fred fulton vs mitch blood green

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 01 Aug 2006, 23:52

the battle of the giants

theone · Post by **theone** » 01 Aug 2006, 23:55

Green. Fred Fulton was a big white hope stiff.

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 02 Aug 2006, 05:59

theone wrote:Green. Fred Fulton was a big white hope stiff.

Fulton. Green was a big green stiff.

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 02 Aug 2006, 09:47

Fulton is in a different class than Green. One guy was an underachieving journeyman, the other a solid top 10 HW for 8 years (and for awhile one of the top 2-3 HWs in the world) with a very solid resume.

theone · Post by **theone** » 02 Aug 2006, 17:50

Fulton and other "giants" of that era were only competitve because of thier size. Back days thats all it took to get ranked. Mitch Green is even bigger and stronger than Fulton was and would have been alot more successful than Fulton back then.
no doubt he would have lasted alot longer than :18 seconds against Dempsey.

granberry · Post by **granberry** » 02 Aug 2006, 18:19

theone wrote:Green. Fred Fulton was a big white hope stiff.

Fred Fulton stopped Sam Langford in 1917, ending Langford's career as a serious contender.

Was Sam Langford a "stiff" ?

Or are your posts the work of a "stiff" ?

theone · Post by **theone** » 02 Aug 2006, 18:32

Fred Fulton stopped Sam Langford in 1917, ending Langford's career as a serious contender.
Was Sam Langford a "stiff" ?

Langfords career as a serious heavyweight contender were done well before that. Green probably would have done the same thing to him at that time.

granberry · Post by **granberry** » 02 Aug 2006, 19:17

theone wrote:
Fred Fulton stopped Sam Langford in 1917, ending Langford's career as a serious contender.
Was Sam Langford a "stiff" ?

Langfords career as a serious heavyweight contender were done well before that. Green probably would have done the same thing to him at that time.

Dead wrong.

But you never quit posting your inane crap.

theone · Post by **theone** » 02 Aug 2006, 19:58

But you never quit posting your inane crap.

The fact that you get so riled up over my opinions, a total stranger to you, allows me to "gauge" what a lonely pathetic person you must be.

However, Like I stated in another post, I'm not going to engage in any silly arguments with you. So go ahead andtake the last word in this debate if it'll help you sleep better.

granberry · Post by **granberry** » 02 Aug 2006, 20:04

theone wrote:
But you never quit posting your inane crap.
The fact that you get so riled up over my opinions, a total stranger to you, allows me to "gauge" what a lonely pathetic person you must be.

However, Like I stated in another post, I'm not going to engage in any silly arguments with you. So go ahead andtake the last word in this debate if it'll help you sleep better.

It's obvious you've never had a fight with your own sister.

Does posting on a boxing site make you feel "manly"?

barry · Post by **barry** » 03 Aug 2006, 10:08

Fulton was a higher level than Green. Unlike some of the other white hopes, Fulton had solid skills, very heavy hands and could actually fight. A quick scan over Fulton’s record and one, who knows about boxing of that era, can see that Fulton fought a slew of top fighters. Not the two or three total ranked heavyweights like in Green’s resume…no Fulton had 50+ fights against top ranked heavyweights which some he lost and some he won…he won a lot more than he lost though. Once Green tasted Fulton’s power he would be running like he did against Tyson. Fulton was one of the actual white hopes who were legit and an actual threat to win the crown.

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 03 Aug 2006, 10:26

theone wrote:
Fred Fulton stopped Sam Langford in 1917, ending Langford's career as a serious contender.
Was Sam Langford a "stiff" ?
Langfords career as a serious heavyweight contender were done well before that. Green probably would have done the same thing to him at that time.

Harry Wills ended Langford's spell as the world's #1 heavyweight (and, per implication, most legit contender for the titleholer) and noone else.

evndrbsn · Post by **evndrbsn** » 03 Aug 2006, 10:46

granberry wrote:
theone wrote:
But you never quit posting your inane crap.
The fact that you get so riled up over my opinions, a total stranger to you, allows me to "gauge" what a lonely pathetic person you must be.

However, Like I stated in another post, I'm not going to engage in any silly arguments with you. So go ahead andtake the last word in this debate if it'll help you sleep better.
It's obvious you've never had a fight with your own sister.

Does posting on a boxing site make you feel "manly"?

What is your obsession with others never having a fight with their sisters? You've posted this silly, inane comment in about forty or so of your posts. Hmmm, very odd. Maybe it makes you feel "manly" to pick a fight with a girl, but instinct tells me probably not. My gut feeling, to tell the truth, is that your sister used to kick you in the balls and pee in your Mountain Dew. Picking on other people for your shortcomings as a man IS NOT going to stop the beatings. The best thing to do is to walk away and go tell mommy that she is doing it again.