Tony Zale ,The Man Of Steele v Gene Fullmer ,The Cyclone. Two tough middles ,who do you like? Prime for prime. This guy? This content is protected Or this one This content is protected ? This content is protected This content is protected
I will likely be in the minority in this one, and that is cool by me!!!! I like the pressure that Fullmer brings and like him to score a decision win in this one. I am sure some will say he didn't earn some of his decisions win....they can feel free to complain about this one as well as he walks away w/ a nice UD!
My gut feeling is that Zale, like Eduardo Lausee, has the power in that left hook to make Fullmer respect him and to keep Gene from charging recklessly in every two seconds. He didn't have quite as much kick as Lausse, but he was more accurate and a few well-placed bombs to Gene's breadbasket coupled with those follow-up hooks to the chin should get Gene's attention. Zale's right to the heart was devastating and could paralyze the best of them. Fullmer isn't a slick boxer like Billy Conn or Billy Soose, so he's going to be right there within firing range of these infamous Zale blows. I see the harder-hitting "Man of Steel" pounding out a decision in a slugfest.
I think that Fullmer would have been crudely effective enough to rough up and win a narrow points verdict over the Man of Steel.
Agreed. I'd favor Zale's more precise powerpunching over Fullmer's awkward attack style. Fullmer has been troubled by harder hitting fighters who dared to stand with him and matched him on the inside - ie: Tiger, Lausse, Bobby Boyd, Gil Turner.
I'm taking Fullmer in this one. Gene was a freaking bull, so damn strong, Way stronger than Zale. And he wasn't unskilled. Yes he was an attacker, but he knew what he was doing. And he was very tough. Stopped only twice - once by Robinson, and in his final fight. Gene gave everyone hell, including Ray Robinson, against whom he was 2-1-1. Other than that perfectly timed punch, Robinson could only land it like that once in four 15-round fights. Could be decision or KO, but personally I think Fullmer would stop Zale.
Were Tony Zale of pre WW2 were to have foufgt gene Fullmer, Zale would have been a3-1 favorite at least. The Zale that Kod the great punching Al Hostak twice, beaten Fred Apostoli Georgie Abrams,flattened Ossie Bulldog Harris 1rd,was a great punching hombre til he went into the Army in 1942,for FOUR years,and was an older 33-4 year old past peak fighter when he fought Graziano in their trilogy. Time distorts the past, and Gene Fullmer would have been out of his depth with the likes of Apostoli, Al Hostak, Freddie Steele, Marcel Cerdan,and a young Jake LaMotta. Tough Fullmer was, but limited in his skills. Pre -war Zale, stops Fullmer in 12 rounds at their best days IMO...Today Tony Zale is not appreciated as he was before World War 2, while today, Gene Fullmer's skills are inflated.
Perhaps. But the way I see it, Zale only lost twice postwar. That means 16 of his 18 losses were pre war. Even in his good years, he lost to Billy Soose, Nate Bolden, and Billy Celebron, amongst others. Even assuming he was slowed in the post-war years, when I watch footage of him, I simply do not see a guy who is on Ray Robinson's level. He was relatively straight up too. Therefore, I say Fullmer deserves more credit.
Yes Zale ,early in his career lost some bouts to a Nate Bolden who was a toughie for the best fighters of his time, and to Billy Soose,who was similar to Joey Archer,but very much superior to Archer. But when Tony Zale hit his stride in 1940,this Zale woulkd have been a tough test for any middleweight in history. Tough as steel, with a great arsenal of punches to body and head. Not for nothing was Zale aptly named "man of steel ".Fit him like a glove..