Bob Foster's light heavy title defenses

[bjermaine]

What does everyone think about level of competition Foster fought in his title defenses? After he beat an old Tiger for the title he didn't have any wins over great fighters. He's still a great fighter but I think he may be a bit overrated.

[raylawpc]

What does everyone think about level of competition Foster fought in his title defenses? After he beat an old Tiger for the title he didn't have any wins over great fighters. He's still a great fighter but I think he may be a bit overrated.

The level of competition wasn't as strong as, let's say, for Napoles in the welterweight or Monzon in the middleweight divisions. But that wasn't entirely Foster's fault as the light-heavyweight division wasn't a very strong division overall in the early 1970s.

However, he did defeat some good fighters in undefeated Mike Quarry, British champ Chris Finnegan, and the rugged Andy Kendall. I saw Mark Tessman and he was a pretty good boxer - though little remembered now. Vincente Rondon was on a good run before Foster destroyed him.

[dempseyfire]

Foster's relative weak comp hurts him greatly in my all-time 175 rankings. Many have him in their top 5 and I think he clearly doesn't have the resume for that lofty ranking, and also the truly elite 175 lbers could compete with top HWs (Tunney, Loughran, Langford, Conn, Spinks) I mean Doug Jones was a very good but not great fighter and not naturally any bigger than Bob and Foster couldn't beat him, and he basically got bludgeoned by Terrell and completly outboxed by Folley. The 3 best wins on his resume are Hank, Cotton, and Tiger, and Hank/Tiger were well past their best and Tiger despite being champ was never a real 175 lber.

In fact, he doesn't even make my top 10.

I'd rank the following above him (they aren't in any particular order and yes I rank Langford, Tunney and Fitz as 175 lbers and not HWs)

Sam Langford
Ezzard Charles
Gene Tunney
Tommy Loughran
Billy Conn
Archie Moore
Battling Levinsky
Maxie Rosenbloom
John Henry Lewis
Michael Spinks
Jack Dillon
Bob Fitzimmons
Harold Johnson


I think you could even argue for Maxim being ahead but I'll put Foster ahead b/c of his greater dominance/consistency, albeit vs a lesser field.

[Ambling Alp]

Iguess I use different criteria when rating a fighter in a particular weight class. I don't think Foster's (or any lightheavyweight's) fights at heavyweight should be considered when rating him strictly as a lightheavyweight.
Therefore I rate Foster very highly. However he never lost to a lightheavyweight until right at the end of his career. (Jones and Mina were over the limit and were very early in Foster's career anyway)n
His title defense are a little underrated:
Fourie was a good fighter, and Tiger was still pretty good even despite his age and that it wasn't his natural weight class. Doubtful anyother lightheavyweight would have beaten Tiger that easily.

The only lightheavyweights I rate higher are Spinks, Moore, Charles, and Tunney, and not by much. (Not sure where rate Langford since we don't really know how many and which of his fights were at lightheavyweight.)

[BroughtonRulesRefuge]

In fact, he doesn't even make my top 10.

--- Now, had I authored that, I'd be accused of being a "hater" and other assorted nonsense.

Foster does have a weak CV compared to many others, but he was the rampaging monster in his day who me thinks a bit mismanaged early on, but his size and talent was such that his manager appears to have wanted to make him a heavy. He does give Ali one of his tougher fights, the only fighter who cut him up which Foster did with his jab.

He was a late sub for the Jones fight, and Jones goes on to KO Folley and arguably beat young Clay, so it's not like Jones is just a bum in this period.

[giacomino]

Foster fought some really crappy defenses in the first couple of years after his spectacular KO of Tiger, and he lost his last title defense against Ahumada in New Mexico (scored a gift draw). But Rondon wasn't a bad fighter at light heavy when Foster's KO'd him, Quarry was undefeated, Finnegan was a decent enough Euro champion and Fourie was an experienced albeit light-punching fighter with a good record. Not a murderer's row by any means but not terrible. Other long-reigning light heavy champions of the 70s and 80s, like Victor Galindez and Michael Spinks, probably defended against a little better competition

[Goodnight, Irene]

What does everyone think about level of competition Foster fought in his title defenses? After he beat an old Tiger for the title he didn't have any wins over great fighters. He's still a great fighter but I think he may be a bit overrated.

Careful. One could say the same thing of Tyson --- defenses against Bruno & Williams, before losing it to the ordinary Douglas. His reign was both short & against average/slightly above-average adversaries. At least Foster had longevity, right? Then there are Roy Jones' LHW defenses, ugh. Only ever part of the story, for any fighter, is the quality of opposition.

[raylawpc]

Foster fought some really crappy defenses in the first couple of years after his spectacular KO of Tiger, and he lost his last title defense against Ahumada in New Mexico (scored a gift draw). But Rondon wasn't a bad fighter at light heavy when Foster's KO'd him, Quarry was undefeated, Finnegan was a decent enough Euro champion and Fourie was an experienced albeit light-punching fighter with a good record. Not a murderer's row by any means but not terrible. Other long-reigning light heavy champions of the 70s and 80s, like Victor Galindez and Michael Spinks, probably defended against a little better competition

Indeed, Rondon was on a 20-bout win streak against some pretty good fighters when Foster demolished him, Rondon had defeated, among others, Jimmy Dupree, Jose Luis Garcia, Roger Rouse, Eddie Jones, and Peralta during that streak.

Mark Tessman is largely forgotten today, but he was a darned good boxer. Couldn't break an egg, but he could box your ear's off.

[dempseyfire]

What does everyone think about level of competition Foster fought in his title defenses? After he beat an old Tiger for the title he didn't have any wins over great fighters. He's still a great fighter but I think he may be a bit overrated.

Careful. One could say the same thing of Tyson --- defenses against Bruno & Williams, before losing it to the ordinary Douglas. His reign was both short & against average/slightly above-average adversaries. At least Foster had longevity, right? Then there are Roy Jones' LHW defenses, ugh. Only ever part of the story, for any fighter, is the quality of opposition.

Right, and Tyson also suffers in my rankings b/c of his opposition.

Foster's opp wern't bums . . .FInnigan, Quarry, Rossman etc. were all good fighters. But compared to the true elite of the 175 division, his record is extremely lacking. And as I stated, those fighters had a much better track record at Heavyweight than Foster did. I think Bob's chin gets him in big trouble vs the top 10 all-time.

[raylawpc]

What does everyone think about level of competition Foster fought in his title defenses? After he beat an old Tiger for the title he didn't have any wins over great fighters. He's still a great fighter but I think he may be a bit overrated.

Careful. One could say the same thing of Tyson --- defenses against Bruno & Williams, before losing it to the ordinary Douglas. His reign was both short & against average/slightly above-average adversaries. At least Foster had longevity, right? Then there are Roy Jones' LHW defenses, ugh. Only ever part of the story, for any fighter, is the quality of opposition.

Right, and Tyson also suffers in my rankings b/c of his opposition.

Foster's opp wern't bums . . .FInnigan, Quarry, Rossman etc. were all good fighters. But compared to the true elite of the 175 division, his record is extremely lacking. And as I stated, those fighters had a much better track record at Heavyweight than Foster did. I think Bob's chin gets him in big trouble vs the top 10 all-time.

Foster never fought Rossman.

[dempseyfire]

What does everyone think about level of competition Foster fought in his title defenses? After he beat an old Tiger for the title he didn't have any wins over great fighters. He's still a great fighter but I think he may be a bit overrated.

Careful. One could say the same thing of Tyson --- defenses against Bruno & Williams, before losing it to the ordinary Douglas. His reign was both short & against average/slightly above-average adversaries. At least Foster had longevity, right? Then there are Roy Jones' LHW defenses, ugh. Only ever part of the story, for any fighter, is the quality of opposition.

Right, and Tyson also suffers in my rankings b/c of his opposition.

Foster's opp wern't bums . . .FInnigan, Quarry, Rossman etc. were all good fighters. But compared to the true elite of the 175 division, his record is extremely lacking. And as I stated, those fighters had a much better track record at Heavyweight than Foster did. I think Bob's chin gets him in big trouble vs the top 10 all-time.

Foster never fought Rossman.

You're right, I meant Finnigan.

[harrygreb]

in a hypo match up bob beats rossman, though. i like foster and i can only rate him against other Lightheavys and from what i saw at the time. he makes my top ten in that division.

[bjermaine]

What does everyone think about level of competition Foster fought in his title defenses? After he beat an old Tiger for the title he didn't have any wins over great fighters. He's still a great fighter but I think he may be a bit overrated.

Careful. One could say the same thing of Tyson --- defenses against Bruno & Williams, before losing it to the ordinary Douglas. His reign was both short & against average/slightly above-average adversaries. At least Foster had longevity, right? Then there are Roy Jones' LHW defenses, ugh. Only ever part of the story, for any fighter, is the quality of opposition.

true. when i have guys tell me tyson was the best heavyweight of all-time i just ask them who was the best guy he ever beat. there's no answer.

jones defended against some stinkers as well but guys like harding, gonzalez (who went on to beat dariuz), and reggie johnson are a little underrated. jones also had wins at 175 over hill, griffin, and tarver (close) which are more impressive than anything i see on foster's resume.

[dempseyfire]

What does everyone think about level of competition Foster fought in his title defenses? After he beat an old Tiger for the title he didn't have any wins over great fighters. He's still a great fighter but I think he may be a bit overrated.

Careful. One could say the same thing of Tyson --- defenses against Bruno & Williams, before losing it to the ordinary Douglas. His reign was both short & against average/slightly above-average adversaries. At least Foster had longevity, right? Then there are Roy Jones' LHW defenses, ugh. Only ever part of the story, for any fighter, is the quality of opposition.

true. when i have guys tell me tyson was the best heavyweight of all-time i just ask them who was the best guy he ever beat. there's no answer.

jones defended against some stinkers as well but guys like harding, gonzalez (who went on to beat dariuz), and reggie johnson are a little underrated. jones also had wins at 175 over hill, griffin, and tarver (close) which are more impressive than anything i see on foster's resume.

You know I have to say I do think Roy's 175 resume is slightly better b/c of the wins over Hill and Tarver (1st fight) I definitely don't think Griffith, Johnson, or Gonzales were any better than the likes of Rondon, Quarry, and Finnigan, but those two wins push Roy over for me.

Now head for head, I don't see Jones lasting the distance vs Foster. Would've been a great fight to see though.

[Martin Sosa Cameron]

Bob Foster was a great boxer, a very hard puncher, but remember his defense fight against Jorge Ahumada

[Ambling Alp]

I think there are some factors that need to bementioned when comparing Jones as a lightheavyweight and foster as a lightheavyweight.

1. Jones lost to Montell Griffin. Yes,he avenged it, but the fact remains that he actually lost to Montell Griffin. That has to count against him.
It shouldn't be swept under the rug. It happened.

2. Look at Jones two big wins at lightheavyweight. Hill was slipping and was never a great fighter even at his best.
Foster beat guys that were better than this version of Virgil Hill.
Jones was very fortunate to get the win over Tarver. It was a very close fight. The decision easily could have went to Tarver or at least have been a draw.
3. Jones never fought by far the best opponent available (Michalczewski). For more than 5 years this was virtually the only potentially interesting fight at 175 and instead we were treated to fights against stiff after stiff (including the legendary Glenn Kelly)

Not fighting by far best available has to taint your title reign. You can't legitimately say that about Foster.

4. I realize that the topic was about title defenses, but if you are going to compare resumes, you should also look at who they won the title from.
Foster beat the great Dick Tiger to win the title.
True, it wasn't Tiger's best weight, and he was getting old. At first glance it doesn't seem like that big of a win. However, look at what Tiger right before and after getting crushed by Foster. He beat Jose Torres twice before fighting Foster and beat Benvenuti after losing to Foster.
Not to mention that against very good competition Tiger was never knocked out in any other fight, (except for very early in his career) and Foster knocked him into la la land.

[Goodnight, Irene]

Good post, Alp. I agree with essentially all of it. Only qualification I would make in Jones' defense would be Foster was a natural 175lber, & Jones' best weight, clearly IMO, was 168lbs.

[Ezzard]

Good post, Alp. I agree with essentially all of it. Only qualification I would make in Jones' defense would be Foster was a natural 175lber, & Jones' best weight, clearly IMO, was 168lbs.

Could Jones have made 168 with the change in weigh in times?