Nelson was rated No.41 in a list of the best 50 P4P fighters of the last 50 years in 1996 by the ring magazine, Fullmer was rated No.42 in the same list but which fighter was greater? Nelson info: Quality of competition: 10 Bouts v top 50 fighters: 3 Why he was on the list: If his KO of Jeff Fenech didn`t get him into guarantee him a spot in Canastota, his KO of Gabe Ruelas sure did. What he could have done to better his ranking: He still could have inthe 90`s by winning the lightweight title. Fullmer info: Quality of competition: 10 Bouts v top 50 fighters: 3 Why he`s here: He`s the poster boy for tough, gritty fighters. What he could have done to better his ranking: Ducked when Robinson threw ''the perfect'' punch.
They are not apples to apples. Nelson was without question the more skillful fighter However, Fullmer was a prototypical Swarmer that beat fighters that had greater skill through attrition. It all comes down to which style you appreciate more. They were both great fighters but for different reasons. I'm not a big fan of pound for pound list. Too many variables when you have fighters from not only different weight classes but different eras as well.
Azumah Nelson was two levels above Fullmer. Nelson defended his title all over the world. Gene really couldn't carry his bucket.
I agree to a certain degree as I don`t think Fullmer would have struggled with any fighter at the level of Jim McDonald who gave Nelson a tough fight in 1990.
Jim McDonnell was a good fighter, Nelson had to chase him all over the ring to eventually stop him, well he actually wrecked him McDonnell was never the same after. Fullmer struggled with plenty.
Sanchez would have handled Jim McDonald better than Nelson did and would have stopped him sooner than the last round.
Sanchez was far more skilled than a prime Nelson and would never have been out-boxed by Whitaker the way Nelson was.