Middleweights: Gene Fullmer vs Bernard Hopkins

elmersalsa · Post by **elmersalsa** » 04 Jan 2007, 18:30

I see a very rough and dirty fight between 2 strong willed fighters. I pick Fullmer by late KO.

theone · Post by **theone** » 04 Jan 2007, 18:34

Hopkins by clear UD whether 12 or 15. Fullmer as well as Basillio were very fortunate to encounter a very faded Robinson. Fullmer was not a ko puncher. He certainly did not hit anywhere near hard enough to stop Hopkins. His smothering style would feed right into the executioners hands.

elmersalsa · Post by **elmersalsa** » 04 Jan 2007, 18:36

theone wrote:Hopkins by clear UD whether 12 or 15. Fullmer as well as Basillio were very fortunate to encounter a very faded Robinson. Fullmer was not a ko puncher. He certainly did not hit anywhere near hard enough to stop Hopkins. His smothering style would feed right into the executioners hands.

Fullmer is not Tito Trinidad

theone · Post by **theone** » 04 Jan 2007, 18:41

Fullmer is not Tito Trinidad

No one said he was. He hit nowhere near as hard and would have probably been easier for Hopkins to hit.

john2345 · Post by **john2345** » 05 Jan 2007, 10:45

I reckon Fullmer would beat Hopkins.... I don't see Hopkins having the punching power to stop Gene, and I think he'd outrough and outwork Hopkins and win by decision.

It may be that I just don't "get" Hopkins....most times I've watched him he's been dull, or if he does look good it's generally been against a fighter who belongs in a lower weight class. Maybe I'm just missing something about the guy - and to be fair no one could fault him for dedication, determination and longevity. Anyway, just an opinion!

J

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 05 Jan 2007, 11:33

What your missing is called boxing.

Ok I don't mean that to be as inflammatory as it sounds....but good boxers who lean to defense and finesse always bore the masses. We like the Punchers the swarmers, and the boxer-punchers or the punishment absorbers. But the pure artists of finesse boxing are hard to appreciate. For some reason his personality has not got him far either and he's not the cleanest fighter so that goes against him as a finesse guy.....finesse boxers have to have a hook ...Sugar Ray seemed to have that. I think Floyd is hoping to develop that.

I hope my point is made.

john2345 · Post by **john2345** » 05 Jan 2007, 12:09

BoxBuzz wrote:What your missing is called boxing.

Ok I don't mean that to be as inflammatory as it sounds....but good boxers who lean to defense and finesse always bore the masses. We like the Punchers the swarmers, and the boxer-punchers or the punishment absorbers. But the pure artists of finesse boxing are hard to appreciate. For some reason his personality has not got him far either and he's not the cleanest fighter so that goes against him as a finesse guy.....finesse boxers have to have a hook ...Sugar Ray seemed to have that. I think Floyd is hoping to develop that.

I hope my point is made.

I see you point but to me "boxing" is more (to take a sample over the years) Robinson, Giardello, Sanchez, Barrera, PBF and the like....they had/have better skills (IMO) than BHop but they used/use them in a way that looks better to both the individual and the crowd at large. I prefer to watch the "artist" at work rather than two guys bashing the hell out of each other.... but Hopkins (to me) seems to fall in the middle, not quite as slick as the great boxers but too clever to get sucked into a career ending brawl time after time.

I was never a great fan of Fullmer but I still see him having too much for Hopkins...though maybe Hopkins would rise to the occassion when the pressure came.

J