Bob Foster vs. Michael Spinks

The Keed · Post by **The Keed** » 27 May 2004, 19:03

Who wins this one?

Does Foster use his reach and boxing ability to keep Spinks on the outside and outbox him? Or would Spinks brawl and bully his way to a win?

Jaclem · Post by **Jaclem** » 28 May 2004, 01:38

spinks had a herky jerky style that had him fighting very well from the outside at times, and at others being very aggressive and coming in with good combinations. best example is against cooney...who wasn't a quality fighter but did have size and a punch.

you've brought up a most interesting fantasy battle. in some ways, i go with spinks...then I think foster. if i had to bet, i'd bet on spinks...but wouldn't be surprised at all if i lost the bet.

now there's an example of a real firm answer.

Eric the Viking · Post by **Eric the Viking** » 28 May 2004, 12:04

Tough call, at least at first sight. Although both are the same height I believe Foster would have a reach advantage over Spinks, whose reach was not great for a guy 6 foot 3. But Foster and Spinks' performances against the heavyweights is what pretty much makes my decision for me. If Spinks could deal with the height, reach and jab of the great Larry Holmes and basically fight him on even terms, I can't imagine he'd have more of a problem with Foster than with Holmes.

Foster on the other hand lost badly to every halfway-decent heavy he ever faced, including lesser guys like Ernie Terrell and Zora Folley. Folley was decent but far from great, and was a small heavy, barely cracking 200 pounds. Terrell was a paper champion and while very tall, also barely cracked 200. In other words, neither had a major size advantage on Foster, and both beat him soundly. Holmes not only had a nearly half-foot reach edge and 20-lb weight advantage over Spinks (and this was even after Spinks bulked up to around 200), but possessed far more boxing skill than either Folley or Terrell. So I gotta go with Spinks, who proved his greatness not only against a better crop of light-heavies than Foster dealt with, but against one of the great heavyweight champions of all time.

THE DANCING MASTER · Post by **THE DANCING MASTER** » 28 May 2004, 12:08

I would go with Foster due to his reach, but I am a bit biased in his favor. Foster was always one of my favorites despite being a surly SOB. :x

Newbie · Post by **Newbie** » 28 May 2004, 19:45

How could Micheal Spinks win an Okympic Gold Medal, defeat Muhammed Ali for the World Heavyweight Championship in his 7th pro match, and then wind up losing to total bums, such as a guy with a 3-53 record in his career?

Jaclem · Post by **Jaclem** » 29 May 2004, 01:40

...ahhh...mr. newbie....i believe you have your spinkses confused. no..that's not it..what i mean to say is the spinkses aren't confused...it's you who are confused about the spinkses...although leon often does seem confused....but in other areas, as i'm sure more often than not he knows which brother he is.

viking guy....your analysis gets me of the fence and unequivecal and convinces me that michael would win, and why.

Eric the Viking · Post by **Eric the Viking** » 30 May 2004, 22:52

Jaclem wrote:viking guy....your analysis gets me of the fence and unequivecal and convinces me that michael would win, and why.

Why thank you, Mr. Jaclem.

crooked nose · Post by **crooked nose** » 31 May 2004, 13:10

A good question. Both lanky, hard punching, skilled. But I gotta go with Spinks. He handled such a wide variety of styles, all of them well (except of course for the onslaught of Tyson). Spinks did not look graceful, but he was balanced, mobile, strong and quick. Foster was just a little too fragile. The heavyweights seemed to just walk right through him. As mentioned, Spinks handled some bigger guys. With both fighters at 175, I still see Spinks stronger and more effective.
This pair scored two of the most memorable left hook kayos ever, Foster v. Tiger and Spinks v. Marvin Johnson.

Eric the Viking · Post by **Eric the Viking** » 01 Jun 2004, 15:42

crooked nose wrote:This pair scored two of the most memorable left hook kayos ever, Foster v. Tiger and Spinks v. Marvin Johnson.

IMO Foster gets way too much credit for that KO of Tiger. Tiger was a former middleweight who was pushing 40, had been in many ring wars, and was giving up massive amounts of size and reach to the younger Foster.

If you needed further proof that tiger was over the hill, note that he was knocked down twice in his subsequent fight with the unheralded Frank DePaula, who weighed 167 lbs., and was not long thereafter inducted into Foster's bum-of-the-month club - in between Tiger and DePaula, Foster took on such luminaries as the 9-8 Charley Polite and the 11-12 Eddie Vick (Vick was - get this - a *rematch*, Foster had won a 10-round decision against him the year before). Tiger retired not long after, after one more payday against longtime middleweight foe Emile Griffith.

Spinks' win over Johnson, on the other hand, was over a legitimate top contender at light-heavy who was in his physical prime. Spinks also had wins over top light-heavies like Yaqui Lopez (a bit past his prime at that point, but that was only Spinks' 14th pro fight), Eddie Mustafa Muhammad, and Dwight Qawi, who was a frickin' beast at both light-heavy and cruiser. Any one of those guys is as good (most are better) than the best opponents Foster ever had at 175: Dick Tiger (smaller, way past his prime), Pierre Fourie (very padded record - Fourie had only ever won the South African Light Heavyweight Title), and Mike Quarry (massively padded record - had not faced a single top light-heavy prior to Foster, unless you consider the 29-6 Andy Kendall to be a top light-heavy - and Kendall beat Quarry in a rematch a few years later

).

dan1030 · Post by **dan1030** » 01 Jun 2004, 17:46

Eric, I think you already won this argument with your earlier comparison of their heavyweight records: gotta go with Spinks.

Jukejar · Post by **Jukejar** » 01 Jun 2004, 18:04

Great matchup. I would go with Spinks winning a close decision in this one. I would give him the nod in overall boxing skills, and his chin at lightheavyweight should enable him to still be standing after 15 rounds. And I agree that the skills Spinks used against big heavyweights could prove the difference. BUT, on the other hand, Foster's power at 175lb is awesome--so Spinks would have to be standing to get the decision. If he displays the wide-eyed "no-brawl" attitude he used against Braxton, he should be able to keep Foster from connecting with the necessary dynamite.

This is one of those "if they fight 100 times, Spinks should win between 55 and 60"

Eric the Viking · Post by **Eric the Viking** » 01 Jun 2004, 18:58

dan1030 wrote:Eric, I think you already won this argument with your earlier comparison of their heavyweight records: gotta go with Spinks.

Yeah, and now I'm doing the BOTP-forum equivalent of kicking a man when he's down by comparing their opposition at 175. (Think of the famous scene from A Clockwork Orange: "Singin' in the rain, I'm (whack!) singin' in the rain..."

Agree with Jukejar's point about Spinks having to respect Foster's power, though. He could outbox him all he wants, but one defensive lapse and it could be over in a hurry.

But, where was I? Oh yeah ... Kick! Boot! Whack! Pile on! Pelt with rocks, bottles and rotting vegetables! ;)

crooked nose · Post by **crooked nose** » 03 Jun 2004, 22:55

To get completely off topic, Viking's mention of Clockwork Orange reminds me that Stanley Kubrick began his career as a photographer for LOOK magazine. One of his first films was a documentary called "Day of the Fight" about middleweight Walter Cartier. Kubrick also did a photo story on Cartier and he was ringside for the Zale-Cerdan bout in 1948.
Yes, A Clockwork Orange is a really touching family film, kinda like Mike Tyson vs. Bambi.

Eric the Viking · Post by **Eric the Viking** » 04 Jun 2004, 12:46

crooked nose wrote:Yes, A Clockwork Orange is a really touching family film, kinda like Mike Tyson vs. Bambi.

What many people seem to overlook is that CO is at times screamingly funny. When it was the first released, the violence was considered so graphic that it initially had an X rating based solely on that, but by today's standards it's pretty tame (though the violence is much more personal than a typical modern blood-and-gorefest.)

Dang, I do love getting completely off topic if the "off" is interesting. ;)