Originally posted by Willie Pep 229
View Post
Yeah, Gibbons was something special. I really do believe old time Boxers were much more raw than revisionists try to portray them. But leading up to Willie Pep, who probably still deserves to be the definition of the perfect Boxer, there were clearly men laying the groundwork. Gibbons was in that theme. And he showed he could be a very effective finisher, too.
I am torn on Wilde. He looks decent on film. But soooo much of his reputation is built of fable. He's as much a figure of folk lore as he is a real fighter. I don't doubt he hit remarkably hard and was tremendously talented as natural. But I also think that's true of Midget Wolgast.... who goes completely neglected. What about Benny Lynch? He wasn't KO'ing men 50 pounds heavier than himself, but neither were Middleweights anymore during his era: Langford and Fitzsimmons would have never fought Joe Louis in the 30's, their ceiling probably would have been the Light Heavyweight division, if they went that far.
It's a cop out, but with guys like Wilde and Ali whose divisions lie on the periphery and their competition was of questionable value, I believe a top 50 slot is guaranteed, and maybe with strong argument a top 25 spot is warranted, but moving towards the top space should be reserved for the most proven fighters, where greatness was achieved by more than just raw physical talent and grit.
Comment