Bob Foster vs Archie Moore

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 14 Oct 2005, 14:01

I always thought about this matchup, and due to styles i feel moore would win.

- moore was one of the hardest hitting light-H of all time, he knocked out many men over 6' 220lbs. he was also one of the greatest finishers of all time. now im going to stick to punching power in this matchup because i feel this is the reason foster would lose.

every time foster fought a heavyweight, he couldnt handle there power. i do admit he was green, but ernie terrell, doug jones light hitting heavies knocked him out. he was decisioned by folley. even a past his prime ali was able to knock foster down 7 times.

- at light-H foster proved he had a much better chin than at hevayweight, but moore could hit like a heavy and not only that he had the boxing skills and ring smarts to get inside foster's long reach.

- i watched tiger vs foster and tiger stunned foster badly a couple times in the early rounds and i can only think if that were moore, archie would have finished him. foster never really faced a big puncher after that. his toughest test after that was chris finneghan who hurt foster in there action packed bout.

- however, i wont exclude the fact that foster had the boxing skills, and power to KO archie.

i just tend to think this matchup favors archie. i know archie has the ring smarts to enable himself to get inside or get through fosters defense and once archie gets foster, i think archie will finish him. foster to win will have to keep archie at bay with his jab which is tough to do with archies crab defense, but foster has the power to KO archie as well if he connects.

archie moore KO 8 Bob Foster

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 14 Oct 2005, 15:11

This would be an interesting match. Its worth remembering that Moore could be koed too and I think if Foster caught Moore right he could ko him. But Moore at his best (early 50s) would be a bit too crafty for Foster and probably edge out a decision. This could well be a chess match.
I think I'd pick Foster to beat the Moore of '55 and after.

Rubio MHS · Post by **Rubio MHS** » 14 Oct 2005, 16:16

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 14 Oct 2005, 17:18

Yeah two of the best light heavys of all time are bums. Rubio it appears to me that you know a lot about golf.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 14 Oct 2005, 17:21

I would go with Moore in this scenario but a punchers chance is always with Foster. But it's not like Moore had a suspect chin. But he was mortal.

Rubio what's your take on Borg vs McEnroe? Or Palmer vs Nicklaus? Areas where you have yet to prove you are bankrupt in knowledge.

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 14 Oct 2005, 19:49

Rubio MHS wrote:bums

I think Rubio is making a personal statement that he likes bums!

... we should perhaps respect his decision to come out of the closet

in such a public way!!!????...

Then again, maybe we shouldn't!... 8)

kingpawn · Post by **kingpawn** » 14 Oct 2005, 20:29

BoxBuzz wrote:Rubio what's your take on Borg vs McEnroe? Or Palmer vs Nicklaus? Areas where you have yet to prove you are bankrupt in knowledge.

Had me laughing out loud. Good one, Buzzy.

Okay, back to boxing. Foster was a tall boxer/puncher with a sizable reach advantage, but with a slightly suspect chin. But Moore was indeed crafty. So I go with Foster by decision in two out of three with Moore winning the other by a stoppage.

Could have been a nice trilogy.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 14 Oct 2005, 20:56

silkov wrote

But Moore at his best (early 50s) would be a bit too crafty for Foster and probably edge out a decision. This could well be a chess match.
I think I'd pick Foster to beat the Moore of '55 and after

i think moore was at his best 51-55. he recorded his best wins in 54 and 55. he lost to harol johnson in 51, but knocked out johnson in 54.

moore

Nile4000 · Post by **Nile4000** » 15 Oct 2005, 14:18

Moore in a close decision win.

tiredoldngrey · Post by **tiredoldngrey** » 15 Oct 2005, 14:46

I see this being a slow careful fight; neither Foster nor Moore were known for reckless attacks in the ring. Moore would be on guard for the variety of ways Foster could set up a hook, not to mention his right hand. Foster, meanwhile would be keeping low, feet wide apart so he could jab properly at Moore- like he did Tiger- and leaving him few opportunities to score. Very dull encounter because neither will fight if its not on his terms. No cry for a rematch

meade95 · Post by **meade95** » 15 Oct 2005, 19:00

KO magazine had this as one of their "classic matchups" where the experts pick the winner -

2 of the 3 picked Archie Moore (and the guy that picked Foster was a guy that got KO'd by Foster before) -

My first thought was that Foster would win - But after really looking at the men's carrers and reading more about each of them - I think Archie Moore would win by late TKO or UD -

Foster would be dangerous early but as the fight went out Moore would take command - And for Foster to win early he'd have to land the perfect punch......because Archie chin was da*n solid -

Jaclem · Post by **Jaclem** » 16 Oct 2005, 02:31

..i saw archie from ringside in 1947 and saw him on every tv fight i'm aware of.....and films of his fights with charles (home movie qiuality from a few rows back)

speed gave archie trouble even when he was fairly fast himself. foster was not a speedster...he was a long range puncher...and a damned hard one....but archie would have had his style all figured out before they even got into the ring and would set a trap for bob the banger somewhere along the line and i think kayo him maybe within five rounds.

Rory McCloskey · Post by **Rory McCloskey** » 16 Oct 2005, 02:36

Archie definatly... there both great fighters and would be a very interesting matchup in their primes, but id have to take archie moore by late round KO.. 10-11 rounds..somewhere in that area. very good fight though with alot of action

bill.lockhart · Post by **bill.lockhart** » 23 Nov 2005, 11:32

If Archie could take Marciano on for 9 rounds at age 42, he would beat Bob Foster, in his prime. Archie beat a lot of good heavyweights, & held the L. H. crown for 10 years. Foster, was very good, but he wasn't Archie Moore.

dalek · Post by **dalek** » 23 Nov 2005, 11:49

i think foster would win.by ko in an exciting fight.

evndrbsn · Post by **evndrbsn** » 23 Nov 2005, 13:01

Don't overrate Moore's chin. He had a good chin but it was hardly granite. He went down a lot but usually got back up. I think it is highly plausible the huge hitting Foster could dump Moore on the canvas. Moore was better at getting back up than Foster, so he'd probably roar back to stop Foster late.

Irish · Post by **Irish** » 23 Nov 2005, 14:25

bill.lockhart wrote:If Archie could take Marciano on for 9 rounds at age 42, he would beat Bob Foster, in his prime. Archie beat a lot of good heavyweights, & held the L. H. crown for 10 years. Foster, was very good, but he wasn't Archie Moore.

That was IMO Archie's prime... I would take Archie by KO just for the fact that Brockton said, Moore faught at the HW level he had the power and the chins to beat top tier HWs where Foster didn't.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 23 Nov 2005, 15:57

I believe this thread should be nominated as "Thread of the year" by virtue of of content, accuracy, integrity, and relevancy.

I am copying it and puttin it up on my sports memorabelia wall after having it bronzed.

theone · Post by **theone** » 23 Nov 2005, 17:53

Moore late round stopage or hard fought decision. I see the ol Mongoose going down a couple of times over the coarse of the fight however.

Bob Foster vs Archie Moore

Bob Foster vs Archie Moore

Moore - Foster

Re: Moore - Foster