Gene Fullmer?

JAHamilton77 · Post by **JAHamilton77** » 14 Jun 2006, 14:06

As I have mentioned in the past, distant history isnt my cup of tea in boxing (I am much more of a hear & now guy, a stats person, and a list maker). I do have a B.A. in History, so I do enjoy reading some boxing history. Something I have always noticed is that Gene Fullmer never seems to be very highly regarded as compared to other boxers of the distant past? After a slow start, he beat ALOT of compitent boxers. I know he beat some later in their careers (like he did Robinson) but they had some boxing left in them when he won.

I am sure there is something about him that he constantly gets downgraded (lower than other greats), and if I read alittle more it'd be obvious, but so I dont have to, why dont you guys tell me here

or is it my imagination that he gets slighted?

Who would be a good comparison to him in contemporary times both in style of fighting and as far as his place (rank) in his time of boxing?

klompton · Post by **klompton** » 14 Jun 2006, 14:31

He doesnt get mentioned with the top echelion because he won or drew several controversial decisions that could and probably should have gone the other way. He was also about the dirtiest fighter Ive ever seen with the possible exception of Sandy Saddler or Mustapha Hamsho.

Matt · Post by **Matt** » 14 Jun 2006, 14:44

Fullmer is really not seen as a particuarly talented guy either, nor was he a puncher. He was just tough and very effective at using his awkwardness and roughness to be effective against very good fighters.

John Ruiz is sort of like that in a way, in that he is not a pretty fighter to watch, but wins fights because he is effective at dictating a fight with what he comes with, even if it is clinching.

klompton · Post by **klompton** » 14 Jun 2006, 16:34

and like fullmer ruiz won or drew in more than his share of decisions that could have easily gone the other way.

john2345 · Post by **john2345** » 15 Jun 2006, 08:10

The above posts say it all.... he wasn't particularly "glamorous", didn't come from a big city, has a rough house style, wasn't spectacular or great to watch.... but very strong, determined, courageous and effective.

I suspect that most people's "instant recall" of Gene is of him being KO'd by Sugar Ray in their return...one of the all-time great KO punches. When you think of his wins you tend to recall his mauling style and like I said, that wasn't very attractive to watch.

J

Expug · Post by **Expug** » 15 Jun 2006, 16:41

He is probably most famous for being on the recieving end of Sugar Ray Robinsons left hook ,of which was illustrated in encyclopedia Britanica as the all-time perfect left hook or knockout.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 15 Jun 2006, 17:29

fullmer is a lot better boxer than people think. go watch the first carmen basillio fight

harrygreb · Post by **harrygreb** » 19 Jun 2006, 09:12

i have always liked fullmer, one of the hardest basxxxtxxds to ever compete at that level.

harrygreb · Post by **harrygreb** » 19 Jun 2006, 09:13

i dont think he was quite as dirty as sandy or mustapha

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 20 Jun 2006, 18:25

It is interesting that you don't hear a lot about Fullmer anymore. You guys are probably right in saying that he just wan't that glamorous. He wasn't slick or a huge puncher. He did beat a lot of good fighters. He is certainly one of the top 10 middleweights of all time.

Matt · Post by **Matt** » 20 Jun 2006, 22:24

Saddler is definitely one of the dirtiest fighters, I've ever seen and read of. As good as he was, he would have hard time equaling his success in today's sport, because he would be disqualified a lot more often, his advantages would be hindered by having to play fair, and he probably would be a pariah to the networks.

JAHamilton77 · Post by **JAHamilton77** » 27 Jun 2006, 23:25

Thanks for all the info guys....

So Fullmer is more of a blue collar type fighter? Really tough, but didnt have one area in which he excelled at? May or may not have recieved some gift decisions, meaning that depending on who you ask, his actual greatness may range?

klompton · Post by **klompton** » 28 Jun 2006, 00:45

If there was one thing Fullmer excelled at it was his physical strength. He was strong as a bull.