Page 1 of 1

Gene Fullmer reviews the Sugar Ray autobiography

Posted: 26 Jul 2016, 09:46
by Tuan_Jim
Funny. Enjoy:

Image
Image

Re: Gene Fullmer reviews the Sugar Ray autobiography

Posted: 26 Jul 2016, 11:54
by Ambling Alp II
That was pretty funny. Loved the part about the trunks.
Old rivalries die a slow a death. :D I knew Basilio did not like Robinson, but I have seen read other things from Fullmer and have not seen him show animosity towards Robinson.

Re: Gene Fullmer reviews the Sugar Ray autobiography

Posted: 26 Jul 2016, 17:23
by Tomasino
Ambling Alp II wrote:That was pretty funny. Loved the part about the trunks.
Old rivalries die a slow a death. :D I knew Basilio did not like Robinson, but I have seen read other things from Fullmer and have not seen him show animosity towards Robinson.

I don't think many boxers liked Ray. Ike Williams despised him too.

Re: Gene Fullmer reviews the Sugar Ray autobiography

Posted: 27 Jul 2016, 00:48
by klompton
Fullmer was a real piece of shit in the ring and he basically admits it here. He was always bitter because Robinson got more press and more respect but thats what happens when youre a cheating, fouling asshole who relied on umpteen gift decisions to get where he got. If Fullmer were actually forced to fight without using his head, elbows, tripping, low blows, hitting after the bell, on the break, excessive clinching, wrestling, etc he MIGHT have one win over Robinson in their last fight when Robinson was 168 years old. In their first fight Fullmer fouled the shit out of Robinson to the point of scoring a knockdown by throwing/tripping him to the canvas. After the fight the ref was asked why he allowed all the fouls without penalty and answered "thats the only way Gene knows how to fight" (lame answer). In the third fight he got a gift draw. In their fourth fight he admits here that he fouled an aging Robinson for twenty seconds after a round and thats after admitting many times before that he violated the terms of the contract and substituted the larger ring for a smaller ring which was actually fullmers own training ring (same trick he played on giardello btw). Fullmer was nothing but a punk who loved to play at being devout but like most who do so was nothing but a hypocrite. Giardello hated him and called him a whiney bitch who loved to foul until you gave him his own medicine then hed go crying to the ref.

Re: Gene Fullmer reviews the Sugar Ray autobiography

Posted: 27 Jul 2016, 10:21
by Counter-puncher
klompton wrote:Giardello hated him and called him a whiney bitch who loved to foul until you gave him his own medicine then hed go crying to the ref.
that rings a bell. did those two have a particularly bad-tempered fight?

Re: Gene Fullmer reviews the Sugar Ray autobiography

Posted: 27 Jul 2016, 10:31
by Ambling Alp II
Yes, they had a very intense fight with a lot of fouling by both.

Re: Gene Fullmer reviews the Sugar Ray autobiography

Posted: 27 Jul 2016, 10:38
by Ambling Alp II
klompton wrote:Fullmer was a real piece of poo in the ring and he basically admits it here. He was always bitter because Robinson got more press and more respect but thats what happens when youre a cheating, fouling asshole who relied on umpteen gift decisions to get where he got. If Fullmer were actually forced to fight without using his head, elbows, tripping, low blows, hitting after the bell, on the break, excessive clinching, wrestling, etc he MIGHT have one win over Robinson in their last fight when Robinson was 168 years old. In their first fight Fullmer fouled the poo out of Robinson to the point of scoring a knockdown by throwing/tripping him to the canvas. After the fight the ref was asked why he allowed all the fouls without penalty and answered "thats the only way Gene knows how to fight" (lame answer). In the third fight he got a gift draw. In their fourth fight he admits here that he fouled an aging Robinson for twenty seconds after a round and thats after admitting many times before that he violated the terms of the contract and substituted the larger ring for a smaller ring which was actually fullmers own training ring (same trick he played on giardello btw). Fullmer was nothing but a punk who loved to play at being devout but like most who do so was nothing but a hypocrite. Giardello hated him and called him a whiney bitch who loved to foul until you gave him his own medicine then hed go crying to the ref.
Gene Fullmer was a punk? Come on.

Re: Gene Fullmer reviews the Sugar Ray autobiography

Posted: 27 Jul 2016, 11:55
by SaadOffTheDeck
klompton wrote:Fullmer was a real piece of poo in the ring and he basically admits it here. He was always bitter because Robinson got more press and more respect but thats what happens when youre a cheating, fouling asshole who relied on umpteen gift decisions to get where he got. If Fullmer were actually forced to fight without using his head, elbows, tripping, low blows, hitting after the bell, on the break, excessive clinching, wrestling, etc he MIGHT have one win over Robinson in their last fight when Robinson was 168 years old. In their first fight Fullmer fouled the poo out of Robinson to the point of scoring a knockdown by throwing/tripping him to the canvas. After the fight the ref was asked why he allowed all the fouls without penalty and answered "thats the only way Gene knows how to fight" (lame answer). In the third fight he got a gift draw. In their fourth fight he admits here that he fouled an aging Robinson for twenty seconds after a round and thats after admitting many times before that he violated the terms of the contract and substituted the larger ring for a smaller ring which was actually fullmers own training ring (same trick he played on giardello btw). Fullmer was nothing but a punk who loved to play at being devout but like most who do so was nothing but a hypocrite. Giardello hated him and called him a whiney bitch who loved to foul until you gave him his own medicine then hed go crying to the ref.
:zzz:

Re: Gene Fullmer reviews the Sugar Ray autobiography

Posted: 27 Jul 2016, 12:08
by BoxBuzz
Seems rather imaginatively assumptive. I have read a little about their opinions of each other....and they were competitive and sometimes dismissive of each other ....I just didn't know all the negative stuff that's being bantered about by Kalan. Where does this come from?

Does the "168 years old" give a relative compass setting for the rest of the statements being made?

Re: Gene Fullmer reviews the Sugar Ray autobiography

Posted: 27 Jul 2016, 12:21
by Tomasino
BoxBuzz wrote:Seems rather imaginatively assumptive. I have read a little about their opinions of each other....and they were competitive and sometimes dismissive of each other ....I just didn't know all the negative stuff that's being bantered about by Kalan. Where does this come from?

Does the "168 years old" give a relative compass setting for the rest of the statements being made?

You've got Kalan on the brain Buzz...it's Klompton :TU:

Re: Gene Fullmer reviews the Sugar Ray autobiography

Posted: 27 Jul 2016, 12:27
by SaadOffTheDeck
Tomasino wrote:
BoxBuzz wrote:Seems rather imaginatively assumptive. I have read a little about their opinions of each other....and they were competitive and sometimes dismissive of each other ....I just didn't know all the negative stuff that's being bantered about by Kalan. Where does this come from?

Does the "168 years old" give a relative compass setting for the rest of the statements being made?

You've got Kalan on the brain Buzz...it's Klompton :TU:
Not much different.

Re: Gene Fullmer reviews the Sugar Ray autobiography

Posted: 27 Jul 2016, 12:45
by Tomasino
SaadOffTheDeck wrote:
Tomasino wrote:
BoxBuzz wrote:Seems rather imaginatively assumptive. I have read a little about their opinions of each other....and they were competitive and sometimes dismissive of each other ....I just didn't know all the negative stuff that's being bantered about by Kalan. Where does this come from?

Does the "168 years old" give a relative compass setting for the rest of the statements being made?

You've got Kalan on the brain Buzz...it's Klompton :TU:
Not much different.

When i read the thread I knew Klompton would come in and rip Fullmer :lol:

Re: Gene Fullmer reviews the Sugar Ray autobiography

Posted: 27 Jul 2016, 13:28
by SaadOffTheDeck
Tomasino wrote:
SaadOffTheDeck wrote:
Tomasino wrote:

You've got Kalan on the brain Buzz...it's Klompton :TU:
Not much different.

When i read the thread I knew Klompton would come in and rip Fullmer :lol:
:lol:

Re: Gene Fullmer reviews the Sugar Ray autobiography

Posted: 27 Jul 2016, 14:58
by BoxBuzz
Yeah that was tongue in cheek type-0 of mine.

Although I have to say, Klompton does his research and did not deserve my lampooning in that way. So....I have regrets.

But the "168" number just annoyed me.

Re: Gene Fullmer reviews the Sugar Ray autobiography

Posted: 29 Jul 2016, 03:45
by Kalan
Fullmer was a dirty fighter.. For some reason he got away with a lot of rabbit punches in his Robinson fights.. His dirtiest fight was his so-called draw against Joey Giardello.. You might want to view it on youtube because it was horrific -- the biggest joke of a fight you'll ever see.

Giardello hated Fullmer.. If you asked him about Fullmer he'd say "He was a dirty scumbag. He couldn't box a lick so he fouled all night. I wanted a rematch but I knew they'd never fight me again. The referee let Fullmer get away with murder and I always wanted a chance to get even."

Re: Gene Fullmer reviews the Sugar Ray autobiography

Posted: 01 Aug 2016, 02:40
by L.A. kidd
gene fullmer was no punk, but I do think giardello beat him in their fight. as far as robinson is concerned, everybody beat him,

remember randy turpin, basilio, tiger jones, joey maxim, he beat fullmer only once, pender beat him twice, giardello beat him.

denny moyer beat him, terry downes beat him, 19 guys beat him.

Re: Gene Fullmer reviews the Sugar Ray autobiography

Posted: 01 Aug 2016, 08:42
by klompton
L.A. kidd wrote:gene fullmer was no punk, but I do think giardello beat him in their fight. as far as robinson is concerned, everybody beat him,

remember randy turpin, basilio, tiger jones, joey maxim, he beat fullmer only once, pender beat him twice, giardello beat him.

denny moyer beat him, terry downes beat him, 19 guys beat him.

Yeah and if you factor in all of Fullmers gift decision wins and draws he lost almost 19 times as well with only 1/3 the amount of fights Robinson had despite retiring at a much younger age. Had Robinson retired at the age Fullmer did hed have three losses on his ledger as opposed to Fullmers official six and unofficial 16 when you factor in his gifts and homecooking. So yeah, Fullmer was a punk. What else do you call a guy who got where he did with a ridiculous amount of gifts and then preached his goofy ass folksy brand of holier than though sportsmanship while being the dirtiest sob in the sport at the time. At best hes a hypocrite and definitely a punk.

Re: Gene Fullmer reviews the Sugar Ray autobiography

Posted: 01 Aug 2016, 11:06
by Ambling Alp II
Nobody is saying that he was as good as Ray Robinson. Of course he wasn't. That doesn't mean that he was a punk. A punk doesn't fight even an old Robinson four times, Dick Tiger three times, Basilio twice, Giardello once; not to mention several contenders of his day. Gift decisions? Specifically, which fights are you talking about?

Re: Gene Fullmer reviews the Sugar Ray autobiography

Posted: 02 Aug 2016, 20:34
by L.A. kidd
yes, alp I agree, that's the point I'm trying to make, no punk can beat basilo twice, and stop robinson,

a lot of champions were dirty fighters, fritie zivic for instance, lamotta was know for some dirty fights,

what do you call what listons trainer willie reddish when he doctored listons gloves with burning salve.

some fighters do anything to win.