BoxRec

Good one.
How about Basilio, Giardello, Tiger, and Robinson?
Should they be in the Hall of Fame?

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑12 Aug 2021, 15:46 Good one.
How about Basilio, Giardello, Tiger, and Robinson?
Should they be in the Hall of Fame?

Did you prepare that stupid question to follow with the lame "But he beat Basilio and Robinson!!!" after an obvious answer?

I will take that as a yes.
And yes Fullmer did beat Robinson, Twice. And Basilio twice. And had a draw with Giardello. And a draw with Tiger. And a draw with Robinson. And beat several other very good fighters. Since he was a "spoiler", he must have been lucky. Incredibly lucky.

You have wonder if Robinson, Basilio, Tiger, Giardello thought he belongs in the Hall of Fame. They probably just thought he was a "spoiler".
Strange how why there was no huge outcry that Fullmer didn't belong shortly after he got elected.

Equally strange that I have never heard anyone else ever questioned him belonging before. Very strange indeed.

We also put him in the Boxrec Hall of Fame, which is actually harder to get elected to. Only 88 guys were put in ahead of him, which really is not that many considering the long history of the sport. 9 out of 10 people voted for him. What were we thinking?

And how was that first Basilio-Fullmer fight named the Fight of the Year? What's up with that? It so boring.

What has everyone been thinking the last 65 years or so?

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑12 Aug 2021, 16:15 I will take that as a yes.
And yes Fullmer did beat Robinson, Twice. And Basilio twice. And had a draw with Giardello. And a draw with Tiger. And a draw with Robinson. And beat several other very good fighters. Since he was a "spoiler", he must have been lucky. Incredibly lucky.

You have wonder if Robinson, Basilio, Tiger, Giardello thought he belongs in the Hall of Fame. They probably just thought he was a "spoiler".
Strange how why there was no huge outcry that Fullmer didn't belong shortly after he got elected.

Equally strange that I have never heard anyone else ever questioned him belonging before. Very strange indeed.

We also put him in the Boxrec Hall of Fame, which is actually harder to get elected to. Only 88 guys were put in ahead of him, which really is not that many considering the long history of the sport. 9 out of 10 people voted for him. What were we thinking?

And how was that first Basilio-Fullmer fight named the Fight of the Year? What's up with that? It so boring.

What has everyone been thinking the last 65 years or so?

Again referring to some else. Always under some biases. Don't you trust you own brain? Or should I ask, if you have such?

Different HoF choices are always being criticized, if you need other opinions to construct your biased position.

For what it is worth, I watched the 3rd Robinson-Fullmer fight when it happened on TV. I was pretty sure that Robinson won and would be the middleweight champion for the 6th time. I thought it was a bad decision when it was called a draw. Robinson was 39 at the time. 14 of 20 sportswriters at ringside thought that Robinson won.

Scypion wrote: ↑13 Aug 2021, 02:34 For what it is worth, I watched the 3rd Robinson-Fullmer fight when it happened on TV. I was pretty sure that Robinson won and would be the middleweight champion for the 6th time. I thought it was a bad decision when it was called a draw. Robinson was 39 at the time. 14 of 20 sportswriters at ringside thought that Robinson won.

In addition to that all Fullmer's major performances were dirty enough to penalize him. His so-called "legacy" is based on disputable and foulish performances against fading great fighters.

DrDuke wrote: ↑13 Aug 2021, 02:09

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑12 Aug 2021, 16:15 I will take that as a yes.
And yes Fullmer did beat Robinson, Twice. And Basilio twice. And had a draw with Giardello. And a draw with Tiger. And a draw with Robinson. And beat several other very good fighters. Since he was a "spoiler", he must have been lucky. Incredibly lucky.

You have wonder if Robinson, Basilio, Tiger, Giardello thought he belongs in the Hall of Fame. They probably just thought he was a "spoiler".
Strange how why there was no huge outcry that Fullmer didn't belong shortly after he got elected.

Equally strange that I have never heard anyone else ever questioned him belonging before. Very strange indeed.

We also put him in the Boxrec Hall of Fame, which is actually harder to get elected to. Only 88 guys were put in ahead of him, which really is not that many considering the long history of the sport. 9 out of 10 people voted for him. What were we thinking?

And how was that first Basilio-Fullmer fight named the Fight of the Year? What's up with that? It so boring.

What has everyone been thinking the last 65 years or so?

Again referring to some else. Always under some biases. Don't you trust you own brain? Or should I ask, if you have such?

Different HoF choices are always being criticized, if you need other opinions to construct your biased position.

I do trust my own brain. I have clearly stated why I think he was a great fighter, and why he belongs in the HOF. I simply pointed to his record. His record in undeniable.
Yes different HOF choices are always criticized. Jess Wilard yet. Arturo Gatti yes. Not Fullmer.

Yes I am referring to other people. No one but you thinks that Fullmer should not be in the HOF. Why is that? It's because he clearly belongs. Literally everything points that way. He is not some borderline choice. He is a rock solid choice. It's absurd to think otherwise.
You can't come up with a coherent reason why he shouldn't be in. If you could, you probably would have by now.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑13 Aug 2021, 10:43

DrDuke wrote: ↑13 Aug 2021, 02:09

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑12 Aug 2021, 16:15 I will take that as a yes.
And yes Fullmer did beat Robinson, Twice. And Basilio twice. And had a draw with Giardello. And a draw with Tiger. And a draw with Robinson. And beat several other very good fighters. Since he was a "spoiler", he must have been lucky. Incredibly lucky.

You have wonder if Robinson, Basilio, Tiger, Giardello thought he belongs in the Hall of Fame. They probably just thought he was a "spoiler".
Strange how why there was no huge outcry that Fullmer didn't belong shortly after he got elected.

Equally strange that I have never heard anyone else ever questioned him belonging before. Very strange indeed.

We also put him in the Boxrec Hall of Fame, which is actually harder to get elected to. Only 88 guys were put in ahead of him, which really is not that many considering the long history of the sport. 9 out of 10 people voted for him. What were we thinking?

And how was that first Basilio-Fullmer fight named the Fight of the Year? What's up with that? It so boring.

What has everyone been thinking the last 65 years or so?

Again referring to some else. Always under some biases. Don't you trust you own brain? Or should I ask, if you have such?

Different HoF choices are always being criticized, if you need other opinions to construct your biased position.

I do trust my own brain. I have clearly stated why I think he was a great fighter, and why he belongs in the HOF. I simply pointed to his record. His record in undeniable.
Yes different HOF choices are always criticized. Jess Wilard yet. Arturo Gatti yes. Not Fullmer.

Yes I am referring to other people. No one but you thinks that Fullmer should not be in the HOF. Why is that? It's because he clearly belongs. Literally everything points that way. He is not some borderline choice. He is a rock solid choice. It's absurd to think otherwise.
You can't come up with a coherent reason why he shouldn't be in. If you could, you probably would have by now.

You're brainless as a stone or utterly biased, becase I've repeated my reason of Fullmer sucking a cock not once both in this thread and in mythical matchups, while there are people even here, who also posted negative comments about him. So, you can stick those "No one but you thinks" and "You can't come up with a coherent reason why he shouldn't be in" right in your @$$.

I guess I will mention yet again that he beat Robinson 2x, Basilio 2x, had a draw with Giardello, Tiger and Robinson. There are many Hall of Famers whose best results aren't even close to this.
You would be hard pressed to find another world champion with better results against 4 Hall of Famers who is not in the Hall of Fame.
Can you come up with any?

It is always nice chatting with you. You are such a pleasant person.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑13 Aug 2021, 13:28 I guess I will mention yet again that he beat Robinson 2x, Basilio 2x, had a draw with Giardello, Tiger and Robinson. There are many Hall of Famers whose best results aren't even close to this.
You would be hard pressed to find another world champion with better results against 4 Hall of Famers who is not in the Hall of Fame.
Can you come up with any?

It is always nice chatting with you. You are such a pleasant person.

I see how much you love chatting with me. You'll always respond and every time with huge paragraphs of genuine gold. That's pure love for sure. No homo, but thank you very much for your feelings, bruh.

Fullmer's record was good only on paper. Those were disputable and foulish performances by Fullmer agaunst majorly past prime opponents. Yet you will count it as something good, because of your ridiculous biases.

I actually don't respond to most of your posts.
Not sure how I am "biased towards Fullmer. He wasn't one of my favorite fighters. I'm not saying that he was the best of all time. Just saying the obvious: He was a great fighter.

As for disputable results, well yes, draws seem to be that way. Strange isn't it?
By the way:
The UPI scored the Giardello fight for Fullmer.
The UPI scored the 2nd Tiger fight for Fullmer
The AP scored the draw with Robinson for Fullmer.

He easily could have got the decision in all three. Or a loss. They were all very close. Hard to imagine that a fighter who was not great could go tooth and nail with all three of those guys. (And of course beat Basilio, twice.)

As for Fullmer's opponents were "majorly" past their prime. Basilio was pretty close to his prime. Tiger and Giardello were in their prime. Robinson was clearly past his prime. However he was still a great fighter.

Still waiting for you to come up with names of a world champion whose results match Fullmer's who is not in the Hall of Fame. You ought to be able to come up with several if Fullmer should not be in there.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑13 Aug 2021, 15:44 I actually don't respond to most of your posts.
Not sure how I am "biased towards Fullmer. He wasn't one of my favorite fighters. I'm not saying that he was the best of all time. Just saying the obvious: He was a great fighter.

As for disputable results, well yes, draws seem to be that way. Strange isn't it?
By the way:
The UPI scored the Giardello fight for Fullmer.
The UPI scored the 2nd Tiger fight for Fullmer
The AP scored the draw with Robinson for Fullmer.

He easily could have got the decision in all three. Or a loss. They were all very close. Hard to imagine that a fighter who was not great could go tooth and nail with all three of those guys. (And of course beat Basilio, twice.)

As for Fullmer's opponents were "majorly" past their prime. Basilio was pretty close to his prime. Tiger and Giardello were in their prime. Robinson was clearly past his prime. However he was still a great fighter.

Still waiting for you to come up with names of a world champion whose results match Fullmer's who is not in the Hall of Fame. You ought to be able to come up with several if Fullmer should not be in there.

What a nice no responding yet again. Omg, you're a clown.

Giardello and Tiger wasn't past prime and Fullmer somehow didn't win any of them, only got lucky with a couple of draws, received whoopings from Tiger. Basilio and Robinson were clearly past it. Still great and so what? Ali also was great vs Berbick and Spinks. Go induct those, dumby alpy.

You said Giardello wasn't past his prime. Well Fullmer got a draw with him. That was his only fight with him. Head to head, he fought on even terms with a prime Giardello, a legitimate hall of Famer. That can't be an argument against Fullmer. It is an argument for Fullmer.

Yes he lost to Tiger. Never said he was better than Tiger. However, that by itself, doesn't mean that Fullmer should not be in the Hall of Fame.

You are comparing fighting Ali in 1981 to fighting Robinson in 1957 and Basilio in 1959. Wow. How can anyone in the world come that conclusion?

Robinson and Basilio were not at their career best, but they certainly had a lot more left than Ali had by then. Ali by then was painfully slow and had was throwing very few punches with nothing on them. Robinson and Basilio were still two of the top middleweights around. Anyone that watches those fights can easily see that. Except for for you.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑14 Aug 2021, 15:08 You said Giardello wasn't past his prime. Well Fullmer got a draw with him. That was his only fight with him. Head to head, he fought on even terms with a prime Giardello, a legitimate hall of Famer. That can't be an argument against Fullmer. It is an argument for Fullmer.

Yes he lost to Tiger. Never said he was better than Tiger. However, that by itself, doesn't mean that Fullmer should not be in the Hall of Fame.

You are comparing fighting Ali in 1981 to fighting Robinson in 1957 and Basilio in 1959. Wow. How can anyone in the world come that conclusion?

Robinson and Basilio were not at their career best, but they certainly had a lot more left than Ali had by then. Ali by then was painfully slow and had was throwing very few punches with nothing on them. Robinson and Basilio were still two of the top middleweights around. Anyone that watches those fights can easily see that. Except for for you.

You repetetive delirium is even uglier to watch than Fullmer.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑14 Aug 2021, 15:08 You said Giardello wasn't past his prime. Well Fullmer got a draw with him. That was his only fight with him. Head to head, he fought on even terms with a prime Giardello, a legitimate hall of Famer. That can't be an argument against Fullmer. It is an argument for Fullmer.

Yes he lost to Tiger. Never said he was better than Tiger. However, that by itself, doesn't mean that Fullmer should not be in the Hall of Fame.

You are comparing fighting Ali in 1981 to fighting Robinson in 1957 and Basilio in 1959. Wow. How can anyone in the world come that conclusion?

Robinson and Basilio were not at their career best, but they certainly had a lot more left than Ali had by then. Ali by then was painfully slow and had was throwing very few punches with nothing on them. Robinson and Basilio were still two of the top middleweights around. Anyone that watches those fights can easily see that. Except for for you.

You keep on parroting that Fullmer got a draw against this guy or beat that guy without acknowledging how controversial those decisions were and just how he fought in those fights. Have you even seen the Giardello fight? No. Well I have Marv Jensen's entire film collection highlighting Fullmer from the time he was a child amateur until his final fight. Ive seen more of Fullmer's fights than anyone on this forum without question. When you want to pontificate on whether or not Fullmer was a dirty fighter who consistently got every break he could get in the officiating and judging then get yourself educated beyond simply scanning his record on boxrec and get back to me.

Klompton: How tough were the Fullmer-Milo Savage bouts ? Are they on film ?

To answer Klompton,
I admit, unlike you, I have not seen every fight that ever happened.
However, you have no problem giving Harry Greb full credit for those newspaper decisions.
A lot of people thought Giardello should have got the decision against Fullmer. On the other hand, a lot of people thought Fullmer should have got the decision. Same thing with the 2nd Tiger fight. That is usually how it works with draws. Usually (not always) it was a close fight and therefore opinions will vary.
Very rarely do 100% of the people think a draw was the correct verdict of a fight.

However getting a draw against Giardello and Tiger where many people thought he won indicates that a draw was reasonable. He did stop Basilio, twice. He beat Robinson twice. Not in his prime, but it's not like many fighters could have beaten Basilio and Robinson at that time. He also beat several other very good fighters.
No he wasn't pretty. Far from it. However, he did have some good attributes or he would not have been so successful. Results don't tell the whole story. But they can't be ignored either.

I challenge anyone to name another world champion not in the HOF whose results were that good against Hall of Famers. Is there even one?

To address the earlier comment made by someone else that beating Basilio was comparable to Berbik beating Ali, people can judge for themselves.





How in the world can someone come to this conclusion?

Oh, that's right, how was it possible to compare Berbick beating Ali and Fullmer beating Basilio?

It wasn't bearable at all, since Berbick indeed beat Ali in a boxing bout, while Fullmer outhugged and outhustled Basilio in the foulish circus.

Good points, Dumbling Alp II.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑12 Aug 2021, 16:15 I will take that as a yes.
And yes Fullmer did beat Robinson, Twice. And Basilio twice. And had a draw with Giardello. And a draw with Tiger. And a draw with Robinson. And beat several other very good fighters. Since he was a "spoiler", he must have been lucky. Incredibly lucky.

You have wonder if Robinson, Basilio, Tiger, Giardello thought he belongs in the Hall of Fame. They probably just thought he was a "spoiler".
Strange how why there was no huge outcry that Fullmer didn't belong shortly after he got elected.

Equally strange that I have never heard anyone else ever questioned him belonging before. Very strange indeed.

We also put him in the Boxrec Hall of Fame, which is actually harder to get elected to. Only 88 guys were put in ahead of him, which really is not that many considering the long history of the sport. 9 out of 10 people voted for him. What were we thinking?

And how was that first Basilio-Fullmer fight named the Fight of the Year? What's up with that? It so boring.

What has everyone been thinking the last 65 years or so?

Robinson seems to have been past his prime by the time of the Fullmer fights. I don't think using them to bolster Fullmer is a great argument. Basilios best work was at welterweight he was less accomplished by far at middleweight

DrDuke wrote: ↑16 Aug 2021, 00:48 Oh, that's right, how was it possible to compare Berbick beating Ali and Fullmer beating Basilio?

It wasn't bearable at all, since Berbick indeed beat Ali in a boxing bout, while Fullmer outhugged and outhustled Basilio in the foulish circus.

Good points, Dumbling Alp II.

Dumbling Alp II? Good one? Wow you are hilarious.
Ali had lost all of his speed and could only trhow punches very sporadically. Fuller-Basilio was almost non-stop action by both guys.
Foulish circus? What in the world are you talking about. Either you never watched the fight or you are completely clueless. Outhugged? There was a ton of action in that fight. Saying someone outhustled another guy is a compliment. Not sure if you realized that.

Berbick-Ali was a terrible fight. Basilio-Fullmer was a classic.

Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑16 Aug 2021, 07:21

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑12 Aug 2021, 16:15 I will take that as a yes.
And yes Fullmer did beat Robinson, Twice. And Basilio twice. And had a draw with Giardello. And a draw with Tiger. And a draw with Robinson. And beat several other very good fighters. Since he was a "spoiler", he must have been lucky. Incredibly lucky.

You have wonder if Robinson, Basilio, Tiger, Giardello thought he belongs in the Hall of Fame. They probably just thought he was a "spoiler".
Strange how why there was no huge outcry that Fullmer didn't belong shortly after he got elected.

Equally strange that I have never heard anyone else ever questioned him belonging before. Very strange indeed.

We also put him in the Boxrec Hall of Fame, which is actually harder to get elected to. Only 88 guys were put in ahead of him, which really is not that many considering the long history of the sport. 9 out of 10 people voted for him. What were we thinking?

And how was that first Basilio-Fullmer fight named the Fight of the Year? What's up with that? It so boring.

What has everyone been thinking the last 65 years or so?

Robinson seems to have been past his prime by the time of the Fullmer fights. I don't think using them to bolster Fullmer is a great argument. Basilios best work was at welterweight he was less accomplished by far at middleweight

Yes of course Robinson was past his prime when he fought Fullmer. I acknowledged that. However, he was still a great fighter at the time he fought Fullmer.
Basilio was still great middleweight. He just didn't fight there as often. Some of his best work was at this weight.
Watch the Robinson-Baslio.
Watch the Fullmer-Robinson.
Watch the Basilio-Fullmer.

Not many guys would have beat Robinson or Basilio had they been in Fulmer shoes.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑16 Aug 2021, 10:42

DrDuke wrote: ↑16 Aug 2021, 00:48 Oh, that's right, how was it possible to compare Berbick beating Ali and Fullmer beating Basilio?

It wasn't bearable at all, since Berbick indeed beat Ali in a boxing bout, while Fullmer outhugged and outhustled Basilio in the foulish circus.

Good points, Dumbling Alp II.

Dumbling Alp II? Good one? Wow you are hilarious.
Ali had lost all of his speed and could only trhow punches very sporadically. Fuller-Basilio was almost non-stop action by both guys.
Foulish circus? What in the world are you talking about. Either you never watched the fight or you are completely clueless. Outhugged? There was a ton of action in that fight. Saying someone outhustled another guy is a compliment. Not sure if you realized that.

Berbick-Ali was a terrible fight. Basilio-Fullmer was a classic.

To be fair, the Basilio bout was more or less good by the Fullmer standards, which I can admit, being objective, but obviously overall Fullmer was crap of a boxer, which you can't admit because of your blindfold bias towards oldies, so-called HoFers from the times of the greener grass, as if each of them was truly great, as if each of them wasn't overachieved and each of them can't be overrated today.

First of all, the Old Timers :
Yes it may seem that Old Timer's get less criticism that more modern fighters. However, if you think about it, it makes sense. Which Old Timers are we usually talking about? The best, occasionally those near the best. There were many fighters from say the the 1880-1970s that we never discuss because they weren't that good.

Do you want to start a thread about bad/mediocre fighters from way back? We could make a huge list. But, Why bother?
In 20-30 years, most the guys current fighters that are talked about now will be all but forgotton.
It's sort of like old movies: most of what people have seen are the good ones that people talk about. It's not that all movies from way back were all good; but we just don't bother with the lesser ones. A bad movie or TV show that you saw last week probably won't be well remembered 30 years from now.

So given that we are almost naturally talking about the good fighters form a particular era from way back, naturally we are going to mostly talk about the good-great ones and the their is more to be impressed about by the best than ordinary fighters..

As for Gene Fullmer - Of course he was a not slick boxer by any means. He was not orthodox. You would not teach many people to box that way. But it worked for him. One of the reasons was because his opponents seldom fought an opponent like him.

He had incredible stamina. He just kept coming and coming round after round. He was not just throwing one punch like John Ruiz, hoping to make it a close fight, ugly fight and hoping get out of there with a close decision against an ordinary or washed up fighter.
Fullmer battled the other guy. He kept bringing the pressure.
Like the other weight classes, the middleweight division had it's ups and downs. It was not that deep when I first became a fan. Some eras before his were not that deep either. However, in Fullmer's time, the middleweight division was loaded. His results speak for itself.

Fullmer was very dirty and got away with loads. To say he was like John Ruiz is madness! He had his own style and it wasn’t flashy it wasn’t always exciting but that guy could fight hard. None of his great opponents called him a bum.

DrDuke wrote: ↑16 Aug 2021, 11:05

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑16 Aug 2021, 10:42

DrDuke wrote: ↑16 Aug 2021, 00:48 Oh, that's right, how was it possible to compare Berbick beating Ali and Fullmer beating Basilio?

It wasn't bearable at all, since Berbick indeed beat Ali in a boxing bout, while Fullmer outhugged and outhustled Basilio in the foulish circus.

Good points, Dumbling Alp II.

Dumbling Alp II? Good one? Wow you are hilarious.
Ali had lost all of his speed and could only trhow punches very sporadically. Fuller-Basilio was almost non-stop action by both guys.
Foulish circus? What in the world are you talking about. Either you never watched the fight or you are completely clueless. Outhugged? There was a ton of action in that fight. Saying someone outhustled another guy is a compliment. Not sure if you realized that.

Berbick-Ali was a terrible fight. Basilio-Fullmer was a classic.

To be fair, the Basilio bout was more or less good by the Fullmer standards, which I can admit, being objective, but obviously overall Fullmer was crap of a boxer, which you can't admit because of your blindfold bias towards oldies, so-called HoFers from the times of the greener grass, as if each of them was truly great, as if each of them wasn't overachieved and each of them can't be overrated today.

Every generation has good or great fighters, and every generation has a boatload of bad ones. Every generation has people who are more hype than not.

Gene Fullmer was a man who made do with what he had. He was awkward as hell, and it was that awkwardness combined with incredible conditioning and toughness that overcame a lot of physically superior opponents and very skillful opponents.

Nothing he did was pretty. We all know that. But he was far more effective then you are giving him credit for. He wasn't a huggy bear. He was a real fighter.

And virtually nobody disagrees that the 1940s and 1950s welterweight and middleweight divisions were the golden age of boxing--- those two divisions were chock full of so much talent that we will most likely never see that again in our lifetimes or our kids lifetimes.

Now that doesn't automatically mean that everybody in that time period was great or good; there were bums too. But Gene Fulmer was not a bum, not by a long shot. You don't get close to the undisputed title, especially in those days, let alone win it unless you were the real deal--- or you were pushed by the mob (ie, Billy Fox) to cash in on bets, or you were a soft touch defense for somebody.

These days? Almost anyone can get ranked in the top 10. Almost anyone can get a belt. Almost anyone can get a multi-million dollar fight. And do it with virtually no experience or only fighting once a year.

In Fullmer's day people were fighting every week or at least once a month. So nobody can say people did not earn their spot or those titles, especially when the fights were longer and the gloves were smaller and the referees weren't so squeamish. Plus the fact there were far less weight classes which made it a bit more difficult all the way around.