Bob Foster v. Tommy Hicks

Woller · Post by **Woller** » 08 Jan 2004, 04:53

I have just seen an old video of Bob Foster defending his lightheavyweight crown against Tommy Hicks oct. 30th 1971.
Nothing against Tommy Hicks, but how did he get a title shot? Shurely there must have been other more worthy contenders.
Søren Woller
Denmark

Rafael · Post by **Rafael** » 08 Jan 2004, 12:41

Hicks won an eliminator against some other non-descript guy (Opshinsky?) Foster's list of challengers does not precisely read like the HOF....

Jaclem · Post by **Jaclem** » 09 Jan 2004, 02:19

ah yes..tommy hicks...was trying to think of his name the other day. i saw ted gullick beat the hell out of him in cleveland. the build up was more fun than the fight. hicks was blonde and very fair skinned, and the pre-fight promo went along these lines .....Joe Palooka to fight ted gullick. Hicks, a promising young fighter is a look alike for the longest title holder ever...the great Joe Palooka of comic strip fame....blah bah blah...hicks said he was kidded so much about looking like joe palooka that he decided to take up boxing...blah blah blah....

well, he WAS blonde and kind of dumb looking, so there was a resemblance...but he fought more like orphan annie. he was so fair skinned that he had big red blothches on his body by the end of the first round. i had completely forgotten he fought foster. i woiuldn't be surprised if hicks has forgotten too.

wsbuf · Post by **wsbuf** » 09 Jan 2004, 09:50

Where did you see the video? How can I get my hands on it? I see Tommy Hicks now and then and would like to have a copy for him.

Rafael · Post by **Rafael** » 09 Jan 2004, 10:43

I have a copy of this fight. It is silent, but the video quality is fine. I will trade you for it if you want.

wsbuf · Post by **wsbuf** » 09 Jan 2004, 11:26

Thanks Raf. I don't have a large collection of fights. Some Ray Mancini fights, some others from the 80's and early 90's. Let me know what we can do.
Thanks

Eric the Viking · Post by **Eric the Viking** » 09 Jan 2004, 12:44

What are considered to be Foster's career-defining wins, exactly? He's ranked by most as one of the top-5 all-time light-heavies, but there aren't a whole lot of top LHW opponents on his re'sume'. Mauro Mina was great, but Foster lost that fight. Dick Tiger was a good fighter, but was nearly 40 years old and had 15 losses when Foster met him. Aside from Tiger, the biggest names on Foster's record are the heavyweights (Terrell, Folley, Frazier, Ali) and he lost to evry one of them. Points for guts for geting in the ring against these guys, but getting KTFOed by them isn't exactly a sign of greatness.

So why is Foster considered to be so great?

kovit · Post by **kovit** » 09 Jan 2004, 23:44

What is Tommy Hicks' height and what is his whole proffessional career record?

Broncano · Post by **Broncano** » 10 Jan 2004, 00:00

Eric the Viking wrote:. Mauro Mina was great.

You can say that again, you astute and knowledgeable Fjordman.

kovit · Post by **kovit** » 10 Jan 2004, 00:09

Can anyone tell me what is Tommy Hicks' height and his whole professional carreer record please?

wsbuf · Post by **wsbuf** » 25 Feb 2004, 11:07

Does anyone else have a copy of this fight?
Thanks.

Rafael · Post by **Rafael** » 25 Feb 2004, 12:17

Sorry I've been out of touch about this. I will send you a copy of this fight, along with some other Foster bouts I have in the same disc. Just send me a PM with your mailing information.

Rafael · Post by **Rafael** » 04 Mar 2004, 11:50

So how did you like the tape?

wsbuf · Post by **wsbuf** » 04 Mar 2004, 18:03

Good tape, thanks. Hicks handled himself pretty good. Now I can ask him about the fight and have a frame of reference.

The Keed · Post by **The Keed** » 04 Mar 2004, 18:24

Eric the Viking wrote:What are considered to be Foster's career-defining wins, exactly? He's ranked by most as one of the top-5 all-time light-heavies, but there aren't a whole lot of top LHW opponents on his re'sume'. Mauro Mina was great, but Foster lost that fight. Dick Tiger was a good fighter, but was nearly 40 years old and had 15 losses when Foster met him. Aside from Tiger, the biggest names on Foster's record are the heavyweights (Terrell, Folley, Frazier, Ali) and he lost to evry one of them. Points for guts for geting in the ring against these guys, but getting KTFOed by them isn't exactly a sign of greatness.

So why is Foster considered to be so great?

All true, and you also might want to throw in that Doug Jones KO'd him, maybe only about a year after Jones had been thoroughly outclassed by an OLD Harold Johnson. And Jorge Ahumada, who was also arguably a step up from most of Foster's other opponents, got a draw out of Foster in Foster's hometown.

Also, a lot of the guys that Foster beat (ie: Andy Kendall, Roger Rouse, Frankie DePaula) were also beaten by Old Man Tiger as well, which really doesn't say much about them now, does it?

Foster still would've battered Roy, though. :P

Eric the Viking · Post by **Eric the Viking** » 04 Mar 2004, 18:32

The Keed wrote:Foster still would've battered Roy, though. :P

If you mean in the "roll in flour, dip in runny raw egg batter, cover with breadcrumbs" sense, well, then I agree, it would've been possible. But it would be a really weird thing to do.

The Keed · Post by **The Keed** » 04 Mar 2004, 19:24

Taking this whole thing a little further, I think Saad Muhammad, who most people would probably rank below Foster, had a better resume than Foster.

Consider:
Marvin Johnson (twice)
John Conteh (twice)
Yaqui Lopez (twice)
Richie Kates

I would say that's probably a better list than Dick Tiger, Vicente Rondon, Henry Hank, and... who else? Pierre Fourie?? (

)

Also, Victor Galindez and Dwight Qawi both had arguably better (certainly comparable) resumes than Foster as well.

Rafael · Post by **Rafael** » 04 Mar 2004, 19:37

Yo Keed, it's Marvin not Harold.

The Keed · Post by **The Keed** » 04 Mar 2004, 20:21

Rafael wrote:Yo Keed, it's Marvin not Harold.

Same difference!

Rafael · Post by **Rafael** » 04 Mar 2004, 23:18

Same difference? Yeah, quantitatively that is true, but I believe Harold was a substantially higher quality fighter than Marvin.

Eric the Viking · Post by **Eric the Viking** » 05 Mar 2004, 11:43

The Keed wrote:Taking this whole thing a little further, I think Saad Muhammad, who most people would probably rank below Foster, had a better resume than Foster.

Oh, most definitely. I would put Foster near the bottom of the ATG top-10 at LHW - Saad would be somewhere in the 5-7 range.

Lke I've said before, I think Foster gets ranked so high because of his quality of opposition - but the high-quality opponents were all at heavyweight, and he lost to them all - usually badly.

Rafael · Post by **Rafael** » 05 Mar 2004, 11:55

How many heavyweights did Saad Muhammad fight?

Eric the Viking · Post by **Eric the Viking** » 05 Mar 2004, 12:09

Rafael wrote:How many heavyweights did Saad Muhammad fight?

As far as I can tell, none - Saad is a much smaller man (in terms of height and reach) than Foster, and I just can't see him hanging with any modern heavies. (But then again, neither did Foster, though he clearly did have major balls just to get in the ring with them). My point is, why should Foster's merely getting in the ring with some great heavies (and promptly getting starched) count for him in terms of his ATG status at light-heavy?

Rafael · Post by **Rafael** » 05 Mar 2004, 12:23

I am not saying that his fighting (and losing to) good/great hevies should add to his greatness at light heavy, but it should not count against him either. In my view, despite his lack of great opposition, Foster gets a lot of credit in all-time rankings because (a) at 175 he only lost once (to the formidable Mauro Mina) during his prime, and (b) during his prime, he did not just beat his opponents; he pulverized them. I have no strong feelings for whether Foster should rank above or below Saad in an all-time sense (I personally rank him above), but I think he's getting a bit of a bum rap on this thread.

P.S. Yes, Bobby was taller than Saad Muhammad, but that does not imply he was better equipped to fight heavyweights. The man was a walking chopstick, even at 175, and when he stepped up to heavy, he did not weigh much more than 180. Saad was shorter but had a much bigger torso, arms, and legs than Bobby.

Eric the Viking · Post by **Eric the Viking** » 05 Mar 2004, 12:53

Rafael wrote:I am not saying that his fighting (and losing to) good/great hevies should add to his greatness at light heavy, but it should not count against him either. In my view, despite his lack of great opposition, Foster gets a lot of credit in all-time rankings because (a) at 175 he only lost once (to the formidable Mauro Mina) during his prime, and (b) during his prime, he did not just beat his opponents; he pulverized them.

His level of opposition at light-heavy was generally quite poor - people who rag on present-day guys like Roy Jones for supposedly fighting stiffs should look at Foster's record at light-heavy. I agree, the loss to Mina shouldn't count heavily against him because it came early in Bob's career, but by the same token, his win over Dick Tiger shouldn't count for much because Tiger was so far past it at that point, all he had anymore was his name. And if you look closely at his light-heavy fights in his prime, there's no small number of decision wins, and really not a tremendous level of opposition. I just don't think his accomplishments at light-heavy merit his being ranked in the top 5, as so many people seem to have him. I respect your point of view, but I do think Foster's ATG ranking is at least debatable.

Bob Foster v. Tommy Hicks

Bob Foster v. Tommy Hicks

Foster-Hicks

Foster-Hicks

Harold vs. Marvin