Archie Moore vs. Bob Foster

[Grimm]

How does this one turn out with the slick bomber vs. the taller more rangy puncher?

[elmersalsa]

I can't see too many guys beating the great Bob Foster. At light heavyweight, he was perfect. I rate the great Archie Moore above the Foster in the pound per pound all time lists, but at light-heavyweight, in a head to head matchup, Foster would decapitate Moore in 6 rounds.

[Grimm]

I'd have it starting off with Foster starting fast winning the first four rounds and getting dropped in the 5th. From then on he chooses to box tentatively as Moore comes on strong and behind on all cards losing the fight in the 14th round a Foster left hook sends Moore directly to sleep.

[Goodnight, Irene]

Moore would be in serious peril in the early going --- that's Foster's best bet, IMO. Long fights were Moore's forte in many instances, & he may've proved Foster's better down the stretch.

Difficult fight to project with confidence

[Robinson]

Ill flip a coin on this one..

would make a good series.

Both can be knocked down by the other
and both have the power and skills to test
each other.

Moore is one of those guys who would have
been a at his best as a 160-168lber.
But who can argue with his LHW and even HW
efforts.

[dempseyfire]

Moore by knockout. Foster was NOT perfect at 175. He had a leaky defense and suspect chin.

How is Moore suddenly best as a middleweight??

The guy was knocking out huge heavyweights and is one of the greatest light HWs of all time . . .he was a certified light heavyweight.

[Robinson]

I said he would have been best suited and more dominant as
a MW.

He was extremely good as LHW and HW...I agree with you
there.

I just feel Moore would have been frighteningly awesome as
a MW.

[bjermaine]

if they're fighting at LH, i'll take foster. if they're fighting at heavy, i'll take moore. foster couldn't get over the hump against any of the good heavys he faced.

[Robinson]

Foster was 29-8 at HW> not that bad and alot of his
losses were against good HW's, he also took some of his
earlier HW bouts on short notice.

Moore was 70-5-3 at HW> pretty damned impressive
and some good names amongst the mix.

I am curious to know how many MW fights he had. I still
feel contray to what my friend DF thinks that moore would
have been a force at 160-168lbs.

[dempseyfire]

Foster was 29-8 at HW> not that bad and alot of his
losses were against good HW's, he also took some of his
earlier HW bouts on short notice.

Moore was 70-5-3 at HW> pretty damned impressive
and some good names amongst the mix.

I am curious to know how many MW fights he had. I still
feel contray to what my friend DF thinks that moore would
have been a force at 160-168lbs.

That's akin to saying "Holyfield sure would've rocked 175 . ."

I just don't understand the argument. Moore's resume at 175 AND heavyweight blows Fosters' out of the water.

In addition, Moore had many fights at 160-165 and his career blossomed once he started fighting at 175 and above. At 165 he was losing to the likes of the very good but not great Eddie Booker.

[Robinson]

Maybe I am just a retard and can not communicate well.

I feel that Moore would most likely had of been
a fantastic talent had there been a 168lb and he had
the money and incentive to stay there. And not go
up to HW and LHW were the money and higher profile
bouts were.

Moore has a supremely better record over Foster, in the
HW and LHW divisions. That does not mean that Foster
would not do well against the great man ..

And it is nothing like saying Holyfield would do great at
175lbs because Holy besides his amateur days never fought
above 176 as a pro...and basically jumped right into the
CW-junior HW divisions.

Moore on the other hand was a solid MW and was not really
noticed until he started taking on HW's while a MW and LHW.

[BroughtonRulesRefuge]

I can't see too many guys beating the great Bob Foster.

- You could bet your last dollar Arch would be one.

Of all the fighters who've ever existed, he's a one of a kind, marvel of nature. Probably the most intelligent ring general who ever existed. Not great starting off his career, but once he figured the score, he made it his.

[dempseyfire]

Maybe I am just a retard and can not communicate well.

I feel that Moore would most likely had of been
a fantastic talent had there been a 168lb and he had
the money and incentive to stay there. And not go
up to HW and LHW were the money and higher profile
bouts were.

Moore has a supremely better record over Foster, in the
HW and LHW divisions. That does not mean that Foster
would not do well against the great man ..

And it is nothing like saying Holyfield would do great at
175lbs because Holy besides his amateur days never fought
above 176 as a pro...and basically jumped right into the
CW-junior HW divisions.

Moore on the other hand was a solid MW and was not really
noticed until he started taking on HW's while a MW and LHW.

No you aren't a retard.

I guess it's the insinuation that size was somehow an issue for Moore at 175. It wasn't in any aspect. The guy matured into a true 175lber, and he beat other great 175 lb fighters. He was a true light heavyweight.

[Robinson]

That he was and his record speaks for itself.

BUt..like I said I think if the money was there
and legacy to be made, he would have been
fantastic as a MW.

No disputing his 175 and up efforts.

As for Foster vs him...I am going to watch some
film of both over the long weekend here (adelaide
cup weekend), seeing as I dont follow horse racing
I got me some boxing to watch ;)

[Ambling Alp]

Archie was best at 175. He fought at 160 for a long time and was more beatable there before he outgrew the division. At heavyweight, he had a lot of fights but very seldom against the top heavyweights. He got knocked out by Marciano and Patterson, who were by far the best heavyweights he fought. He beat a lot of journeyman heavyweights when he was older but he never fought Williams, Folley, Machen, Johannson, or Liston.

He was great at 175, arguably the best ever and certainly one of the top 5.

Foster wasn't good at heavyweight. However, at 175, he was also arguably the best and certainly one of the top 5. He had huge size and reach advantages against most lightheavyweights and had tremendous power.

A fight between the two at 175 could have gone either way.

[Robinson]

I think everyone here will agree that a match between these two
would be one of the hardest to pick ATG 175lb matches one could
conjue up.

[tennessee]

good fight till moore landed his sunday punch. the ol mongoose hit like a hw. sorry foster fans but bob would have dropped a decision to virgil hill

[elmersalsa]

good fight till moore landed his sunday punch. the ol mongoose hit like a hw. sorry foster fans but bob would have dropped a decision to virgil hill

To Virgil Hill?

[JABARDELLI]

Bob Foster and Archie Moore were both bangers. Moore was very cagey and deceptive as well laying traps for the unwary. Claims are made by various journalist and fight aficionados that each was the greatest light heavyweight of all time. Both probably do rank within the top ten within the light heavyweight division but for my money neither would be ranked as the greatest within the division. However, evaluating Moore's ranking, for this writer, is more difficult that evaluating Bob Foster.

Foster had a cutting, slashing jab ... one of the few times Ali was every cut in a fight came as a result of Foster being able to reach him. He punched with viciousness ... both hands --- but his dynamite lay in that vaunted left hook. He was far more dangerous when he controlled the fight from a distance.

Both could hit when a chin was there to be reached, when allowed to set. One might think that Moore was more vulnerable than Foster to being caught but in the fight business, when you fight and if you fight, make no mistake about it, you are going to get caught irrespective of whom your opponent is. At various times, all the great ones were nailed and time and time again. They may have walked away with a victory but they paid for it in many other and varied ways ... remember that Mother Nature claims her debts in later years.

And Archie Moore did put it on the line in an unbelievable career from 1935-1963 where we were privileged to lay witness to the greatness of the fighter and more importantly, the man. He fought as a middle- light heavyweight and ended his career taking on the heavyweights in multiple and varied sizes ... from a comparatively diminutive Rocky Marciano to the relative cascading heights of a 6' 3" 215 pounds Nino Valdes or a George Parmentier who stood 6' 6" and weighed 233 lbs.

Yes, his record is checkered with losses throughout this long span of fighting to forgotten fighters and champions alike ... names like Jack Chase, Eddie Booker, Charley Burley, Ezzard Charles, and Jimmy Bivins are recorded as losses on Moore's record. To some, losing to fighters whose names bring nothing to the imagination, implies that Moore couldn't have been as great as he is reputed to be amongst the great historians. They argue, how could he survive in today's boxing climate when athletes are "bigger, faster, stronger." This argument falls, in one respect, simply by understanding the length of his career coupled with understanding that he survived physically rather unscathed health wise on a comparative basis to fighters down through the century.

It falls in another respect when a true understanding is garnered concerning who these diamonds in the rough were that Moore was rolling dice with throughout his career as he pursued a shot for a championship belt at either level. To have physically survived, literally, with his life, fighting the Chases and Bookers of his world, imbued him with courage to take on anyone, anytime. These fights formed the backdrop to his having developed the power of conviction that he was the best and he feared none ... including Rocky Marciano or Muhammad Ali.

Following Moore's knockout loss to Rocky Marciano in 1955 many thought this was the end of Archie Moore. In truth, Ancient Archie was just getting warmed up. Another boxing career was unfolding! From 1955 to 1967 when he officially hung them up, Moore entered the ring 50 times losing but 3 times and recorded 25 knockouts! After losing to Marciano, he engaged in fights with Floyd Patterson, the Yvon Durelle epics, Tony Anthony, Eddie Cotton, Roger Rischer, Bert Whitehurst, Willie Besmanoff, Howard King, Charlie Norkus, Guilio Rinaldi, Pete Rademacher, Alejandro Lavorante, and Willie Pastrano. The 3 losses came to Patterson, Ali and Rinaldi.

For the record, Moore's incredible overall record was 220 fights, 185-23-11, with 131 KOs and he was stopped 7 times, and 1 NC. Historically, he stands alone in total knockouts with 131 kayos to his credit.

On a comparative basis, Foster's engaged in 65 fights, won 56, lost 8, had 1 draw, KOed 46 of his opponents and sustained 6 KO losses himself.

Both Moore and Foster repeatedly journeyed into the ranks of the heavyweight division from time to time in search of larger purses. Moore's accomplishments within the heavyweight division appears to be more successful than what Foster's accomplished, although an argument could be advanced as to whom took on the tougher fighters in the heavyweight ranks. Foster took on Terrell, Folley, Ali, and Frazier while Moore took on Charles as a light heavyweight, Marciano, Valdes, Patterson, and Ali among the better known fights. It must also be remembered that Moore's fights with Valdes, Patterson, and Ali came at the tail end of his career. When he took on Marciano in 1955 his best years were behind him but he was still deceptively smart and ring wise as well as formidably dangerous the night he dropped Marciano in the second round before awakening the tiger in the Rock.

Presumptively, if the two were to be matched within their primes, they would be matched as light heavyweights so their campaigns as heavyweights could, in reality, be tossed out the window.
Clearly, when you measure the caliber of opposition Moore and Foster each fought, Moore's competition, within either the middleweight or light heavyweight divisions, on a scale of 1 to 10, ranks at a 10. Foster's competition amongst light heavyweights ranks at a 7. This is not a knock on Bob Foster for he took on all who were out there at a time when he had to because he could not afford to retire and rest on his laurels given the size of the purses he was receiving. Foster's power ranks probably within the top 7 of the great light heavyweights. An argument can be advanced and some will insist that he be ranked No. 1. That will be examined in another time, another place, another forum.

Competitively, Foster took on the likes of Dick Tiger, Henry Hank, Eddie Cotton, Tommy Hicks, Pierre Fourie, Chris Finnigan, Roger Rouse, Andy Kendall, Brian Kelly, Vincente Rondon, Mike Quarry, and Frankie DePaula, throughout his career. When he fought Jorge Ahumada, although the fight was declared a draw in his home town in Albuquerque, New Mexico, Ahumada really won the fight going away and gave Foster much to think about in terms of retiring which he did some 6 months later.

The question is, who would prevail in this epic contest? I think that Moore's competition in terms of being prepared for the rings wars was far superior. His wars with fighters like Jack Chase, Aaron Wade, Charley Burley, Nate Bolden, Lloyd Marshall, Holman Williams, Ezzard Charles, Jimmy Bivins, Ted Lowry, Harold Johnson, and Joey Maxim, would give Moore a decided advantage over Bob Foster were the caliber of opposition to be utilized as a measuring stick. It doesn't mean that he would beat Foster but it does mean that he would come to the table, on paper, with greater laurels. How that plays out in the ring might be an entirely different matter, however.

One must also keep in mind that we never got to see Archie Moore fight in the prime of his career as we did Bob Foster. We were fortunate to see an Archie Moore who, by the time he fought the likes of Joey Maxim, Harold Johnson, and Rocky Marciano, had passed the zenith of his career. Still, Moore was incredible with his deceptiveness, quickness, and his power. He was capable of ending a fight at any moment to the unwary.

On the other hand, we saw Bob Foster engaged from the inception of his career, through its zenith right through the final stages when he retired. We were captivated by the sudden explosiveness, which we witnessed time and time again, in fights where a Dick Tiger or a Mike Quarry, would be destroyed with the combined suddenness of a python striking and dynamite exploding at the same time. The image stuck within our memory bank. We were not privileged to have implanted the similar image of a youthful Archie Moore during the heights of his fabulous career and when we analyze Moore v. Foster the images can lead to confusion. Remember that we saw Moore on the downside of his career in the same respect that we never were fortunate to see true greatness of Ezzard Charles whose career provides little film footage or television footage during his exploits as a great light heavyweight.

If there is any fighter that Moore fought who somewhat paralleled Bob Foster, I can think of two fighters. The first is Ezzard Charles. Charles was a slashing middleweight, a great light heavyweight, and a great heavyweight who ultimately became a the world heavyweight champion. However, he was never the same fighter he was once his lethal fists took the life of Sam Boroudi in 1948.

Charles fought Archie Moore 3 times and beat Moore on all three occasions, twice by decision and once by a knockout and the knockout occurred in their final fight which took place in 1948. It must be remembered and factored into the equation, however, that at the time of the knockout, it was Charles, himself, who was on the verge of being kayoed by Moore, when he retaliated with a series of left hooks and a right cross that dropped Moore for the count of ten.

I think if Bob Foster fought Ezzard Charles three times in their respective primes as light heavyweights, Charles would have beaten Foster all three fights. Those matches would have been classic encounters.

But the fighter I equate to Foster even more than Ezzard Charles, would have been Bob Satterfield in terms of comparative punching power. Those who remember Satterfield or who were privileged to see him fight, will think ... oh my God could that guy hit! And in the same breath they will remind themselves that reputedly he seemingly had a glass jaw. Simply put, to have seen Satterfield exploit his bob and weave and punching power is something that is forever etched in my memory.

Satterfield had greater power than Moore, Charles, or Foster and his record was formidable given the giants of the ring he similarly took on during his career. The point of my digression into the world of Bob Satterfield is that if both Archie Moore and Ezzard Charles could survive the onslaught of a Bob Satterfield, [and they both did], and, having survived that onslaught, come back to knock Satterfield out, then I have to believe that Moore as well as Charles would have beaten Foster. Could Foster have survived a fight with Bob Satterfield had Satterfield reached Foster before Foster reached Satterfield? I don't think so given Foster's KO losses to Doug Jones, Frazier, Terrell and Ali. To add to the overall perspective, of this evaluation, it must be remembered that Satterfield was a heavier puncher than Jones, Terrell or Ali and probably a harder slugger than Joe Frazier.

[Robinson]

Good post Jabardeli.

How do you guys think these match ups would have played out...
15 rounders prime vs prime

Archie Moore vs Joe Frazier

Bob Foster vs Rocky Marciano

Archie Moore vs Jerry Quarry

Bob Foster vs Harold Johnson

[BroughtonRulesRefuge]

But the fighter I equate to Foster even more than Ezzard Charles, would have been Bob Satterfield in terms of comparative punching power. Those who remember Satterfield or who were privileged to see him fight, will think ... oh my God could that guy hit! And in the same breath they will remind themselves that reputedly he seemingly had a glass jaw. Simply put, to have seen Satterfield exploit his bob and weave and punching power is something that is forever etched in my memory.

- Indeed, and for the record, I'm 99.999% sure the JABARDELLI above is the same JABARDELLI who gave me my early schooling in the wild and wooly gunslinger days of the old AOL boxing boards.

JAB, MacDitto here, and I'm hoping that you can find this place more often as the balance and wisdom of your years would pop the buttons of the ol' Mongoose.

Jab introduced me to the great lost battlers of the pantheon like Tiger Jack Fox and Tiger Ted Lowry. Without the richness of hardscrabble competition of that era, guys like Rocky and Arch could never have obtained the great acclaim that they did.

He has just done what precious few are able, that is give fullness to the great careers of both Foster and Moore with context, something sorely lacking in modern boxing from the top down. I also know he has a great appreciation and understanding of the modern game, he doesn't just live in the dusty archives of yesteryear.

Now, speaking of Satterfield, I'd be interested in Jab's opinions as to why he, Bivins, and others never got title shots at LH? Was it just an excessive wealth of great fighters, or a freeze out of sorts. Satterfield a very dangerous fighter to risk a title against.

I'd also like to know if you've published anything? Lately there have been some pithy bios released to go along with the usual lowbrow boxing dreck, so do you have any preferences you'd like to share?

[My2Sense]

I'll take Moore by mid or late-round KO. Too strong, too powerful. He'd pick off Foster's shots on the way in and then overpower him on the inside.

[Ambling Alp]

I think you can make strong arguments for either guy. As others have mentioned Archie knocked out guys that were tough to ko,and won decisions over great fighters as well. Certainly he would be capable of stopping Foster, or winning on points for that matter.
(I don't understand the big deal of knocking Satterfield though. Fourteen different guys did that. Foster would have as well.)

However, Archie lost guys that were worse than Foster.
You could go on forever, looking at their high and low moments, and make a case for either guy.
Foster certainly had the power to knockout Moore, and the ability to decision him. And vice versa.
This fight could either way, and might go the distance or might end by knockout.

[BoxBuzz]

Moore just has a better chance due to having more ways of getting it done. IMHO.

On any given night with both in their prime, I'd give Archie a decided advantage. So if you want to say 2 out of 3 I'm ok with that. But Foster is no Ezzard Charles and Bob would have little if any hope of walking away the winner of any series of fights between them.

[dempseyfire]

and the ability to decision him. .

I disagree on that point. Foster never had the technique/skills to outbox Moore. His one chance is landing a Sunday perfect punch and knocking Moore out.

I also think citing that Moore lost to a few guys less than Foster is not really a fair statement, considering Moore's schedule and activity . . .put Foster in Moore's era and I see him being a 2nd tier fighter, which considering the depth of 160-185 in that era is not a big knock on Foster IMO.