Emile Griffith vs Gene Fullmer

[red cobra]

15 rounds, of course..1966 Emile Griffith vs 1959 Gene Fullmer.

[DonBoxer]

Griffith UD.

[turpinr]

griffiths beats fullmer by decision

[red cobra]

I agree with you guys..Griffith could get cute and handle strong, rough guys like Fullmer and Tiger.

[turpinr]

Originally Posted by red cobra

I agree with you guys..Griffith could get cute and handle strong, rough guys like Fullmer and Tiger.

tiger was no problem for emile

[dpw417]

I think Fullmer's unorthodoxy (and fouling) would have troubled Griffith more than Tiger's steady attacks did...and that first Tiger fight, alot of people thought Tiger won. I would still pick Griffith by decision due to being able to get his punches off quicker, and maintaining distance...if Griffith doesn't maintain that distance he loses by 15 round mugging.

[laxpdx]

Originally Posted by dpw417

I think Fullmer's unorthodoxy (and fouling) would have troubled Griffith more than Tiger's steady attacks did...and that first Tiger fight, alot of people thought Tiger won. I would still pick Griffith by decision due to being able to get his punches off quicker, and maintaining distance...if Griffith doesn't maintain that distance he loses by 15 round mugging.

A fine analysis.

[red cobra]

Originally Posted by dpw417

I think Fullmer's unorthodoxy (and fouling) would have troubled Griffith more than Tiger's steady attacks did...and that first Tiger fight, alot of people thought Tiger won. I would still pick Griffith by decision due to being able to get his punches off quicker, and maintaining distance...if Griffith doesn't maintain that distance he loses by 15 round mugging.

And I believe that Griffith would have maintained the distance in the same way he did vs Tiger. That was the neat thing about Griffith was his adaptability...a boxer vs Tiger...a semi-agressive, crowding type of guy vs Archer...he would have conservatively outboxed Gene over 15..it would have been close as hell and no real damage would have been done to either guy. Gene would have noticed a big difference, strength and savvy-wise with Griff as opposed to that other welter, Paret, for instance.

[dpw417]

Originally Posted by laxpdx

A fine analysis.

Thanks laxpdx.

[dpw417]

Originally Posted by red cobra

And I believe that Griffith would have maintained the distance in the same way he did vs Tiger. That was the neat thing about Griffith was his adaptability...a boxer vs Tiger...a semi-agressive, crowding type of guy vs Archer...he would have conservatively outboxed Gene over 15..it would have been close as hell and no real damage would have been done to either guy. Gene would have noticed a big difference, strength and savvy-wise with Griff as opposed to that other welter, Paret, for instance.

Agreed. Griffith's strength sees him through the rough inside stuff. I see him being able to maintain that distance consistantly enough for the win. Paret wasn't a bad fighter at all, he just fought a totally wrong strategy and got caught in a fight of going toe to toe with a strong, brawling middleweight.

[GPater11093]

Originally Posted by dpw417

I think Fullmer's unorthodoxy (and fouling) would have troubled Griffith more than Tiger's steady attacks did...and that first Tiger fight, alot of people thought Tiger won. I would still pick Griffith by decision due to being able to get his punches off quicker, and maintaining distance...if Griffith doesn't maintain that distance he loses by 15 round mugging.

Agreed.

I think Fullmer's unorthodox rushes and unbridled aggression could trouble Griffith like mad. Now, Griffith is a superb textbook boxer and when he is allowed to box he can do fantastic stuff, but Luis Manuel Rodriguez had an unorthodox rhythym in his boxing, and really messed up Griffith's range control. And early in Emile's career a tough Argentinian named Jorge Fernandez troubled Griffith with a fast aggressive inside strategy, Griffith countered this by getting down of his toes and punching to keep Fernandez off and it worked.

I just don't see Griffith punching hard enough to keep Fullmer off of him, or to back up Gene. So for that reason I favour Fullmer.

[red cobra]

Originally Posted by laxpdx

A fine analysis.

I agree

[red cobra]

Originally Posted by GPater11093

Agreed.

I think Fullmer's unorthodox rushes and unbridled aggression could trouble Griffith like mad. Now, Griffith is a superb textbook boxer and when he is allowed to box he can do fantastic stuff, but Luis Manuel Rodriguez had an unorthodox rhythym in his boxing, and really messed up Griffith's range control. And early in Emile's career a tough Argentinian named Jorge Fernandez troubled Griffith with a fast aggressive inside strategy, Griffith countered this by getting down of his toes and punching to keep Fernandez off and it worked.

I just don't see Griffith punching hard enough to keep Fullmer off of him, or to back up Gene. So for that reason I favour Fullmer.

Interesting analysis GP..in other words Fullmer's unorthodox ways would present Griff with more problems than Tiger's more methodical approach? Fullmer was somewhat of a more sophisticated and purposeful Oscar Bonavena stylewise.

[red cobra]

Originally Posted by dpw417

Agreed. Griffith's strength sees him through the rough inside stuff. I see him being able to maintain that distance consistantly enough for the win. Paret wasn't a bad fighter at all, he just fought a totally wrong strategy and got caught in a fight of going toe to toe with a strong, brawling middleweight.

He was a good welter, but Paret just didn't have the wherewithall and strength to deal with a Fullmer.

[TheGreatA]

Fullmer probably draws Griffith into a mess and does more of the work to earn the judges' decision.