BoxRec

How about this fight, then? Both beat the great Sugar Ray Robinson...One beat Robinson in his prime, but was 13 pounds over, and the other beat Robinson when Robinson was past his prime. Who wins? This fight would be a great war.

Gene appeared to be the stronger of the two but I believe LaMotta was the tougher and busier fighter.

LaMotta UD 15

I went for Fullmer in this one. This is one guy who won't be intimidated or overpowered by LaMotta, at any weight. Fullmer even gives LaMotta a run for his money in the chin stakes, but more significantly, he just had an awkward yet effective application of pressure & boxing (like a Monzon, in some respects) which was so much more impressive than it appeared while you were watching. No one got away from Fullmer without knowing they were in a hell of a fight.

I give it to Fullmer by a close UD.

I'd say LaMotta.

LaMotta. More crafty and slightly the harder hitter IMO (not that anyone is getting knocked out in this fight).

I think if you watch Fullmer-Basilio I, you'll see the way Fuller-LaMotta would have gone EXCEPT without the stoppage. Nobody was gonna get stopped in this fight. Fuller was very effective backing up. I'd take Fuller by decision.

LaMotta, more of a super middle than anything, was much stronger than Basillo (who wasn't even a natural middleweight)

raylawpc wrote:I think if you watch Fullmer-Basilio I, you'll see the way Fuller-LaMotta would have gone EXCEPT without the stoppage. Nobody was gonna get stopped in this fight. Fuller was very effective backing up. I'd take Fuller by decision.

People under-estimate Fullmer sometimes, because he doesn't always look as polished as a great fighter should. I think he'd have bested LaMotta.

dempseyfire wrote:LaMotta, more of a super middle than anything, was much stronger than Basillo (who wasn't even a natural middleweight)

Fullmer was no weakling himself. Kelly Burden, who later fought Bob Foster for the light-heavyweight title, was a Fullmer sparring partner in the early 1960s. He told me that Gene was very strong.

I'd take Fullmer by ud, in a tough fight of course. I think Fullmer was harder to hit and a bit underrated.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

raylawpc wrote:I think if you watch Fullmer-Basilio I, you'll see the way Fuller-LaMotta would have gone EXCEPT without the stoppage. Nobody was gonna get stopped in this fight. Fuller was very effective backing up. I'd take Fuller by decision.

People under-estimate Fullmer sometimes, because he doesn't always look as polished as a great fighter should. I think he'd have bested LaMotta.

That is probably why Fullmer seems to be a bit underrated these days. He certainly was not smooth.
LaMotta has been slighly overrated, probably becasue of the Raging Bull Movie.

They were similar fighters. Both had decent but not great power and threw a lot of punches. Both had great chins and a lot of heart. Neither were hard to hit. Assuming that LaMotta had to make the 160 pound middleweight limit, it would be a toss up. The fight almost certainly would have gone the distance with a lot of action. I think if they fought 10 fights they each would have won 5. They were that close.

Exciting and Tough fight for both guys. Both aggressive pressure fighters to the core. Fullmer could probably box a little better backing up. I don't really see either guy getting stopped in this fight, and I agree if they fought multiple times each guy would win a few. If it's just a one and done thing though, I think Lamotta would outhustle Fullmer just enough to take a close decision victory in a very good fight.