Tony Zale vs Gene Fullmer?

Tony Zale seemed to be a better fighter. More polished, shorter hooks, good combinations, could box a bit, could punch heavily, nice head moves here and there, beat better fighters, no ?
Fullmer was a brute bull but you let me know if I’m speaking bs here.
Fullmer was bigger though, no ?

I writting this on my phone while I await in the car something, the ****ing heat is 40 degrees forgive me for my english

 

I think Fulmer would overpower Zale who would have some excellent moments though as he was very good in his prime.
Fulmer by decision or late TKO.

 

I like both guys especially Zale. While I believe Zale is the better fighter in the big picture I also think he can be easy to hit. Fullmer with his awkwardness I think gives Zale a really bad night. Fullmer UD or possibly a TKO

 

zale for me.

post war zale vs prime fulmer would be a hell of a fight. pre war zale was prob a step above but i can't really know for sure.

 

fullmer looks like one of the worst boxers to ever step into a ring
other than being big and strong he does almost everything wrong
not a big puncher either
however all of these wrong things he does he does at the right times, best example of this is his fight with florentino fernandez a man with slightly better technique who is bigger than him and just as strong, as well as having murderous power in both hands,
fullmer in that fight shows his fight IQ showing patience rushing in at the right times to catch his opponent off balance keeping fernandez from ever getting off consistently

could he have such success against zale i honestly have no idea, there really isn't much footage of zale, only the third graziano fight where zale dominates him and knocks him out early ( parts of the second as well though not enough to learn any thing) and the cerdan fight which is far longer but cerdan causes very different problems than fullmer, so it is hard to tell how he would handle fullmer

 

basilio makes gene fulmer look like gene tunney.

those guys were so lucky that it was a weak era and robinson still had his name.

 

If the rules are enforced I would go for Zale.

But realistically when were the rules ever enforced against Fullmer? The referees seemed to invent a different set of rules for fights in which Fullmer was involved. It would be up to Zale's managers Sam Pian and Art Winch to make a big enough stink prior to the fight so that the commission would appoint a strict referee.

If the rules aren't enforced, I go with Fullmer.

 

first no basilio while not pretty to watch is technically better than fullmer by far

and it was by no means a weak era, they had to face some all time greats and both had amazing resumes, both had styles that weren't pretty but were very effective
that was the whole point of my post, explaining how difficult a fight fullmer is despite looking so bad technically

 

it was a weak era. apart from that i think we see the same things.

 

by absolutely no standard was that a weak era for the welterweight and middleweight divisions, if anything it was one of the most stacked

 

the 40's had 20 guys who would beat the hell out of fulmer and basilio

 

i got to 13 that i would favor (not beat the hell out of) against basilio and fullmer more often than not from the 40's MW and WW divisions:
henry armstrong (top 10 all time)
charley burley
Holeman Williams
cocoa kid
lloyde marshall *
sugar ray robinson (top 10 all time)
kid gavilan
archie moore * (top 10 all time)
ezzard charles * (top 10 all time)
jimmy bivins *
jake lamotta
marcel cerdan
tony zale ?
note that among these 12 are 4 top 10 all time and 4 had a noticeable size advantage and often competed at LHW
leaving only 4 champions and 3 murderers row members that i'd pick to beat then across 2 divisions and a decade

please tell me if i missed anyone

 

seems a fair list. 13 men from one decade who we both pick to beat guys who were mw champs.

basilio is one of the least interesting fighters ever to me. fought a waaaaaaaaay past prime robinson. lost consistently through his entire career, looks basic as hell. not impressed.

fullmer is a level above that for sure. better wins and far less bad losses than basilio.

 

Basilio was in over his head against middleweights, but he was a very good fighter as a welterweight. At that weight, he would be a tough fight for any welterweight that ever lived. He moved into the middleweight division because that's where the money was. With Patterson, nothing was happening in the heavyweight division, so a fight between two champions from the welterweight and middleweight divisions was the most attractive match around. I think you're right that Robinson was on the way to becoming shot. To boot, the last time I watched Basilio-Robinson 1 fight, I thought Robinson deserved the decision. For some reason, Robinson had a tough time with the New York ring officials at the end of his career.

Basilio came up the hard way, paid his dues on the way up, and learned his craft while doing it. ! don't know how anyone could watch Basilio's fights against Demarco, Turner, Langlois, Fiore, Ortega, and Scortichini and find him to be "one of the least interesting fighters ever."