big admirer of Leonard tbh, think he's one if he top ten filmed boxers.

Gibbons in rounds 1&2 looks incredibly good. He just didn't seem accustomed to actually having punches land on him which makes me wonder how he'd feel against any non stop aggressor. Like you say though it's about levels.


----------



## Lester1583 (Jun 30, 2012)

Brownies said:


> He does a lot of feinting


Jersey Joe walkaway.

Before Jersey Joe.


----------



## Brownies (Jun 7, 2013)

Lester1583 said:


> Jersey Joe walkaway.
> 
> Before Jersey Joe.


Yeah, but to his credit I'm pretty sure that Dempsey was doing it at around the same time.


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

Footage ain't rare when a fair few people already have it. It's not that rare that say, only one person I know has it and begs me not to even let anyone know that it exists, rare. I know a few people that have seen the real rare stuff, which is Gibbons Vs Packey! I know a few that have seen some of it, but only one person to claims to have seen all of it. That is rare.


----------



## Powerpuncher (May 20, 2013)

Flea Man said:


> Footage ain't rare when a fair few people already have it. It's not that rare that say, only one person I know has it and begs me not to even let anyone know that it exists, rare. I know a few people that have seen the real rare stuff, which is Gibbons Vs Packey! I know a few that have seen some of it, but only one person to claims to have seen all of it. That is rare.


Is there any Greb out there?


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

If there is, I'm not connected enough to have even heard a wet fats worth of information on it.

I'd say no either way.


----------



## Surf-Bat (Jun 6, 2013)

Powerpuncher said:


> Is there any Greb out there?


There is. It just hasn't been found yet. It will turn up if people keep looking. Heck, the Pirates-Yankees World Series from 1960 didn't even appear until 2 years ago. It was found among Bing Crosby's private collection. Read it. It's very inspiring and gives one hope: http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2010/12/pirates-yankees.php


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

If there is greb, I bet its like that from 42 minutes, at the back end if some old footage and not yet identified.

Just an afterthought as some guys muses "kinda looks like a black & white calzaghe" :lol:


----------



## Powerpuncher (May 20, 2013)

Surf-Bat said:


> There is. It just hasn't been found yet. It will turn up if people keep looking. Heck, the Pirates-Yankees World Series from 1960 didn't even appear until 2 years ago. It was found among Bing Crosby's private collection. Read it. It's very inspiring and gives one hope: http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2010/12/pirates-yankees.php


If everyone on here went on a mission to find it, it maybe possible. Where was boxing footage shown in these days? On TV or in the cinema? If it was in the cinema there's likely the films available. If it's on TV archive a campaign to buy/release footage by contacting the right people in TV companies.


----------



## Klompton (Jun 27, 2012)

Gibbons-McFarland isnt as rare as Gibbons-ODowd


----------



## Klompton (Jun 27, 2012)

That footage at the end of Gibbons-ODowd fight is of a young Ernie Schaaf in his sixth pro bout defeating Murray Gitlitz by decision on the undercard of Jack Sharkey-Jimmy Maloney at Yankee Stadium in 1927.


----------



## LittleRed (Jun 4, 2013)

Klompton I don't know you but you're my hero.

And they were big guys. A little bigger than I thought...


----------



## Jdempsey85 (Jan 6, 2013)

@Klompton

Any news on the greb book?


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

Klompton said:


> That footage at the end of Gibbons-ODowd fight is of a young Ernie Schaaf in his sixth pro bout defeating Murray Gitlitz by decision on the undercard of Jack Sharkey-Jimmy Maloney at Yankee Stadium in 1927.


Thank you!



Klompton said:


> Gibbons-McFarland isnt as rare as Gibbons-ODowd


Really?!? Have never seen it listed anywhere.


----------



## natonic (Jun 13, 2012)

Flea Man said:


> Thank you!
> 
> Really?!? Have never seen it listed anywhere.


This is incredible footage. Thanks Flea and thank your source. On first watch, my eyes were more often drawn to Gibbons. But this deserves at least 3 watches. I'll focus on O'Dowd next time.

Gibbons impressed the hell out of me. He has that fencer style like maybe a Loughran or at times he really reminded me of Conn. But he had a slickness when O'Dowd was closing on him and some strength when in close quarters. A very well rounded skillset for such a brilliant standup fighter. Somebody mentioned Kalambay, and I can see that comparison, but I think Gibbons was more well rounded. The subtle head movements were impressive. I think he's a different level from Graziano and would probably school him(so is O'Dowd). I can't believe I'm saying this, but I think he could give Hagler a lot of problems.

Great stuff!


----------



## Klompton (Jun 27, 2012)

Jdempsey85 said:


> @Klompton
> 
> Any news on the greb book?


The Greb book is coming soon its just taking longer to work out some of the 
kinks with the format before I can give the printer approval to release it.


----------



## Brownies (Jun 7, 2013)

Klompton said:


> The Greb book is coming soon its just taking longer to work out some of the
> kinks with the format before I can give the printer approval to release it.


Yeah, with the amount of references and the formating in this kind of book (text, pictures, old newspaper scan, etc), it must really be a pain in the ass at the end. Good luck with that and you can count on my money when it'll land. :cheers


----------



## tommygun711 (Jun 4, 2013)

care to reupload it @Flea Man ?


----------



## LittleRed (Jun 4, 2013)

I was waiting to queue up Gibbons-O'Dowd and then it's deleted. Probably was too sexy...


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

Alas, I did say it'd be a short one did I not? Sorry gents.


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

Nice. I'm in a good mood so Green K for everyone!


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

Klompton said:


> The Greb book is coming soon its just taking longer to work out some of the
> kinks with the format before I can give the printer approval to release it.


Youre killing me here.


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

Surf-Bat said:


> There is. It just hasn't been found yet. It will turn up if people keep looking. Heck, the Pirates-Yankees World Series from 1960 didn't even appear until 2 years ago. It was found among Bing Crosby's private collection. Read it. It's very inspiring and gives one hope: http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2010/12/pirates-yankees.php


:ibutt I believe!


----------



## Klompton (Jun 27, 2012)

the problem was that i originally designed the book to be 6x9 but not knowing what i was doing i placed the page numbers and headers outside thr safe margin area. to save time i had go back and make the book 7x10 which necessitated shifting all of the photos (and there are a lot). That and editing was tedious and more time consuming than i expected.


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

DP


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

Klompton said:


> the problem was that i originally designed the book to be 6x9 but not knowing what i was doing i placed the page numbers and headers outside thr safe margin area. to save time i had go back and make the book 7x10 which necessitated shifting all of the photos (and there are a lot). That and editing was tedious and more time consuming than i expected.


Gotcha. Purchasing regardless by the way :bbb


----------



## Surf-Bat (Jun 6, 2013)

Klompton said:


> the problem was that i originally designed the book to be 6x9 but not knowing what i was doing i placed the page numbers and headers outside thr safe margin area. to save time i had go back and make the book 7x10 which necessitated shifting all of the photos (and there are a lot). That and editing was tedious and more time consuming than i expected.


It shall all be worth it when it's released, mon ami. The buzz is building....


----------



## Sittin Sonny (Jun 10, 2013)

Flea Man said:


>


I get an error message saying the video doesn't exist. Was it taken down?


----------



## LittleRed (Jun 4, 2013)

Yeah. Had to be.


----------



## Theron (May 17, 2013)

I really wanted to watch this one, any chance of a re upload??


----------



## Jdempsey85 (Jan 6, 2013)

Check wbva


----------



## Bladerunner (Oct 22, 2012)

Klompton said:


> The Greb book is coming soon its just taking longer to work out some of the
> kinks with the format before I can give the printer approval to release it.


Hey K how about that Giardello-Mims fight that you said a couple of months ago you would re-upload to WBVA?


----------



## Klompton (Jun 27, 2012)

Bladerunner said:


> Hey K how about that Giardello-Mims fight that you said a couple of months ago you would re-upload to WBVA?


Oh crap man, Im sorry. I forgot. I'll get it up today.


----------



## Bladerunner (Oct 22, 2012)

Klompton said:


> Oh crap man, Im sorry. I forgot. I'll get it up today.


Cheers Mate :good


----------



## Bladerunner (Oct 22, 2012)

Klompton said:


> Oh crap man, Im sorry. I forgot. I'll get it up today.


:bart


----------



## Klompton (Jun 27, 2012)

Its up now, sorry about the delay.


----------



## Bladerunner (Oct 22, 2012)

Klompton said:


> Its up now, sorry about the delay.


You upped Giardello-SRR i was asking for Giardello-Mims.

Anyway thanks mate i wont bother you anymore with it.


----------



## Klompton (Jun 27, 2012)

Sorry about that. Its up now.


----------



## Bladerunner (Oct 22, 2012)

Klompton said:


> Sorry about that. Its up now.


No worries, Thank you very much K really appreciate it :good


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

Theron said:


> I really wanted to watch this one, any chance of a re upload??


At some point. Bit busy in life as of late hence lack of uploads.


----------



## Hands of Iron (Jun 27, 2012)

Flea Man said:


> At some point. Bit busy in life as of late hence lack of uploads.


We miss you.


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

Hands of Iron said:


> We miss you.


Thank you. Hope you're alright mate


----------



## LittleRed (Jun 4, 2013)

It's good to see flea. Warms the heart.


----------



## Hands of Iron (Jun 27, 2012)

LittleRed said:


> It's good to see flea. Warms the heart.


:lol:

Indeed.

From years of both browsing and posting on ESB/CHB the best posters I've ever come across from a purely boxing perspective (historical or technical) include @Flea Man @McGrain @Bogotazo @SJS20 @Klompton @Surf-Bat

They've all pissed me off at one point or another for knowing too much about WTF they were talking about. I learned some stuff from Janitor too, but Jess Willard isn't putting up a competitive fight against Mike Tyson :rofl


----------



## SJS20 (Jun 8, 2012)

Hands of Iron said:


> :lol:
> 
> Indeed.
> 
> ...


:tim


----------



## Hands of Iron (Jun 27, 2012)

SJS20 said:


> :tim


Bernard still isn't a Top 5 MW. :smile


----------



## SJS20 (Jun 8, 2012)

Hands of Iron said:


> Bernard still isn't a Top 5 MW. :smile


Yes, yes he is...


----------



## Vic (Jun 7, 2012)

I don´t do lists anymore...but I would rate him up there too....He may not have beaten a great era (we know that it definitely wasn´t) but I think he had the ability/skills to beat a lot of greats from other generations. I see that on film. IMHO.


----------



## Hands of Iron (Jun 27, 2012)

I've most definitely got him behind Greb/Robbi/Monzon/Hagler. He could squeeze in, but I like Burley and/or Williams for that usually when I used to compile them.


----------



## SJS20 (Jun 8, 2012)

Hands of Iron said:


> I've most definitely got him behind Greb/Robbi/Monzon/Hagler. He could squeeze in, but I like Burley and/or Williams for that usually when I used to compile them.


5th is where I have him.

I've made the point before that I don't necessarily see 'weak' eras as a drawback.


----------



## Hands of Iron (Jun 27, 2012)

SJS20 said:


> 5th is where I have him.
> 
> I've made the point before that I don't necessarily see 'weak' eras as a drawback.


You mentioned Jones and Calzaghe in the same post if I recall and gave examples for each scenario of the divisions becoming 'hot' after they made their exits


----------



## SJS20 (Jun 8, 2012)

Hands of Iron said:


> You mentioned Jones and Calzaghe in the same post if I recall and gave examples for each scenario of the divisions becoming 'hot' after they made their exits


:deal

If one horse is quicker than the others, then you don't have an exciting race.

If you have several horses all running at a slower speed yet a relatively equal one, then you'll re-call that as the better and more exciting race...


----------



## McGrain (Jul 6, 2012)

Flea Man said:


> Thank you. Hope you're alright mate


What the fuck are you up to anyway?


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

McGrain said:


> What the fuck are you up to anyway?


Not smoking skunk.

How the devil are you my friend?


----------



## Vysotsky (Jun 6, 2013)

SJS20 said:


> 5th is where I have him.
> 
> I've made the point before that I don't necessarily see 'weak' eras as a drawback.


So the quality of opposition beat is near irrelevant to you when ranking guys, all time no less. Care to explain how that works?


----------



## LittleRed (Jun 4, 2013)

I don't think that's what he means. I think he means that sometime an era is 'weak' because of someone dominating it. I think...


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

Eastman, Echols, Allen, the WBC champ whose name currently escapes me (totally generic operator) where just not very good.


----------



## LittleRed (Jun 4, 2013)

Hopki fought allen like 6 times right.


----------



## Vysotsky (Jun 6, 2013)

LittleRed said:


> I don't think that's what he means. I think he means that sometime an era is 'weak' because of someone dominating it. I think...


Oh i understand...



Flea Man said:


> Eastman, Echols, Allen, the WBC champ whose name currently escapes me (totally generic operator) where just not very good.


...Keith Holmes? But i don't think there's much room for debate your era was genuinely weak when Trinidad, Holmes, Joppy were the best title holders you faced and Jackson, Echols, Allen the top contenders. That's as weak a MW era that has ever existed imo.

Edit - Monzon and Hagler's era were clearly stronger than Hopkins' by a decent margin.


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

Holmes! That's the man. Average.


----------



## Klompton (Jun 27, 2012)

Bouttier, Licata, Tonna, Bogs, and Mundine were no better. Neither were the versions of Napoles, Moyer, and Benvenuti. Griffith was well on his way downhill and Monzon ducked Valdez for 3 years before finally fighting him. Thats a pretty weak era IMO. Outside of Valdez, who was never the same after his car crash, Briscoe is the best challenger Monzon faced and he lost 1/3 of his fights. I love Briscoe as much as anyone, and he certainly got jobbed a few times, but when a guy who loses 30% of his fights is your best challenger it doesnt say much for your era.


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

Still stronger than Hopkins' comp IMO


----------



## Vysotsky (Jun 6, 2013)

Klompton said:


> Bouttier, Licata, Tonna, Bogs, and Mundine were no better. Neither were the versions of Napoles, Moyer, and Benvenuti. Griffith was well on his way downhill and Monzon ducked Valdez for 3 years before finally fighting him. Thats a pretty weak era IMO. Outside of Valdez, who was never the same after his car crash, Briscoe is the best challenger Monzon faced and he lost 1/3 of his fights. I love Briscoe as much as anyone, and he certainly got jobbed a few times, but when a guy who loses 30% of his fights is your best challenger it doesnt say much for your era.


Benvenuti may have retired afterwards and had 80 fights but i don't agree with the argument of him being well past it based on either. If 80 fights means you're automatically past it then most guys pre 50's were shot before they ever became elite. Nino was reigning MW Champ, 31 years old and while probably not peak he wasn't far off it and that win is _considerably_ better than Trinidad which i consider Hopkins best.

The first Griffith win was also quality. He was more past it than Nino but definitely not shot and the way Monzon beat him even better. Again far beyond anything Hopkins did Trinidad, Holmes, Jackson whoever. Monzon fought Valdez 2 years after getting stripped not three. Not great but there are far worse examples like Larry Holmes not facing four #1 contenders during his reign and dropping a belt.

I would much rather have a guy like Briscoe than the type of manufactured contender that is all too common now-a-days that Hopkins opposition is filled with. Glen Johnson was 32-0 and had never faced a single decent contender at MW while guys like Eastman, Echols, Daniels, Vanderpool you're lucky to find wins over two or three half decent contenders. Briscoe may have the losses but he also has the experience that makes him far more formitable along with some good wins that are absent on the Hopkins contenders.

That's my opinion on it anyways. Whose era do you rate higher Monzon or Hagler?


----------



## Powerpuncher (May 20, 2013)

Flea Man said:


> Eastman, Echols, Allen, the WBC champ whose name currently escapes me (totally generic operator) where just not very good.





Flea Man said:


> Holmes! That's the man. Average.


Honestly Flea, how many Keith Holmes fights have you seen? Pure stylist, brilliant southpaw lateral movement, jab, angles and all that, although not much pop but you don't usually hold that against a fighter. Hopkins didn't want to box with him so he came inside and mauled, worked hard and cheated as he does against a Holmes who wasn't at his best. Holmes in my opinion would of taken Trinidad's supposed zero if that fight happened before Hopkins. He would of outboxed Pavlik and probably Winky, so maybe Hopkins best win in reality.

Allen was basic although Hopkins may have dived his way out of their first fight. Eastman strong solid guy but pretty basic.

Echols, no great, but quick and a heck of a banger, watch the great fight in Echols and Brewer if you haven't seen it. Most pros wouldn't want to face him unless they had too.



Vysotsky said:


> Monzon and Hagler's era were clearly stronger than Hopkins' by a decent margin.


I disagree



Vysotsky said:


> Benvenuti may have retired afterwards and had 80 fights but i don't agree with the argument of him being well past it based on either. If 80 fights means you're automatically past it then most guys pre 50's were shot before they ever became elite. Nino was reigning MW Champ, 31 years old and while probably not peak he wasn't far off it and that win is _considerably_ better than Trinidad which i consider Hopkins best.
> 
> The first Griffith win was also quality. He was more past it than Nino but definitely not shot and the way Monzon beat him even better. Again far beyond anything Hopkins did Trinidad, Holmes, Jackson whoever. Monzon fought Valdez 2 years after getting stripped not three. Not great but there are far worse examples like Larry Holmes not facing four #1 contenders during his reign and dropping a belt.
> 
> ...


At the time of their respective wins, Trinidad was a P4P no1 3 weight champion who was very much proven to be 1 of the clear best, while Benvenuti was a MW champion but lost twice in the 18 months prior to Monzon beating him. Benvenuti achieved more at middleweight with better wins there but I don't think he was a better boxer and I don't think he was in great form at the time Monzon dethroned him.

Griffith? Past his best for sure and always had his faults in my opinion the way some talk about him. Also pretty small at middleweight. It's a very good win, is it better than the welterweights who Hopkins beat nearer to their prime? I'm not convinced.

I think someone like Briscoe with all his losses but good wins is a top win, but I also think someone like Vanderpool who couldn't get many big fights is also a very good boxer and he was beating Hopkins for 4 rounds which is better than Pavlik who couldn't win a round against a much older man. I thought he was beating Lacy too before a premature stoppage but maybe that's just me? And no Hopkins did not get better in his 40s, which is why he wisely avoided Dawson for a few years.


----------



## Lester1583 (Jun 30, 2012)

Powerpuncher said:


> Echols, no great, but quick and a heck of a banger, watch the great fight in Echols and Brewer if you haven't seen it. Most pros wouldn't want to face him unless they had too.


Echols always gets underrated in "hardest middleweight punchers" discussions.

Not much skill, but he was a huge puncher.


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

Echols could whack but was not all that. 

I've seen about 5 Holmes fights PP; all that came before Hop, nome after. Nuttin special.


----------



## Klompton (Jun 27, 2012)

Vysotsky said:


> Benvenuti may have retired afterwards and had 80 fights but i don't agree with the argument of him being well past it based on either. If 80 fights means you're automatically past it then most guys pre 50's were shot before they ever became elite. Nino was reigning MW Champ, 31 years old and while probably not peak he wasn't far off it and that win is _considerably_ better than Trinidad which i consider Hopkins best.
> 
> The first Griffith win was also quality. He was more past it than Nino but definitely not shot and the way Monzon beat him even better. Again far beyond anything Hopkins did Trinidad, Holmes, Jackson whoever. Monzon fought Valdez 2 years after getting stripped not three. Not great but there are far worse examples like Larry Holmes not facing four #1 [/URL] contenders during his reign and dropping a belt.
> 
> ...


Benvenuti was no good when he fought Monzon and wasnt even a full time fighter. He was living the playboy lifestyle and his record reflects this. Going back a year before the first fight with Monzon he lost to an ancient Dick Tiger. He then got a criminal hometown stoppage against inexperienced Fraser Scott (one of the worst stoppages Ive ever seen), he then lost nearly every round to Rodriguez before catching him with a hail mary punch that saved his title for him, he then lost to journeyman Tom Bethea who had lost his last four fights in a row and would lose five of his next 6, he then got another hometown gift stoppage against Doyle Baird who he had won a gift draw against back in 1968. Then after losing to Monzon he took a warm up fight against Jose Chirino who had lost 3 of his last 4 fights and had never faced a world class opponent. He lost the decision and Chirino went on to fight 8 more times, losing 7. No, Benvenuti was nothing special at this point. That win was nowhere near as good as Hopkins win over Trinidad. Not even close. Not even in the same galaxy.

With all respect I dont know how you can say Monzon beat Griffith better again. Griffith gave Monzon all kinds of problems in the second fight and some people still think he deserved the decision. Griffith was on the slide big time at that point. But Griffith was a small middleweight and Monzon was a huge middleweight and Griffith was undeniably past his prime when they fought both times. The first win was quality but still not as impressive as some make it out to be. The second time he struggled there should have been no excuse for. Griffith was coming off a loss and draw to Bouttier and Cohen both of whom were pretty weak. After the second fight with Monzon Griffith literally lost as many as he won.

I rate most eras higher than Monzons and Haglers frankly. Haglers looks better than it was because he had so many stellar and exciting names MOVE UP to fight him but his actual middleweight contenders were about as weak and colorless as it gets. Same with Monzon. Monzon's era had one standout contender for him and he ducked Valdez (which by the way was a three year duck, not a two year duck, Valdez had already been Monzon's #1 contender for a year when he was stripped, hence being stripped when he elected to take on Napoles instead. He became the #1 contender when he defeated Briscoe for the NABF title in 1973 in what should have been the fight of the year).


----------



## Vysotsky (Jun 6, 2013)

Klompton said:


> Benvenuti was no good when he fought Monzon and wasnt even a full time fighter. He was living the playboy lifestyle and his record reflects this. Going back a year before the first fight with Monzon he lost to an ancient Dick Tiger. He then got a criminal hometown stoppage against inexperienced Fraser Scott (one of the worst stoppages Ive ever seen), he then lost nearly every round to Rodriguez before catching him with a hail mary punch that saved his title for him, he then lost to journeyman Tom Bethea who had lost his last four fights in a row and would lose five of his next 6, he then got another hometown gift stoppage against Doyle Baird who he had won a gift draw against back in 1968. Then after losing to Monzon he took a warm up fight against Jose Chirino who had lost 3 of his last 4 fights and had never faced a world class opponent. He lost the decision and Chirino went on to fight 8 more times, losing 7. No, Benvenuti was nothing special at this point. That win was nowhere near as good as Hopkins win over Trinidad. Not even close. Not even in the same galaxy.
> 
> With all respect I dont know how you can say Monzon beat Griffith better again. Griffith gave Monzon all kinds of problems in the second fight and some people still think he deserved the decision. Griffith was on the slide big time at that point. But Griffith was a small middleweight and Monzon was a huge middleweight and Griffith was undeniably past his prime when they fought both times. The first win was quality but still not as impressive as some make it out to be. The second time he struggled there should have been no excuse for. Griffith was coming off a loss and draw to Bouttier and Cohen both of whom were pretty weak. After the second fight with Monzon Griffith literally lost as many as he won.
> 
> I rate most eras higher than Monzons and Haglers frankly. Haglers looks better than it was because he had so many stellar and exciting names MOVE UP to fight him but his actual middleweight contenders were about as weak and colorless as it gets. Same with Monzon. Monzon's era had one standout contender for him and he ducked Valdez (which by the way was a three year duck, not a two year duck, Valdez had already been Monzon's #1 contender for a year when he was stripped, hence being stripped when he elected to take on Napoles instead. He became the #1 contender when he defeated Briscoe for the NABF title in 1973 in what should have been the fight of the year).


Well i said i thought his first victory over Griffith was more impressive and that's because of the performance along with considering Griffith a greater fighter than Trinidad overall, at WW (even holding wins over greater WW's than Felix like Rodriguez) and significantly greater and more accomplished at MW. Regarding size Monzon is talked about like a giant but he was 5'11.5 with same day weigh-ins if he was huge what is Hopkins? Griffith was still a strong guy at MW and at 5'7.5 he wasn't that short for the era alot of MW's were 5'8 or 5'9 like Briscoe and Valdez.

You certainly educated me on Nino's late career but i still think they were in the same solar system forget about galaxy. I am honestly curious to hear how other people rate the Trinidad victory though and Benvenuti is an interesting gauge.

- Prime for prime i assume you consider Nino the greater MW?

- I assume you rate Nino's MW accomplishments higher than Trinidad's at JMW-MW?

- You obviously rate the Hopkins win higher based on the versions they faced. Different galaxies.....









.


----------



## McGrain (Jul 6, 2012)

Flea Man said:


> Not smoking skunk.
> 
> How the devil are you my friend?


Awww, you're boring off drugs.

Seriously though, you in Thailand, what's going on with all of that? Drop me a mail.


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

McGrain said:


> Awww, you're boring off drugs.
> 
> Seriously though, you in Thailand, what's going on with all of that? Drop me a mail.


That is still being worked on but not a huge amount....in England, with a missus....so yes a bit more boring.

I will elaborate and glad you're still rocking Sasha :yep


----------



## LittleRed (Jun 4, 2013)

Wait did flea get married? Congratulations!


----------



## McGrain (Jul 6, 2012)

Flea Man said:


> That is still being worked on but not a huge amount....in England, with a missus....so yes a bit more boring.
> 
> I will elaborate and glad you're still rocking Sasha :yep


Awww, you're having sex so now you don't like boxing any more?

WELL FUCK YOU BUDDY.


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

McGrain said:


> Awww, you're having sex so now you don't like boxing any more?
> 
> WELL FUCK YOU BUDDY.


I was having sex before. Now I'm talkkng to someone before and after it and not sat in my shed smoking I don't have as much time to be analytical.

I'm back now ain't I?!?!

Besides I had to watch Muangsurin Vs Brooks and Mamby hundteds of times over :yep


----------



## Lester1583 (Jun 30, 2012)

Flea Man said:


> Besides I had to watch Muangsurin Vs Brooks and Mamby hundteds of times over :yep


Wait! WHAT?!!!:ibutt:yikes

The Greatest Brawl of All Time has been filmed???!!!:scaredas:

As well as the jaw-droppingly unbelievable schooling of Mamby???!!!:stonk


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

@Lester1583 Oh, yeah! But I'm gloating as I cannot upload or trade either.


----------



## McGrain (Jul 6, 2012)

Flea Man said:


> I was having sex before.


Lies. Good to see you though.


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

McGrain said:


> Lies. Good to see you though.


:lol: You too.


----------

