Fred Fulton - Thoughts?

[Legend X]

Originally Posted by lufcrazy

Shit is the wrong word.

In context of his era he was one of the top men.

In more modern era's I don't think he'd have been a top ten mainstay.

I think his chin would prove a handicap in any era.
But then modern guys like Tommy Morrison, Carl Williams and Michael Moorer had the same handicap.

[lufcrazy]

Originally Posted by Legend X

I think his chin would prove a handicap in any era.
But then modern guys like Tommy Morrison, Carl Williams and Michael Moorer had the same handicap.

Morrison and mm had better skills.

He probably was as good as big cat.

[Legend X]

Originally Posted by lufcrazy

Morrison and mm had better skills.

He probably was as good as big cat.

How do you assess Fulton's skills as being inferior ?
His record is pretty good, and there's no clear film of him.

[lufcrazy]

Originally Posted by Legend X

How do you assess Fulton's skills as being inferior ?
His record is pretty good, and there's no clear film of him.

There are plenty of writeups about him that paint enough of a picture.

Boxing in general was much better from the late 20's onwards and top to bottom saw greater skills.

I could be miles off here but I see fullton as similar to willard without the chin nor durability.

Mm and morrison are much more skilled than willard.

[Legend X]

Originally Posted by lufcrazy

There are plenty of writeups about him that paint enough of a picture.

A lot of the write-ups tend to praise his skillful use of the straight left jab.

Boxing in general was much better from the late 20's onwards and top to bottom saw greater skills.

If that's true, I don't think anyone noticed at the time. I tend to doubt it.
Benny Leonard, Harry Greb, Johnny Dundee for example, are still to this day regarded as some of the most skillful boxers.

I could be miles off here but I see fullton as similar to willard without the chin nor durability.

Mm and morrison are much more skilled than willard.

My guess would be that Fulton, being lighter and less strong and less durable than Willard, compensated with more refined skills.
But Willard wasn't shit either.

[lufcrazy]

Originally Posted by Legend X

A lot of the write-ups tend to praise his skillful use of the straight left jab.




If that's true, I don't think anyone noticed at the time. I tend to doubt it.
Benny Leonard, Harry Greb, Johnny Dundee for example, are still to this day regarded as some of the most skillful boxers.





My guess would be that Fulton, being lighter and less strong and less durable than Willard, compensated with more refined skills.
But Willard wasn't shit either.

Yes but it's one thing jabbing against a fat half blind shot langford. At the highest level (wills and dempsey) he failed miserably.

Every era will have standouts who stand the test of time. That's why I said top to bottom.

In general, imo, a number 20 in the world contender from 1910 would get his shit pushed in by today's equivalent.

Willard wouldn't be a top ten mainstay neither imo. None of the papers from the day credited Fulton with being any better a jabber, mover nor boxer than willard from what I could find. If anything Willard has the edge on stamina, conditioning and durability. But watching him on film, it's clear he'd be out of his depth today.

[Ted Spoon]

Fred was, if only for a short time, a dangerous heavyweight.

The victory against Langford was well received in which he clearly out-boxed the much shorter boxer.

Whatever may be said of Fulton's 'stiffness' he was reputed to have a razor-like jab and could hit a ton. Make no mistake, if you couldn't catch this guy you had a real fight on your hands. He would likely do well in this era where fighters like to stand off and play their percentages.

Willard was reported to have been afraid of the man and is well documented to have ducked him exclusively from 1916-1918.

When Dempsey walked through him it must have done evil things to his confidence.

[Legend X]

Originally Posted by lufcrazy

Yes but it's one thing jabbing against a fat half blind shot langford. At the highest level (wills and dempsey) he failed miserably.

many people on this board rate both Dempsey and Wills among the top 15 heavyweights of all-time.
And Fulton fought them when they were in their primes.
They overwhelmed him. That doesn't mean he lacked skill. Those were great opponents.

Every era will have standouts who stand the test of time. That's why I said top to bottom.

In general, imo, a number 20 in the world contender from 1910 would get his shit pushed in by today's equivalent.

In your opinion, but it doesn't seem to be based on anything solid. How would we even know to say who the #20 lightweight in 1910 was, nevermind find clear film of him in his prime to assess him by ?
These things are beyond what we can discover.

I know you are saying 'in general' but I can't accept a general opinion about a whole generation of fighters where we've seen so few, such a sparse sample.

Willard wouldn't be a top ten mainstay neither imo. None of the papers from the day credited Fulton with being any better a jabber, mover nor boxer than willard from what I could find. If anything Willard has the edge on stamina, conditioning and durability. But watching him on film, it's clear he'd be out of his depth today.

Willard would fit in very nicely with the likes of Tony Thompson, Tyson Fury, Nicolay Valuev, Alexander Dimitrenko, Robert Helenius.
The Klitschkos would beat him, but I wouldn't put any money on Povetkin to do so.

[lufcrazy]

Originally Posted by Legend X

many people on this board rate both Dempsey and Wills among the top 15 heavyweights of all-time.
And Fulton fought them when they were in their primes.
They overwhelmed him. That doesn't mean he lacked skill. Those were great opponents.



In your opinion, but it doesn't seem to be based on anything solid. How would we even know to say who the #20 lightweight in 1910 was, nevermind find clear film of him in his prime to assess him by ?
These things are beyond what we can discover.

I know you are saying 'in general' but I can't accept a general opinion about a whole generation of fighters where we've seen so few, such a sparse sample.




Willard would fit in very nicely with the likes of Tony Thompson, Tyson Fury, Nicolay Valuev, Alexander Dimitrenko, Robert Helenius.
The Klitschkos would beat him, but I wouldn't put any money on Povetkin to do so.

Many might. I don't. I just don't see him beating enough people to consistantly in a top ten of any modern era.

Call it a hunch if you will. Fighter's in general on film from pre 20's don't look as good as those post 20's. That's excepting those who standout.

Comparing willard to valuev is about right imo. Valuev was seen as a circus freak and deserved to beat ruiz in the rematch but aside from that his resume is dogshit.

Povetkin pushes willard's shit in.

It seems we're miles apart on our viewpoints.

Probably best to agree to disagree.

I see fulton as one of the best of his era.