Gene Fullmer.. How do the "highbrow" rate him?

Fullmer beat the Champion Robinson to win the Middleweight belt in jan. 57 no doubt about the decision.
No doubt also about the next time Robinson fought Fullmer May 57 (Fullmer had fought twice inbetween) was caught with the "perfect punch"
He went on to fight Robinson twice again and never lost..
How do the chaps on here rate Fullmer?

Very, very highly, to the point where I have absolutely no hesitation about slotting him in amongst the names who I believe compromise the ten greatest Middleweights of all time. The Utah man would be at the lower end of that list, but still a definite feature in it all the same.

For a fighter who, from the outset, seemed so limited, Fullmer's record is remarkably consistent. Very few defeats on his record which could be classed as shocking / highly disappointing etc, and very few 'safe' defences of his title during his reign. I don't think his shortcomings against Tiger should be held against him all that much either, for two reasons. First off, Fullmer was coming to the end of what was, in every sense of the word, a gruelling career, and secondly because Tiger was one hell of a Middleweight champion in his own right. Prior to lifting the title, his only loss of real significance came to Lausse, but let's remember that Lausse was arguably the best natural 160 lb fighter of all time to never lift the crown.

I think Fullmer's achievements, considering that he was a brawler without a genuine knockout punch, are remarkable. Certainly part of the all-time elite at 160 lb, a truly great fighter.

Very well put 05Chrisi have have been trying to clue myself up on the black and white days of boxing.. 1st guy i came across was Fullmer and what a great find it was, not only for fighting Robinson 4 times but having only lost once. Also i find myself agreeing with you about Dick Tiger a very very hard Nigerian..