Gene Fullmer v Bernard Hopkins

Fulmer was a tough goat, and a rythm breaker, who just kept coming and punching in sporatic weird angles, Hopkins would try and give him movement but it would be an ugly awkward and dirty fight (both men were dirty) I see a close decision for either man and if they fought 3 times they would all be the same

 

I would go with Hopkins ,just ,but your scenario is a million times more likely than some of the dreams on Fullmer was one of the strongest middles of all time and very durable,he was close with Giardello and Joey is as good as Hopkins imo, a close match ,they would split a trio.

 

Hopkins by easy decision.

 

Gene Fullmer is pretty good, but he's no Antwun Echols, so he's not going to give Hopkins a close fight. Hopkins by easy decision.

 

Amsterdam, why do you consider guys of that era, like Fullmer, primitive? I could understand earlier eras, but not ones of that era and past it. How you can consider someone like Gavilan primitive and think Mayweather would TKO him is insane, and shows me that you're rather willing to think that based on the time period he fought rather than watching footage.

edit: I see you've changed your views on guys like Gavilan, and rightly so.

 

They said the same thing about DLH:yep .....

And I'm not comparing DLH to Fullmer, but don't give me stats, BHOP has also stopped someone for the first time in their illustrious career (DLH).

My 2 cents.

 

I know it's just your two cents, and I also know you're not comparing anybody, but the difference in those stoppages is that one guy quietly slumped to the canvas while the other got KTFO. . .