BoxRec

Turns out Gene Fullmer was not that good. He has long been considered a great fighter.

However there apparently is a new school of thought.
Apparently his toughness is now being questioned. Seriously.

Some comments recently:

"He was a spoiler."
"Fullmer was a sorta protype for John Ruiz."
"His hugging HW successor Ruiz had a similar way to the top, when he won the declined Holyfield."

What should we make of these new observations?

Good points. He is a one of the biggest overachievers in boxing history.

Gene Fullmer was a bloody awful hugging machine, whose main success was winning past prime Robinson and Basilio, while they were close to retirement. Still Sugar was able to ice Fullmer. Probably that's the most watchable Gene Fullmer moment. The Tiger beatings follow.

Probably John "The Hugging Man" Ruiz was vastly inspired by Gene Fullmer. There're quite interesting similarities in their styles and how they achieved success in their careers.

If Joey Giardello was a bit less of a gentleman, he would definitely say to Fullmer: "Get the f*ck out of here! You're a horrible fighter!".

I like how RING MAGAZINE assessed him once, paraphrasing here, "When pressure didn't work he pressured some more and when that wasn't working he gave more pressure."

He certainly wasn't anything to scream about, but he got the job done. His resume alone makes him one of the top 15-20 middleweights of all time. He was as tough as they came, and achieved more than his style and abilities should have.

Goes to show you that this business oftentimes is more about will than it is skill. I'm reminded a bit of Stanley Ketchell, at least in terms of ability and yet still achieving a lot.

HomicideHenry wrote: ↑10 Aug 2021, 12:45 I like how RING MAGAZINE assessed him once, paraphrasing here, "When pressure didn't work he pressured some more and when that wasn't working he gave more pressure."

He certainly wasn't anything to scream about, but he got the job done. His resume alone makes him one of the top 15-20 middleweights of all time. He was as tough as they came, and achieved more than his style and abilities should have.

Goes to show you that this business oftentimes is more about will than it is skill. I'm reminded a bit of Stanley Ketchell, at least in terms of ability and yet still achieving a lot.

At the Ketchell times the game was very different overall. Fullmer's tactics was dirty by the standards of his time.

Top 15-20? Please... The guy's record isn't that good like it looks on paper. Fullmer in business was even more painful to watch.

A total lack of skills. He couldn't box. He came inside with his head first, he grabbed his opponents, held and hit them. He had no defence. He could only cross his arms and rush inside head first as soon as possible to hold opponents. No movement, no speed, no nuthin'. Just jab and grab, go inside head first and hug, hold and hit.

Fullmer's game wasn't boxing. It was sh!t.

https://www.ringtv.com/516348-ranking-r ... champions/

Well in accordance to RING MAGAZINE, the man from Utah is rated #13 out of the 31 middleweight champions listed on the above link.

Personally I prefer an old RING MAGAZINE almanac from the early-mid 2000s, that had Harry Greb #1 but that almanac rated Gene Fullmer among the top 15 too.

By sheer determination and grit the man is deserving of that ranking. The man defeated many of the top men of his era, and they were all better boxers than he was--- so this emphasis on skills and abilities that you are seemingly obsessed with meant nothing.

As for the comment of Stanley Ketchell, as if to imply everybody fought like he did, is to ignore people like Jim Corbett and Jack Johnson and several others who were great boxers or tacticians.

HomicideHenry wrote: ↑10 Aug 2021, 13:13 https://www.ringtv.com/516348-ranking-r ... champions/

Well in accordance to RING MAGAZINE, the man from Utah is rated #13 out of the 31 middleweight champions listed on the above link.

Personally I prefer an old RING MAGAZINE almanac from the early-mid 2000s, that had Harry Greb #1 but that almanac rated Gene Fullmer among the top 15 too.

By sheer determination and grit the man is deserving of that ranking. The man defeated many of the top men of his era, and they were all better boxers than he was--- so this emphasis on skills and abilities that you are seemingly obsessed with meant nothing.

As for the comment of Stanley Ketchell, as if to imply everybody fought like he did, is to ignore people like Jim Corbett and Jack Johnson and several others who were great boxers or tacticians.

A bad ranking by Ring. Sheer determination and grit doesn't make deserving such rankings. And with the words about Ketchel I obviously didn't mean the 100% identity with his style in his times.

The fact of the matter is Gene Fullmer has an impressive resume that cannot be denied. No, he wasn't a tactician or a boxer. He was a straight up mauler.

Look at the record:

Ray Robinson 2-1-1
Paul Pender 1-0-0
Spider Webb 2-0-0
Gil Turner 2-1-0
Rocky Castellani 1-0-0
Milo Savage 2-0-0
Carmen Basilio 2-0-0
Florentine Fernandez 1-0-0
Joey Giardello 0-0-1
Benny Kid Paret 1-0-0

And in the last three fights of his career, he went managed to pull off a draw with Dick Tiger another top 15 all-time great middleweight.

That is a ridiculously high success rate, considering all Gene Fullmer had going for him was great conditioning and iron will determination. The resume speaks for itself he is an all-time great middleweight.

Earlier you mentioned John Ruiz, in a kind of indictment on Gene Fullmer. Saying that the two men were basically the same. Can anyone deny that John Ruiz was a top five heavyweight when he was competing?

It seems if you are saying someone should not be rated unless they are either a knockout artist or masterclass boxer. That if the fights are dull or ugly or sloppy, it should be held against them.

That kind of logic reminds me of that horrible decision made by the National Boxing Association in the 1950s stripping Nino Valdes and Bob Baker the right to challenge Rocky Marciano for the heavyweight title because their match was boring.

People shouldn't be penalized or demoted or knocked down the rankings because of their style or the unexcitement of their matches. Neither should Gene Fullmer be kicked off the all-time great middleweights list just because he was a mauler.

The thing is, the likes of Fullmer and Ruiz could have been penalized literally, i.e. right in their fights, not just in some ratings. It's not even about being boring. Actually, it's against boxing rules to hit with a head, as well as to hold excessively or to hold and hit. Fighting in such style called spoiling for a reason. And, yes, we already discussed a good looking on paper resume of Fullmer, which becomes worse, if to dig a bit deeper.

All of those things you are complaining about are at the discretion of the referee. Ruby Goldstein was one of the greatest referees of all time and he refereed the Fullmer-Robinson title fight and he gave Fullmer eight rounds and Robinson five.

Roberto Duran hit people in the mouth all the time with elbows, etc--- it's all at the discretion of the referee. I could only imagine what people's records would look like if everything was by the book. As often as Muhammad Ali held on to the back of people's necks he probably would have gotten disqualified if people strictly went by the book.

HomicideHenry wrote: ↑10 Aug 2021, 14:17 All of those things you are complaining about are at the discretion of the referee. Ruby Goldstein was one of the greatest referees of all time and he refereed the Fullmer-Robinson title fight and he gave Fullmer eight rounds and Robinson five.

Roberto Duran hit people in the mouth all the time with elbows, etc--- it's all at the discretion of the referee. I could only imagine what people's records would look like if everything was by the book. As often as Muhammad Ali held on to the back of people's necks he probably would have gotten disqualified if people strictly went by the book.

Roberto Duran and Muhammad Ali were great boxers with a variety of skills, who beat a lot of quality opponents in their primes. Such things can't be said about Fullmer. He wasn't in their class. And his game didn't just include foulish tricks, it was based on those.

Again it's all at the discretion of the referee. Hell if I was refereeing a contest and I knew one guy was more limited than the other and fought in a particular way that was rough and tumble, I would give the man leeway in the contest. It's all about knowing the principles in the matchup.

Regardless we most definitely agree to disagree on this one because the resume cannot be denied. Rocky Marciano couldn't box for crap either but he went undefeated.

HomicideHenry wrote: ↑10 Aug 2021, 14:28 Again it's all at the discretion of the referee. Hell if I was refereeing a contest and I knew one guy was more limited than the other and fought in a particular way that was rough and tumble, I would give the man leeway in the contest. It's all about knowing the principles in the matchup.

Regardless we most definitely agree to disagree on this one because the resume cannot be denied. Rocky Marciano couldn't box for crap either but he went undefeated.

Rocky Marciano was beating people up. Gene Fullmer was holding and hustling in how-to-score-it affairs.

Are you sure you even watched any fights with Gene Fullmer? You're acting like he wasn't kicking ass and taking names, when every fight he had was practically a rough and tumble bloody affair.

HomicideHenry wrote: ↑10 Aug 2021, 14:38 Are you sure you even watched any fights with Gene Fullmer? You're acting like he wasn't kicking ass and taking names, when every fight he had was practically a rough and tumble bloody affair.

Unfortunately, I watched all his fights, which are available on youtube. I say "unfortunately", because it was a f*cking painful experience.

At his best Fullmer was like Vito Antuofermo on steroids, except his defense was better. He had a very solid chin, pretty good power, and was aggressive. He was however pretty dirty and had a full repertoir of illegal tactics that he used. He rabbit punched, he kidney punched, he shoved in the clinches. A tough man but a dirty fighter.

DrDuke wrote: ↑10 Aug 2021, 11:21 Good points. He is a one of the biggest overachievers in boxing history.

Gene Fullmer was a bloody awful hugging machine, whose main success was winning past prime Robinson and Basilio, while they were close to retirement. Still Sugar was able to ice Fullmer. Probably that's the most watchable Gene Fullmer moment. The Tiger beatings follow.

Probably John "The Hugging Man" Ruiz was vastly inspired by Gene Fullmer. There're quite interesting similarities in their styles and how they achieved success in their careers.

If Joey Giardello was a bit less of a gentleman, he would definitely say to Fullmer: "Get the f*ck out of here! You're a horrible fighter!".

You have a completely ignorant take of Gene Fullmer. I've seen quite a few of his fights, and never once thought of him as a John Ruiz-esque fighter. He was a pressure fighter, could box a little when he needed to, mainly against Basilio. He fought in the clinches, didn't grab somebody just to nullify the action. There's no comparison with him and Ruiz. You sound like a dumbass trying to push this narrative.

gilgamesh wrote: ↑11 Aug 2021, 13:44

DrDuke wrote: ↑10 Aug 2021, 11:21 Good points. He is a one of the biggest overachievers in boxing history.

Gene Fullmer was a bloody awful hugging machine, whose main success was winning past prime Robinson and Basilio, while they were close to retirement. Still Sugar was able to ice Fullmer. Probably that's the most watchable Gene Fullmer moment. The Tiger beatings follow.

Probably John "The Hugging Man" Ruiz was vastly inspired by Gene Fullmer. There're quite interesting similarities in their styles and how they achieved success in their careers.

If Joey Giardello was a bit less of a gentleman, he would definitely say to Fullmer: "Get the f*ck out of here! You're a horrible fighter!".

You have a completely ignorant take of Gene Fullmer. I've seen quite a few of his fights, and never once thought of him as a John Ruiz-esque fighter. He was a pressure fighter, could box a little when he needed to, mainly against Basilio. He fought in the clinches, didn't grab somebody just to nullify the action. There's no comparison with him and Ruiz. You sound like a dumbass trying to push this narrative.

They are worthy of a comparison, because both of them were firmly keen on constant clinching. That doesn't mean, that they didn't have any differences. Yet there is a clear similarity. Denying it would be totally dishonest.

ah c'mon, Gene Fuller was at least good enough to have been elected into the Boxing Hall of Fame wasn't he ?

by any chance was Gene Fullmer of "Basque" extraction ?

Caractacus wrote: ↑11 Aug 2021, 14:34 ah c'mon, Gene Fuller was at least good enough to have been elected into the Boxing Hall of Fame wasn't he ?

Unfortunately, HoF some explicitly despicable inductions.

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.

DrDuke wrote: ↑11 Aug 2021, 14:40

Caractacus wrote: ↑11 Aug 2021, 14:34 ah c'mon, Gene Fuller was at least good enough to have been elected into the Boxing Hall of Fame wasn't he ?

Unfortunately, HoF some explicitly despicable inductions.

Jus to be clear. Should Fullmer be in the Hall of Fame?

The man fought the great Sugar Ray Robinson 4 times !
who else had done that ?
That's good enough for me.

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.

Right.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑12 Aug 2021, 10:47

DrDuke wrote: ↑11 Aug 2021, 14:40

Caractacus wrote: ↑11 Aug 2021, 14:34 ah c'mon, Gene Fuller was at least good enough to have been elected into the Boxing Hall of Fame wasn't he ?

Unfortunately, HoF some explicitly despicable inductions.

Jus to be clear. Should Fullmer be in the Hall of Fame?

If only in a Hall of Shame.