Roy Jones (1999 - 2002) v Bob Foster (1968 - 1974)
-
BOXINGBARMY1
- Super Middleweight
- Posts: 56
- Joined: 02 Nov 2012, 14:44
Re: Roy Jones (1999 - 2002) v Bob Foster (1968 - 1974)
This forum is not about Jones against Del Valle. Please stick to the topic.
I was merely asking for opinion on a fantasy fight between Foster and Jones in their prime and what you see in your imagination happening in regards to style matchups and tactics etc.
Nothing more nothing less.
I was merely asking for opinion on a fantasy fight between Foster and Jones in their prime and what you see in your imagination happening in regards to style matchups and tactics etc.
Nothing more nothing less.
Re: Roy Jones (1999 - 2002) v Bob Foster (1968 - 1974)
You didn't see it did you?foxy01 wrote:The End wrote:You didn't see the Del Valle fight .foxy01 wrote:Prime for prime?
As boxbuzz says. Foster only needs to get lucky once with either hand, and Jones goes to sleep.
Lets not forget Jones was dropped in his prime by Del Valle. Foster lands the same shot, Jones doesn't last another 30 seconds. I think Bob was the only guy to cut Ali ( which I think required six stitches above the eye ) who knows what might have happened if that shot landed clean on the chin?
I'm not saying Ali would have been KO'd, but he might have been KD'd. Foster definitely hit harder than Jones.
Did Jones get dropped in the 8th round in his fight with Del Valle or not?
Was he considered to be in his prime then or not?
A simple yes or no will suffice in both instances?
I really don't care about Jones fans opinions, or the outcome of the fight, just the answer to the questions.
Then you can convince yourself of what might have happened had Bob Foster dropped him like that.
A simple no will suffice.
-
elmersalsa
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 15690
- Joined: 02 Feb 2003, 03:50
Re: Roy Jones (1999 - 2002) v Bob Foster (1968 - 1974)
I don't see too many light-heavyweights beating the great Bob Foster in his prime. He was too lethal, too tall and hit too hard for that weight class. Heck, he had to fight heavyweights but could not handle the BIG DOGS because he was frail. Most of his losses were against heavyweights. Foster by KO or a boring decision. A KO win for Foster if the great Roy Jones, Jr comes to fight and risk it, which he would not, and decision win for Foster if Jones plays it safe. Jones is a SAFETY FIRST FIGHTER and you cannot beat Foster that way. You gotta pressure him. Something that Jones would not do.
Re: Roy Jones (1999 - 2002) v Bob Foster (1968 - 1974)
Jones would win if it went to the cards. If Foster lands his power, over.elmersalsa wrote:I don't see too many light-heavyweights beating the great Bob Foster in his prime. He was too lethal, too tall and hit too hard for that weight class. Heck, he had to fight heavyweights but could not handle the BIG DOGS because he was frail. Most of his losses were against heavyweights. Foster by KO or a boring decision. A KO win for Foster if the great Roy Jones, Jr comes to fight and risk it, which he would not, and decision win for Foster if Jones plays it safe. Jones is a SAFETY FIRST FIGHTER and you cannot beat Foster that way. You gotta pressure him. Something that Jones would not do.
-
elmersalsa
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 15690
- Joined: 02 Feb 2003, 03:50
Re: Roy Jones (1999 - 2002) v Bob Foster (1968 - 1974)
I just cannot see how would Jones outbox Foster. The Foster jab and presence would be too much for Jones. If they fight 10 times, Foster wins 8 of out of 10Rover wrote:Jones would win if it went to the cards. If Foster lands his power, over.elmersalsa wrote:I don't see too many light-heavyweights beating the great Bob Foster in his prime. He was too lethal, too tall and hit too hard for that weight class. Heck, he had to fight heavyweights but could not handle the BIG DOGS because he was frail. Most of his losses were against heavyweights. Foster by KO or a boring decision. A KO win for Foster if the great Roy Jones, Jr comes to fight and risk it, which he would not, and decision win for Foster if Jones plays it safe. Jones is a SAFETY FIRST FIGHTER and you cannot beat Foster that way. You gotta pressure him. Something that Jones would not do.
Re: Roy Jones (1999 - 2002) v Bob Foster (1968 - 1974)
Speed. He'd have to fight a perfect fight, and given his flaws, I don't think he would, hence my Foster KO pick.elmersalsa wrote:I just cannot see how would Jones outbox Foster. The Foster jab and presence would be too much for Jones. If they fight 10 times, Foster wins 8 of out of 10Rover wrote:Jones would win if it went to the cards. If Foster lands his power, over.elmersalsa wrote:I don't see too many light-heavyweights beating the great Bob Foster in his prime. He was too lethal, too tall and hit too hard for that weight class. Heck, he had to fight heavyweights but could not handle the BIG DOGS because he was frail. Most of his losses were against heavyweights. Foster by KO or a boring decision. A KO win for Foster if the great Roy Jones, Jr comes to fight and risk it, which he would not, and decision win for Foster if Jones plays it safe. Jones is a SAFETY FIRST FIGHTER and you cannot beat Foster that way. You gotta pressure him. Something that Jones would not do.
-
SenorPipino
- Super Middleweight
- Posts: 6055
- Joined: 09 Jan 2013, 19:40
Re: Roy Jones (1999 - 2002) v Bob Foster (1968 - 1974)
Please. Foster may not have had a sturdy chin against heavyweights but Jones proved to have no chin period, whether it was in or past his prime. How would he survive against the the loooong reach and murderous power of Foster? Roy would move early but find it difficult to get off when confronted with the jab. Once Foster starts to reach him consistently, Jones would fold. Bob's too many physical advantages and power combined with that tinkling sound in RJ's chin spell a 6th round k.o. win for the sheriff.
-
SaadOffTheDeck
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 19602
- Joined: 04 Jun 2009, 07:38
Re: Roy Jones (1999 - 2002) v Bob Foster (1968 - 1974)
Foster's resume is no better than Oscar DelaHoya.elmersalsa wrote:I don't see too many light-heavyweights beating the great Bob Foster in his prime. He was too lethal, too tall and hit too hard for that weight class. Heck, he had to fight heavyweights but could not handle the BIG DOGS because he was frail. Most of his losses were against heavyweights. Foster by KO or a boring decision. A KO win for Foster if the great Roy Jones, Jr comes to fight and risk it, which he would not, and decision win for Foster if Jones plays it safe. Jones is a SAFETY FIRST FIGHTER and you cannot beat Foster that way. You gotta pressure him. Something that Jones would not do.
-
HomicideHenry
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 18722
- Joined: 08 Sep 2005, 00:43
Re: Roy Jones (1999 - 2002) v Bob Foster (1968 - 1974)
I won't say who would of won, but the question ought to be had the two men lived and fought in the same era, would Jones of fought Foster anyways, or would he of ducked him?
Re: Roy Jones (1999 - 2002) v Bob Foster (1968 - 1974)
SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Foster's resume is no better than Oscar DelaHoya.elmersalsa wrote:I don't see too many light-heavyweights beating the great Bob Foster in his prime. He was too lethal, too tall and hit too hard for that weight class. Heck, he had to fight heavyweights but could not handle the BIG DOGS because he was frail. Most of his losses were against heavyweights. Foster by KO or a boring decision. A KO win for Foster if the great Roy Jones, Jr comes to fight and risk it, which he would not, and decision win for Foster if Jones plays it safe. Jones is a SAFETY FIRST FIGHTER and you cannot beat Foster that way. You gotta pressure him. Something that Jones would not do.
Re: Roy Jones (1999 - 2002) v Bob Foster (1968 - 1974)
I think De La Hoya may have the edge.SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Foster's resume is no better than Oscar DelaHoya.elmersalsa wrote:I don't see too many light-heavyweights beating the great Bob Foster in his prime. He was too lethal, too tall and hit too hard for that weight class. Heck, he had to fight heavyweights but could not handle the BIG DOGS because he was frail. Most of his losses were against heavyweights. Foster by KO or a boring decision. A KO win for Foster if the great Roy Jones, Jr comes to fight and risk it, which he would not, and decision win for Foster if Jones plays it safe. Jones is a SAFETY FIRST FIGHTER and you cannot beat Foster that way. You gotta pressure him. Something that Jones would not do.
Re: Roy Jones (1999 - 2002) v Bob Foster (1968 - 1974)
Elmer will have a heart attack.The End wrote:I think De La Hoya may have the edge.SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Foster's resume is no better than Oscar DelaHoya.elmersalsa wrote:I don't see too many light-heavyweights beating the great Bob Foster in his prime. He was too lethal, too tall and hit too hard for that weight class. Heck, he had to fight heavyweights but could not handle the BIG DOGS because he was frail. Most of his losses were against heavyweights. Foster by KO or a boring decision. A KO win for Foster if the great Roy Jones, Jr comes to fight and risk it, which he would not, and decision win for Foster if Jones plays it safe. Jones is a SAFETY FIRST FIGHTER and you cannot beat Foster that way. You gotta pressure him. Something that Jones would not do.
-
SenorPipino
- Super Middleweight
- Posts: 6055
- Joined: 09 Jan 2013, 19:40
Re: Roy Jones (1999 - 2002) v Bob Foster (1968 - 1974)
Not a bad resume to have. A couple of hall-of-famers.SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Foster's resume is no better than Oscar DelaHoya.elmersalsa wrote:I don't see too many light-heavyweights beating the great Bob Foster in his prime. He was too lethal, too tall and hit too hard for that weight class. Heck, he had to fight heavyweights but could not handle the BIG DOGS because he was frail. Most of his losses were against heavyweights. Foster by KO or a boring decision. A KO win for Foster if the great Roy Jones, Jr comes to fight and risk it, which he would not, and decision win for Foster if Jones plays it safe. Jones is a SAFETY FIRST FIGHTER and you cannot beat Foster that way. You gotta pressure him. Something that Jones would not do.
Re: Roy Jones (1999 - 2002) v Bob Foster (1968 - 1974)
He's bringing up Oscar because elmersalsa detests him.SenorPipino wrote:Not a bad resume to have. A couple of hall-of-famers.SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Foster's resume is no better than Oscar DelaHoya.elmersalsa wrote:I don't see too many light-heavyweights beating the great Bob Foster in his prime. He was too lethal, too tall and hit too hard for that weight class. Heck, he had to fight heavyweights but could not handle the BIG DOGS because he was frail. Most of his losses were against heavyweights. Foster by KO or a boring decision. A KO win for Foster if the great Roy Jones, Jr comes to fight and risk it, which he would not, and decision win for Foster if Jones plays it safe. Jones is a SAFETY FIRST FIGHTER and you cannot beat Foster that way. You gotta pressure him. Something that Jones would not do.
Re: Roy Jones (1999 - 2002) v Bob Foster (1968 - 1974)
I can see Roy taking an early lead, but Bob will land the coldcock around the eleventh round, with Roy twitching on the canvas.Believe that.
-
dempseyfire
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 5534
- Joined: 29 Oct 2003, 22:56
Re: Roy Jones (1999 - 2002) v Bob Foster (1968 - 1974)
To call the Del Valle KD of Roy a "near slip" is preposterous. It was a flush shot to the chin. Roy wasn't on queer street but hurt enough to hold Del Valle like a long lost best friend the rest of the round, and pump his fist in the air at the round's conclusion for surviving the shot.
This fight could go either way. I concur that Foster is generally over-rated but style wise a long lanky guy with a snake-like jab and one punch power is a tall order for Jones. He's a lot better than Tarver and I don't buy the argument that Roy was "never the same" post-Ruiz. Past his prime, but he remained not far from top form until the Johnson fight. To the contrary, Foster never fought anyone with Roy's speed or talent at 175, and his own chin is suspect.
This fight could go either way. I concur that Foster is generally over-rated but style wise a long lanky guy with a snake-like jab and one punch power is a tall order for Jones. He's a lot better than Tarver and I don't buy the argument that Roy was "never the same" post-Ruiz. Past his prime, but he remained not far from top form until the Johnson fight. To the contrary, Foster never fought anyone with Roy's speed or talent at 175, and his own chin is suspect.
Re: Roy Jones (1999 - 2002) v Bob Foster (1968 - 1974)
So is that a yes or a no? Sounds like a no and that you are guilty of pretenderism . You pretend to watch a fight and give an analysis on it .foxy01 wrote:The End wrote:
You didn't see it did you?
A simple no will suffice.
Eff off HALFWIT. Jones fanboys are even more pathetic than Pactards. Go away and find film footage of Bob Foster, and if you are even half capable of observing what you see, tell us again how good you think the idiot Jones is.
-
SaadOffTheDeck
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 19602
- Joined: 04 Jun 2009, 07:38
Re: Roy Jones (1999 - 2002) v Bob Foster (1968 - 1974)
dempseyfire wrote:To call the Del Valle KD of Roy a "near slip" is preposterous. It was a flush shot to the chin. Roy wasn't on queer street but hurt enough to hold Del Valle like a long lost best friend the rest of the round, and pump his fist in the air at the round's conclusion for surviving the shot.
Re: Roy Jones (1999 - 2002) v Bob Foster (1968 - 1974)
dempseyfire wrote:To call the Del Valle KD of Roy a "near slip" is preposterous. It was a flush shot to the chin. Roy wasn't on queer street but hurt enough to hold Del Valle like a long lost best friend the rest of the round, and pump his fist in the air at the round's conclusion for surviving the shot.
This fight could go either way. I concur that Foster is generally over-rated but style wise a long lanky guy with a snake-like jab and one punch power is a tall order for Jones. He's a lot better than Tarver and I don't buy the argument that Roy was "never the same" post-Ruiz. Past his prime, but he remained not far from top form until the Johnson fight. To the contrary, Foster never fought anyone with Roy's speed or talent at 175, and his own chin is suspect.
-
HomicideHenry
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 18722
- Joined: 08 Sep 2005, 00:43
Re: Roy Jones (1999 - 2002) v Bob Foster (1968 - 1974)
Is it just me, or does it look like Saad and Rover are taking turns as the pitcher and the catcher?
-
MEISINGER
- Heavyweight

Re: Roy Jones (1999 - 2002) v Bob Foster (1968 - 1974)
give it a minute one of them will piss off the other and we will haveHomicideHenry wrote:Is it just me, or does it look like Saad and Rover are taking turns as the pitcher and the catcher?
a bitch fight
-
SaadOffTheDeck
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 19602
- Joined: 04 Jun 2009, 07:38
Re: Roy Jones (1999 - 2002) v Bob Foster (1968 - 1974)
Why don't you come over? We could use a designated catcher.HomicideHenry wrote:Is it just me, or does it look like Saad and Rover are taking turns as the pitcher and the catcher?
Re: Roy Jones (1999 - 2002) v Bob Foster (1968 - 1974)
A better example of a knockdown would be how Mina dropped Foster.
Re: Roy Jones (1999 - 2002) v Bob Foster (1968 - 1974)
It's interesting that Mina never gave Foster a rematch.
Re: Roy Jones (1999 - 2002) v Bob Foster (1968 - 1974)
I thought it was vice versaNile4000 wrote:It's interesting that Mina never gave Foster a rematch.