BoxRec

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.

Yes, there were great, good, less good, mediocre and bad fighters in every era. Fullmer was dropped inbetween two better eras.

A one of the biggest things, which speak for him being not so great is a dispute around his decision. Almost every his big fight brings an agrument, but if it was with his great opponents like Robinson and Basilio in prime, it would be able to say, that Fullmer was on par with them. Since he had arguable decisions against the declined versions of those, it's not possible to compare their legacies properly.

You can call Fullmer tough and etc, which doesn't really correlates with greatness, because he was a very foulish fighter, which was discussed even in his time. The possibility of him being DQed was real even then, that's the fact.

Moreover, Fullmer didn't bring any important impact on the sport, which is a factor with all that HoF stuff. He was in a comparably weak era, he dealt with his predecessors in a controversial fashion and was comfortably dethroned by his succeedor.

So, the phenomenon of Fullmer clearly brings more dispute than genuine greatness. Yes, it's noticeably, but being obssessed with it? Please...

Almost everyone of his biggest fights brings up ana guement. Look at who they were against: Robinson 4x, tiger 3x, Baslio 2x. Giardello. That he was fighting on pretty even terms with these giuys where most of the fights were close is a strong indication that Fullmer himself was great.

His era was weaker than the one before and after? Not sure if that was true. Regardless, his era was very strong.

Take a look at the just the last 11 fights of his career:

Tiger
Tiger
Tiger
Paret
Fernandez
Robinson
Robinson
Basilio
Giardello
Webb
Basilio



That is brutal. You would be hard pressed to find more than a handful of fighters who ever fought that quality of competition during one stretch. Ever.

No, Robinson and Basilio were not in their primes. (Though I maintain that Basilio was pretty close.)
Those are still huge wins. Robinson was and Basilio were the champions (in an era where there were not 4 champions) when Basilio was fighting them. Ali was not in his prime when Ken Norton beat him. It's still a big win for Norton because Ali still was great.
It's the same with Fullmer. Robinson and Basilio were still great when Fullmer fought them.

He was foulish? Well you could say that about Giardello, Jack Dempsey, Eusebio Pedroza, Roberto Duran, Evander Holyfield, Lennox Lewis etc.

Toughness etc, doesn't correlate with greatness? Well yes it does. Being tough is a component of being great. Being tough helps you compete better. Fullmer's sheer tenacity help him compete with great fighters. You will hard pressed to find more than a handful of fighters who ever lived who kept bring the pressure round after round for 15 rounds. It is very rare.

A lot of close debatable fights? Well so did many other great fighters. Emile Griffith had more close decisions in his career than some guys have fights. Look at how many close decisions was Pedroza given.

No impact? Fullmer was in several great fights classics. His fights with Robinson and Basilio are legendary. Nobody liked to watch John Ruiz fight. People liked to watch Gene Fullmer fight.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑17 Aug 2021, 11:02 He was foulish? Well you could say that about Giardello, Jack Dempsey, Eusebio Pedroza, Roberto Duran, Evander Holyfield, Lennox Lewis etc.

Somewhere in this recent Fullmer soap opera through the forum it has already been discussed. The mentioned fighters used foulish tricks just among a variety of tools. With Fullmer's case the foulish tactics was a basis.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑17 Aug 2021, 11:02 No impact? Fullmer was in several great fights classics. His fights with Robinson and Basilio are legendary. Nobody liked to watch John Ruiz fight. People liked to watch Gene Fullmer fight.

Robinson and Basilio surely held a more cult status in comparison to Fullmer, especially Robinson.

yeah, I seem to remember growing up in the 1970's boxing fans still talked about Gene Fullmer,
even tho there was virtually no way to re-watch any of his fights unless you were a 8mm film collector or something.
BTW Gene Fullmer fought Sugar Ray Robinson 4 times but Jake LaMotta fought Robinson 6 times !

To say Fullmer had no impact on the business is to ignore not only what he did inside the ring but also outside of the ring.

The man and his brother trained and managed and promoted fighters practically until the day Gene Fullmer came down with Alzheimer's.

That man dedicated his entire life to the sport of boxing, in virtually every aspect of the business. To say he had no impact in boxing is the most disrespectful thing I've heard yet.

Furthermore to say he had no impact INSIDE THE RING is to ignore the fact how many men he not only beat but prevented from getting into the top 10 or getting a title shot--- I'm sure an awful lot of guys out there were beyond pissed and frustrated because Fullmer was around, otherwise they might have got into the top 10 or got a title shot.

I think it's time we start quote mining, looking at all the great fighters from that time and seeing what their opinion on Gene Fullmer was. I bet Dick Tiger, Carmen Basilio, Ray Robinson and others held the man up pretty high in their regard.

HomicideHenry wrote: ↑17 Aug 2021, 13:11 To say Fullmer had no impact on the business is to ignore not only what he did inside the ring but also outside of the ring.

The man and his brother trained and managed and promoted fighters practically until the day Gene Fullmer came down with Alzheimer's.

That man dedicated his entire life to the sport of boxing, in virtually every aspect of the business. To say he had no impact in boxing is the most disrespectful thing I've heard yet.

Furthermore to say he had no impact INSIDE THE RING is to ignore the fact how many men he not only beat but prevented from getting into the top 10 or getting a title shot--- I'm sure an awful lot of guys out there were beyond pissed and frustrated because Fullmer was around, otherwise they might have got into the top 10 or got a title shot.

I think it's time we start quote mining, looking at all the great fighters from that time and seeing what their opinion on Gene Fullmer was. I bet Dick Tiger, Carmen Basilio, Ray Robinson and others held the man up pretty high in their regard.

People hardly remember him today, apart from more or less avid boxing fans, which obviously can't be said about the likes of Robinson. And there's a pretty reason for that. Managing and promoting fighters is in another dimension. How it can be connected with his achievements as a boxer?

Dick Tiger, Carmen Basilio, Ray Robinson and the others couldn't do otherwise. Fighters often bring extra respect to the ones they fought to boost the significance of their performances against those.

DrDuke wrote: ↑17 Aug 2021, 13:31

HomicideHenry wrote: ↑17 Aug 2021, 13:11 To say Fullmer had no impact on the business is to ignore not only what he did inside the ring but also outside of the ring.

The man and his brother trained and managed and promoted fighters practically until the day Gene Fullmer came down with Alzheimer's.

That man dedicated his entire life to the sport of boxing, in virtually every aspect of the business. To say he had no impact in boxing is the most disrespectful thing I've heard yet.

Furthermore to say he had no impact INSIDE THE RING is to ignore the fact how many men he not only beat but prevented from getting into the top 10 or getting a title shot--- I'm sure an awful lot of guys out there were beyond pissed and frustrated because Fullmer was around, otherwise they might have got into the top 10 or got a title shot.

I think it's time we start quote mining, looking at all the great fighters from that time and seeing what their opinion on Gene Fullmer was. I bet Dick Tiger, Carmen Basilio, Ray Robinson and others held the man up pretty high in their regard.

People hardly remember him today, apart from more or less avid boxing fans, which obviously can't be said about the likes of Robinson. And there's a pretty reason for that. Managing and promoting fighters is in another dimension. How it can be connected with his achievements as a boxer?

Dick Tiger, Carmen Basilio, Ray Robinson and the others couldn't do otherwise. Fighters often bring extra respect to the ones they fought to boost the significance of their performances against those.

Well of course only avid boxing fans are going to remember him today. Nobody is saying he is as well know as Robinson. Many regard Robinson as the greatest fighter of all time.

He has been retired for almost 60 years. How many fighters from now do you think will be remembered in 60 years? A handful.


But he is very well known among avid boxing fans. Which is why people are jumping all over you. Many people on the Boxer History Forum really know the sports history. Not everyone who comes in this forum comes in mainly to rip the guys before their time.
When the International Boxing Hall of Fame opened up in 1991, he was elected the 2nd Year. This was 28 years after he last fought. He was well remembered.

Fullmer is just another obscure name in the records for you. He isn't obscure for people who are interested in boxing history. He is very well known to us.
Fullmer is as well known as Tiger, Giardello, Basilio and and many other greats.
As a fighter, Fullmer is held in high regard. Not as high as Ray Robinson, obviously. But very, very high.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑17 Aug 2021, 16:03

DrDuke wrote: ↑17 Aug 2021, 13:31

HomicideHenry wrote: ↑17 Aug 2021, 13:11 To say Fullmer had no impact on the business is to ignore not only what he did inside the ring but also outside of the ring.

The man and his brother trained and managed and promoted fighters practically until the day Gene Fullmer came down with Alzheimer's.

That man dedicated his entire life to the sport of boxing, in virtually every aspect of the business. To say he had no impact in boxing is the most disrespectful thing I've heard yet.

Furthermore to say he had no impact INSIDE THE RING is to ignore the fact how many men he not only beat but prevented from getting into the top 10 or getting a title shot--- I'm sure an awful lot of guys out there were beyond pissed and frustrated because Fullmer was around, otherwise they might have got into the top 10 or got a title shot.

I think it's time we start quote mining, looking at all the great fighters from that time and seeing what their opinion on Gene Fullmer was. I bet Dick Tiger, Carmen Basilio, Ray Robinson and others held the man up pretty high in their regard.

People hardly remember him today, apart from more or less avid boxing fans, which obviously can't be said about the likes of Robinson. And there's a pretty reason for that. Managing and promoting fighters is in another dimension. How it can be connected with his achievements as a boxer?

Dick Tiger, Carmen Basilio, Ray Robinson and the others couldn't do otherwise. Fighters often bring extra respect to the ones they fought to boost the significance of their performances against those.

Well of course only avid boxing fans are going to remember him today. Nobody is saying he is as well know as Robinson. Many regard Robinson as the greatest fighter of all time.

He has been retired for almost 60 years. How many fighters from now do you think will be remembered in 60 years? A handful.


But he is very well known among avid boxing fans. Which is why people are jumping all over you. Many people on the Boxer History Forum really know the sports history. Not everyone who comes in this forum comes in mainly to rip the guys before their time.
When the International Boxing Hall of Fame opened up in 1991, he was elected the 2nd Year. This was 28 years after he last fought. He was well remembered.

Fullmer is just another obscure name in the records for you. He isn't obscure for people who are interested in boxing history. He is very well known to us.
Fullmer is as well known as Tiger, Giardello, Basilio and and many other greats.
As a fighter, Fullmer is held in high regard. Not as high as Ray Robinson, obviously. But very, very high.

Robinson was obviously much more superior, but Fullmer wasn't really as good as Tiger, Giardello and Basilio. He faced only Tiger and Giardello in their primes and wasn't able to win any of them. Yes, the Giardello fight isn't available full, but the accessible parts illustrate how horrible Fullmer was and how unfair the ref acted. Tiger left less questions in their rivalry.

A Send Off For The Greatest P4P.

When Sugar Robinson retired the Garden in New York decided to give him a send off presenting him with a nice trophy.It was part of the goings on at the Emile Greiffith msin event. Invited to stand in the four corners of the ring to honor Ray were Bobo Llson,Randy Turpin,Carmen Basilio ,and Gene Fullmer.( They didn't ask LaMotta because of the Billy Fox thing and the pandering of a minor in his bar in Miami)

klompton wrote: ↑12 Aug 2021, 10:40 Fullmer is overrated and all of those criticisms in the original post are completely legit. He was incredibly dirty, spoiled fights, and on top of those two things he was always getting the benefit of close decisions. He should have lost the first Webb fight, the Giardello fight, the third Robinson fight, the third Turner fight, and the second Dick Tiger fight. The Fernandez fight could have easily gone the other way and he should have been DQd in the first Robinson fight (and several others). When asked why he let him foul Robinson so much after their first fight Goldstein replied "thats the only way he knows how to fight." What a lame answer and excuse for allowing fullmer to repeatedly elbow, headbutt, trip, wrestle, hold excessively, hold and hit, etc. You couldnt win a decision over Fullmer anywhere west of the Rockies. It just wasnt going to happen.

Steve, I agree with every bit of what you wrote, but even so, you were still much too easy on our dear old Gene. You didn't mention all those rabbit punches that the refs failed to warn against. Those bug me more than anything when I'm watching the old videos, which, as you know, isn't very often since I have trouble stomaching the sight of him!

Honoring Ray Robinson at The Garden

DrDuke wrote: ↑17 Aug 2021, 16:50

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑17 Aug 2021, 16:03

DrDuke wrote: ↑17 Aug 2021, 13:31

People hardly remember him today, apart from more or less avid boxing fans, which obviously can't be said about the likes of Robinson. And there's a pretty reason for that. Managing and promoting fighters is in another dimension. How it can be connected with his achievements as a boxer?

Dick Tiger, Carmen Basilio, Ray Robinson and the others couldn't do otherwise. Fighters often bring extra respect to the ones they fought to boost the significance of their performances against those.

Well of course only avid boxing fans are going to remember him today. Nobody is saying he is as well know as Robinson. Many regard Robinson as the greatest fighter of all time.

He has been retired for almost 60 years. How many fighters from now do you think will be remembered in 60 years? A handful.


But he is very well known among avid boxing fans. Which is why people are jumping all over you. Many people on the Boxer History Forum really know the sports history. Not everyone who comes in this forum comes in mainly to rip the guys before their time.
When the International Boxing Hall of Fame opened up in 1991, he was elected the 2nd Year. This was 28 years after he last fought. He was well remembered.

Fullmer is just another obscure name in the records for you. He isn't obscure for people who are interested in boxing history. He is very well known to us.
Fullmer is as well known as Tiger, Giardello, Basilio and and many other greats.
As a fighter, Fullmer is held in high regard. Not as high as Ray Robinson, obviously. But very, very high.

Robinson was obviously much more superior, but Fullmer wasn't really as good as Tiger, Giardello and Basilio. He faced only Tiger and Giardello in their primes and wasn't able to win any of them. Yes, the Giardello fight isn't available full, but the accessible parts illustrate how horrible Fullmer was and how unfair the ref acted. Tiger left less questions in their rivalry.

Yes obviously Robinson was better. Nobody said he wasn't. Many consider Robonson the best of all time.

I would also rate him behind Tiger. Tiger won the head the head to head and Fullmer doesn't have enough of an advantage over the rest of their careers to rate him as high. However, Fullmer was not that far behind him.

Basilio was not too far past his prime and Fullmer beat him both times. Would Fullmer have beaten him if Basilio was in his absolute prime ? Hard to say. Fuller was about even with Basilio. If Basilio is ahead of him, it can't be by much.

Fullmer and Giardello met once and had a draw in a dirt fight by both. (Giardello admittedly headbutted on purpose) Going by that fight and the rest of their careers, they are about even.

dagosd2000 wrote: ↑17 Aug 2021, 17:32
Honoring Ray Robinson at The Garden

That was pretty cool. Thanks for posting that.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑17 Aug 2021, 11:02

Take a look at the just the last 11 fights of his career:

Tiger
Tiger
Tiger
Paret
Fernandez
Robinson
Robinson
Basilio
Giardello
Webb
Basilio

JESUS

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑18 Aug 2021, 10:02 Basilio was not too far past his prime and Fullmer beat him both times. Would Fullmer have beaten him if Basilio was in his absolute prime ? Hard to say. Fuller was about even with Basilio. If Basilio is ahead of him, it can't be by much.

Fullmer and Giardello met once and had a draw in a dirt fight by both. (Giardello admittedly headbutted on purpose) Going by that fight and the rest of their careers, they are about even.

Basilio also handled a fresher version of Robinson and with less controversy than Fullmer did in his Robinson rivalry. That's speaks for Basilio pretty much. Basilio was the man in two divisions, even though shortly at MW. Fullmer's status as the best man at a single division was questionable.

Giardello could fight against rules too in the Fullmer fight, but he had no other option, because it was Fullmer, who had imposed that game and it hadn't been properly controlled by the referee.

That's the major reason why I'm against much credit to Fullmer. His success was mostly scored with the foulish tactics, which for some reason had never been penilized in his fights. It gave him unfair advantage. It wasn't better than putting a horseshoe in a glove.

Robinson was a little older when he fought Fullmer than when he fought Basilio, but watching their fights you can't see much difference.

Yes Basilio did win the welterweight title, and should give credit for it. Don't see how that should count against Fullmer. Nobody ever says that Monzon or Hagler should have moved up. Fullmer was one of the top 3 middleweights in the world for 8 eights when the division was loaded. He was arguably the best at times.
Actually there was more controversy in the Basilio-Robinson fights. Many people thought Robinson won the first fight.
There was little controversy following Fullmer's wins over Robinson. Some people thought their draw should have gone to Robinson, others to Fullmer. That is how draws go the vast majority of the time.

Fullmer's success was not mostly do to fouling. That's baloney. Watching 3 minutes of the Giardello fight is not nearly enough to rip a guys career. I have seen the entire fight. Giardelleo was just a s guilty as Fullmer.
You don't have the kind of success Fullmer had mostly by fouling. It was because his unorthodox style stamina, toughness, and non-stop aggression.
You don't have classic fights against Robinson and Basilio because of mostly fouling. If you had actually watched the first Basilio fight, you would have seen that there really was not much fouling. Basilio didn't complain after the fight. In fact he was very complimentary towards Fullmer. He said the Fullmer fights were the toughest of his career.

You don't have great fights by mostly fouling. Fullmer had several great fights. Calling a spoiler, questioning his toughness, and comparing him to John Ruiz is simply ridiculous.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑18 Aug 2021, 15:46 Robinson was a little older when he fought Fullmer than when he fought Basilio, but watching their fights you can't see much difference.

Yes Basilio did win the welterweight title, and should give credit for it. Don't see how that should count against Fullmer. Nobody ever says that Monzon or Hagler should have moved up. Fullmer was one of the top 3 middleweights in the world for 8 eights when the division was loaded. He was arguably the best at times.
Actually there was more controversy in the Basilio-Robinson fights. Many people thought Robinson won the first fight.
There was little controversy following Fullmer's wins over Robinson. Some people thought their draw should have gone to Robinson, others to Fullmer. That is how draws go the vast majority of the time.

Fullmer's success was not mostly do to fouling. That's baloney. Watching 3 minutes of the Giardello fight is not nearly enough to rip a guys career. I have seen the entire fight. Giardelleo was just a s guilty as Fullmer.
You don't have the kind of success Fullmer had mostly by fouling. It was because his unorthodox style stamina, toughness, and non-stop aggression.
You don't have classic fights against Robinson and Basilio because of mostly fouling. If you had actually watched the first Basilio fight, you would have seen that there really was not much fouling. Basilio didn't complain after the fight. In fact he was very complimentary towards Fullmer. He said the Fullmer fights were the toughest of his career.

You don't have great fights by mostly fouling. Fullmer had several great fights. Calling a spoiler, questioning his toughness, and comparing him to John Ruiz is simply ridiculous.

As it has already been pointed out, the Basilio fight was cleaner in comparison to other Foulmer's circuses. The Robinson one was far worse and objectively Foulmer was on the verge of being DQed. Calling Foulmer's style unorthodox instead of simply foulish is the lamest excuse for his disgusting display of dirtiness. Somehow Foulmer was able to do those "great" fights by fouling. Sh!t happens in boxing, unfortunately.

The Ruiz comparison has been already discussed as well. This Foulmer soap opera is going by circles. Since it's so necessary, I'll repeat this plain thing for all blind, deaf and narrow-minded: the Foulmer-Ruiz comparison is obvious and doesn't mean the 100% identity of these two motherf*ckers. Yes, Foulmer appeared to be more ingenious and aggressive, but the fact of them two clinching here and there, as well as being bloody awful to watch, puts a possibility of comparison to the surface.

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?
Who won the Fighter of the Year award, Fullmer or Ruiz?

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

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑18 Aug 2021, 16:40 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.

Fuller was crude for a great fighter, Ruiz sucked.

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...

DrDuke wrote: ↑18 Aug 2021, 16:55 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?

Onetimeonly wrote: ↑18 Aug 2021, 17:16

DrDuke wrote: ↑18 Aug 2021, 16:55 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?