Gene Fullmer

[Onetimeonly]

Gene "The Clinching Machine" Foulmer considered great is a one of the biggest boxing jokes. All sorts of sh!t can happen in this mad sport...

Don't you consider wlad great?

So?

Just saying, 'clinching machine'

[Counter-puncher]

different when slavic

[DrDuke]

Also, different when being an inarguably best guy in the division for a decade and winning all available opposition fair and square.

[Onetimeonly]

Also, different when being an inarguably best guy in the division for a decade and winning all available opposition fair and square.

What a hero

[DrDuke]

Also, different when being an inarguably best guy in the division for a decade and winning all available opposition fair and square.

What a hero

As if it wasn't a big deal?

[Onetimeonly]

Also, different when being an inarguably best guy in the division for a decade and winning all available opposition fair and square.

What a hero

As if it wasn't a big deal?

Not as big of a deal as what fullmer did, not even. Close

[DrDuke]

What a hero

As if it wasn't a big deal?

Not as big of a deal as what fullmer did, not even. Close

Only if you measured their efficiency as a clinching machine.

[Ambling Alp II]

Who threw far more punches in his fights, Fullmer or Ruiz?
Who did fans like to see fight more, Fullmer or Ruiz?
Who fought by far the better competition, Fullmer or Ruiz?
Who won the Fight of the Year, Fullmer or Ruiz?

The comparison is ludicrous. But instead of admitting it, you are doubling down.

You can cry even louder and drool with more questions, attempting to point at some differences, but the obvious similarities between the two models of a clinching machine won't go anywhere, at least for the unbiased and clear-minded ones.

I was not crying. I was asking simple questions which if answered honestly shows that Fullmer and Ruiz were far, far different.
You have realize by this time that comparing Fullmer to Ruiz is beyond absurd.
I asked you straight forward questions and you ducked them.

The similarities are obvious? So obvious that nobody ever pointed this out before and no one seems to agree with that. Fullmer clinched a lot? OK, but it's OK for guys that you like such as Klitschko. After all he was the best heavyweight division in a very weak era.
Fullmer was at least one of the top three (sometimes #1 or #2) in his weight class for 8 years when his division was loaded.

And how many years was Ruiz the best heavyweight? Or #2 or #3?

Lemme guess, you aren't going to answer that either.

[DrDuke]

Who threw far more punches in his fights, Fullmer or Ruiz?
Who did fans like to see fight more, Fullmer or Ruiz?
Who fought by far the better competition, Fullmer or Ruiz?
Who won the Fight of the Year, Fullmer or Ruiz?

The comparison is ludicrous. But instead of admitting it, you are doubling down.

You can cry even louder and drool with more questions, attempting to point at some differences, but the obvious similarities between the two models of a clinching machine won't go anywhere, at least for the unbiased and clear-minded ones.

I was not crying. I was asking simple questions which if answered honestly shows that Fullmer and Ruiz were far, far different.
You have realize by this time that comparing Fullmer to Ruiz is beyond absurd.
I asked you straight forward questions and you ducked them.

The similarities are obvious? So obvious that nobody ever pointed this out before and no one seems to agree with that. Fullmer clinched a lot? OK, but it's OK for guys that you like such as Klitschko. After all he was the best heavyweight division in a very weak era.
Fullmer was at least one of the top three (sometimes #1 or #2) in his weight class for 8 years when his division was loaded.

And how many years was Ruiz the best heavyweight? Or #2 or #3?

Lemme guess, you aren't going to answer that either.

I didn't duck anything, I clearly pointed out, that those questions had nothing to do with the obvious similarities of Ruiz and Foulmer, which had been named by me not once. The same with the ranking of Foulmer and Ruiz, because they were compared with styles. Only those, who are as dumb as dumbling alp, couldn't see or understand it.

You continue to keep saying, that nobody critisized Foulmer for his foulish sh!t, except me, while some other people even in this thread did this. Oh my, you are either completely blind or dumb, or simply a dishonest clown (or everything).

So, propose your questions in the command tone to your kids, if you have ones. Everything has already become clear with this thread, except for dumbling clowns, who keep going circles.

[Ambling Alp II]

The questions had to do with the obvious differences between Ruiz and Fullmer. They are lot more different than they are similar. You didn't answer them, so yes you ducked them.

I never said no one else said Fullmer was a dirty fighter. I said that nobody else compares him to John Ruiz. You compare him to Ruiz because you don't like him. Someone brings up Klitschko (one of your favs) and suddenly it doesn't matter that Klitschko clinched so much. After all, he was best fighter when the division sucked. You don't seem to have a problem with Lennox Lewis (another fav) holding so much. And he held and hit. OK for him, since you like him.

Yes we have been going in circles and we should probably move on. But I know you always have to have the last word. Make sure to say dumbling or something like late. It's always hilarious.

[Cojimar 1946]

I think its reasonable to argue Fullmer doesn't qualify as great or belong in the hall of fame even if the comparisons with Ruiz are a stretch. Many people don't regard George Benton or Bennie Briscoe as great fighters but I think one could argue they are around Fullmer's level. I think Fullmer also may have benefited from not fighting a number of the tough black fighters of his era.

If someone feels Fullmer is clearly great but that guys like Benton, Briscoe and say Tim Witherspoon clearly are not I would be very interested in their reasoning. I might add Bert Lytell to the list.

[DrDuke]

The questions had to do with the obvious differences between Ruiz and Fullmer. They are lot more different than they are similar. You didn't answer them, so yes you ducked them.

I never said no one else said Fullmer was a dirty fighter. I said that nobody else compares him to John Ruiz. You compare him to Ruiz because you don't like him. Someone brings up Klitschko (one of your favs) and suddenly it doesn't matter that Klitschko clinched so much. After all, he was best fighter when the division sucked. You don't seem to have a problem with Lennox Lewis (another fav) holding so much. And he held and hit. OK for him, since you like him.

Yes we have been going in circles and we should probably move on. But I know you always have to have the last word. Make sure to say dumbling or something like late. It's always hilarious.

I'm not gonna waste my time with repeatedly posting the same stuff, because it's your hobby, so enjoy those questions being sticked right to your @$$.

Klitschko has never being a one of my favs, I'm simply objective towards him. Vice versa, it's you who hate him, because he causes unbearable butthurt for you, he's a modern fighter after all and he managed to become a bigger deal than a row of oldies. That hurts, doesn't it?

Furthermore, it has also being discussed already, about some fighters using foulish tactics occasionally in contrast to Foulmer fighting foulish all the time.

So, my "last words" on this subject has actually been said long time ago, as since then I'm simply having fun with observing new loops of your dumbling circles. Used "dumbling" specially for you, since you asked, bruh. Get in touch if there's any other need.

[Ambling Alp II]

I think its reasonable to argue Fullmer doesn't qualify as great or belong in the hall of fame even if the comparisons with Ruiz are a stretch. Many people don't regard George Benton or Bennie Briscoe as great fighters but I think one could argue they are around Fullmer's level. I think Fullmer also may have benefited from not fighting a number of the tough black fighters of his era.

If someone feels Fullmer is clearly great but that guys like Benton, Briscoe and say Tim Witherspoon clearly are not I would be very interested in their reasoning. I might add Bert Lytell to the list.

Well at least you think it is a stretch comparing him to John Ruiz.
How is it reasonable to argue that Fullmer doesn't belong in the HOF, wasn't great? ? Name another world champion who is not in the Hall of Fame who has wins over two Hall of Famers and draws against two others? I can't come with anybody.

Briscoe was a good fighter who beat several good fighters. He did have a draw against Monzon, but there isn't much else compares with what Fullmer did.
Benton beat Giardello, but really there is not much else that compares to Fullmer.

Witherspoon? He really doesn't standout against several other fighters of his own era that no one considers great. How much better was he really than Dokes, Page, Thomas, etc ?

Don't see how you can say Fullmer benefitted from not fighting a number of tough black fighters of his era. He fought Robinson 4x. Tiger 3x. Ralph Jones 2x. Spider Webb 2x. Gil Turner 2x. Bobby Boyd once. You actually could make an argument that Witherspoon.

[DrDuke]

Well at least you think it is a stretch comparing him to John Ruiz.
How is it reasonable to argue that Fullmer doesn't belong in the HOF, wasn't great? ? Name another world champion who is not in the Hall of Fame who has wins over two Hall of Famers and draws against two others? I can't come with anybody.

Oh, it's seems your retirement from the subject somehow wasn't very long.

Apparently, the proposed question still keeps the ass itch. BUT! Why on earth there should be another world champion who is not in the Hall of Fame who has wins over two Hall of Famers and draws against two others?

[Caractacus]

How would Gene Fullmer's boxing style be discribed ?
Shell style or Crab style ?
Archie Moore fought in a shell style but when he was hurt and in trouble he would go into the crab style.
He learned the shell method from Monroe Harrison in St. Louis.

[DrDuke]

How would Gene Fullmer's boxing style be discribed ?
Shell style or Crab style ?
Archie Moore fought in a shell style but when he was hurt and in trouble he would go into the crab style.
He learned the shell method from Monroe Harrison.

I tend to call Foulmer's one the Sh!t Style.

[Caractacus]

Yeah, but the" Sh*t style" got the job done !

[Caractacus]

The "Rock" however was finally able to get thru Archie Moore's "Shell/Crab defense with his Broken Rhythn and
"Anywhere" punches.(along with sheer WILL and tenacity of course)

[HomicideHenry]

Fullmer's style was a "Reverse Cross Guard", as I pointed out earlier with a video from The Modern Martial Artist channel on YouTube. It was effective.

[Caractacus]

what about when he fought Southpaws with that style ?
is there any footage of him fighting a Southpaw ?

[HomicideHenry]

That would be a nice algorithm for BoxRec to come up with, to see how many southpaws somebody fought in their career without having to look at every single name.

I can only think that on the rare occasions southpaws encounter each other that it is problematic because you are so used to fighting orthodox opponents.

[margaret thatcher]

why dont they teach that anymore

[Caractacus]

which other fighters have used the 'reverse cross-armed defense" since Gene Fullmer.
Because it worked for him and he became a champion.

[Caractacus]

Andre the Giant looks like he may be using some form of it against Chuck Wepner in 1976.
He was 7 ft tall but had a stocky build.I wonder who trained him for this fight ?

[DrDuke]

Gene Fullmer. Andre the Giant. This style was operated by the true sweet scientists.