Was Azumah Nelson better than Gene Fullmer P4P?

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by mark ant, Dec 9, 2020.


  1. he grant

    he grant Historian/Film Maker

    25,837
    10,045
    Jul 15, 2008
    A very polite and definitive way of stating the obvious.
     
    Cecil and JohnThomas1 like this.
  2. mark ant

    mark ant Canelo was never athletic Full Member

    36,653
    16,584
    May 4, 2017
    No the only advantage Whitaker would have was his longer jab, his lightweigt body punches would take effect on Sanchez but Nelson just followed Whitaker in a straight line and was easier to pick off than Sanchez who had smarter footwork.
     
  3. mark ant

    mark ant Canelo was never athletic Full Member

    36,653
    16,584
    May 4, 2017
    It would be a big ask but Sanchez was more skilled than Nelson.
     
  4. Bujia

    Bujia Well-Known Member Full Member

    1,564
    2,397
    Jul 2, 2020
    He wasn’t more skilled than Whitaker. And he was smaller. And at a stylistic disadvantage. Those are the problems. Nothing to do with Nelson.
     
    JohnThomas1 likes this.
  5. mark ant

    mark ant Canelo was never athletic Full Member

    36,653
    16,584
    May 4, 2017
    Nelson should have cut the ring off.
     
  6. mark ant

    mark ant Canelo was never athletic Full Member

    36,653
    16,584
    May 4, 2017
    This content is protected
     
  7. Bujia

    Bujia Well-Known Member Full Member

    1,564
    2,397
    Jul 2, 2020
    Nelson was at least a pressure fighter. Sal was a natural counter puncher who struggled most heavily against fighters who forced him to lead. Castillo, Ford, and Cowdell all ran him close by making him force the fight, and none of them were even close to Whitaker’s level.
     
    George Crowcroft and Cecil like this.
  8. mark ant

    mark ant Canelo was never athletic Full Member

    36,653
    16,584
    May 4, 2017
    Everytime you punched against Sanchez you were in danger of being countered and I saw Whitaker get hit with a lot of counters, but you do have a good point.
     
  9. JohnThomas1

    JohnThomas1 VIP Member

    55,206
    49,514
    Apr 27, 2005
    You don't think Whitaker has quicker hands and a better defense? Whitaker is one of the most skilled fighters in history and more than holds his own even in comparison to greats like Sanchez.
     
    ETM likes this.
  10. JohnThomas1

    JohnThomas1 VIP Member

    55,206
    49,514
    Apr 27, 2005
    How do you actually see this fight going Mark? Who do you pick and by what type of manner?
     
  11. JohnThomas1

    JohnThomas1 VIP Member

    55,206
    49,514
    Apr 27, 2005
    Whitaker got hit far less than a guy should given how much time he spent in the pocket. He was great defensively.
     
  12. LoadedGlove

    LoadedGlove Boxing Addict Full Member

    3,527
    4,297
    Dec 6, 2019
    Is this irony ?
     
  13. JohnThomas1

    JohnThomas1 VIP Member

    55,206
    49,514
    Apr 27, 2005
    It's educating Mark to take the blinkers off and not be so one track minded.
     
    Tin_Ribs and George Crowcroft like this.
  14. mark ant

    mark ant Canelo was never athletic Full Member

    36,653
    16,584
    May 4, 2017
    I lean towards Whitaker because he was more proven at lightweight, he may have been the only fighter that Sanchez would have fought that had a longer reach than him, Sanchez never had to face a 69 inch reach before, but I feel Sanchez would win more rounds v Pernell than Nelson did.
     
  15. George Crowcroft

    George Crowcroft He Who Saw The Deep Full Member

    27,717
    46,629
    Mar 3, 2019
    Yeah, I'm just trying to live up to IBs idea of me.
     
    Tin_Ribs and LoadedGlove like this.