BoxRec

Oh crap I didn't see Charles my bad lol, he's p4p best on that list. He beats Foster rather handedly.

HomicideHenry wrote:Oh crap I didn't see Charles my bad lol, he's p4p best on that list. He beats Foster rather handedly.

Il Duce wrote: Where is Dave 'Ziggy' Zyglewicz on that list.

As a lighheavyweight, what is it exactly that people see that makes them think he was not that good?
In his prime, he never lost at this weight and usually won pretty easily.

I think there are two things that are work here.
1. People think of his bad losses at haeavyweight when thinking of him. They just can't move past that. Which is too bad, because they should be irrelevant when rating him at light heavweight or thinking how he would do in a ligh heavyweight fight against someone else.

2. His competiton. It certainly was not as good as Charles or Moore or some of the other great light heavyweights. However, don't confuse his competition with what how good he was. And that is what people do.

The win over Tiger had always been vastly underrated. At first glance, Tiger was older and you wouldn't think he had mcuh left. However, he was still fighting at a high level. He had just beaten Torres twice. After he lost to Foster, he beat Benvenuti and beat a couple of light heavyweight contenders. And Foster did not just beat Tiger. That was a devastating knockout.

He fought the best that were around at the time. On his way up, he stopped Cotton and Hank who were getting old but still considered good fighters. And some of his title defenses were against decent fighters(Quarry, Finnegan, Rouse, Fourie.)

What more could he reasonably have done at light heavyweight?

Where did anyone say he wasn't good? LOL, talk about exaggerating. It's not exactly a list of ham and eggers he's being matched up against. He didn't duck anyone and I think he would beat several guys with better resumes. I just don't get how many people rate him top 5 in such a stacked division with guys that had vastly superior ledgers.

None of my comments have a thing to do with his Heavyweight losses. Though the Jones & Mina defeats that were technically Heavyweight fights could be considered.

Ambling Alp II wrote:As a lighheavyweight, what is it exactly that people see that makes them think he was not that good?
In his prime, he never lost at this weight and usually won pretty easily.

I think there are two things that are work here.
1. People think of his bad losses at haeavyweight when thinking of him. They just can't move past that. Which is too bad, because they should be irrelevant when rating him at light heavweight or thinking how he would do in a ligh heavyweight fight against someone else.

2. His competiton. It certainly was not as good as Charles or Moore or some of the other great light heavyweights. However, don't confuse his competition with what how good he was. And that is what people do.

The win over Tiger had always been vastly underrated. At first glance, Tiger was older and you wouldn't think he had mcuh left. However, he was still fighting at a high level. He had just beaten Torres twice. After he lost to Foster, he beat Benvenuti and beat a couple of light heavyweight contenders. And Foster did not just beat Tiger. That was a devastating knockout.

He fought the best that were around at the time. On his way up, he stopped Cotton and Hank who were getting old but still considered good fighters. And some of his title defenses were against decent fighters(Quarry, Finnegan, Rouse, Fourie.)

What more could he reasonably have done at light heavyweight?

I’m saying this as a Brit, but not being blinded by it. But Finnegan was better than decent. He was a gold medallist and quite a fighter.

He liked a drink…and this hindered his career but when he was up for it, he was a high quality fighter. These days he’d have been a title holder with a respectable number of title defences behind him. A fight with Foster could/would have been a unification fight in this era.

All the more reason for people to have more respect for Foster. He was good enough to be consdered with any other great light heavyweight. As mentioned before, he never lost in his prime at this weight class, beat the best around and usually won fairly easily.

Of course other light heavyweights fought better competition, but that was because there was better competition to fight. People continue to think of his competition rather than how good he was.


Substitute Charles, or Moore, or Tunney, or Spinks into this era and what more would they done in this light heavyweight class?

Competition is the the most crucial element of rating fighters.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Competition is the the most crucial element of rating fighters.

Not always.

I rate Harry Greb higher than Sugar Ray Robinson, and I rate Carlos Monzon higher than LaMotta. Both instances, the two men I rank higher fought not as many HOF'ers or amazing talents. It's about consistency over the longest period of time against a certain level of opposition.

HomicideHenry wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Competition is the the most crucial element of rating fighters.

Not always.

I rate Harry Greb higher than Sugar Ray Robinson, and I rate Carlos Monzon higher than LaMotta. Both instances, the two men I rank higher fought not as many HOF'ers or amazing talents. It's about consistency over the longest period of time against a certain level of opposition.

Harry Greb has the greatest competition level of any fighter I can think of.