BoxRec

witherspoon wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

witherspoon wrote:I'm shocked that knowledgeable posters refer to Michael Spinks' 'supplemental help' alongside Evan Fields.

I guess I'm being naive. The more I think about it, the less I want to think about it.
Mackie Shilstone, Michael Spinks, Roy Jones Jr, could it
be?

Michael Spinks is not my favourite fighter of all time, but I've always had huge respect for what he achieved against Larry Holmes. I never saw Mackie Shilstone as anything other than a clever man with a clean plan.
Is nothing sacred? :(

There is no speculation about Roy, he was a PED machine. I love Spinks too, most modern athletes are on something. I don't hold it against them.

Oh I don't doubt RJJ's relation with supplements at all. But Michael Spinks' era was always squeaky clean in my mind, and it's the Spinks-Shilstone-Jones link that has killed my belief, after reading this thread.

EDIT : I should point out, when I say squeaky clean, I mean that in terms of performance ENHANCING drugs.
(I said I was naive, but that would be something else)

A bunch of kids on my low level HS Football team were on steroids in 1985-87. It goes back further than sports want to admit. For the record I wasn't accusing Spinks. Even if he was clean it was easier to add weight properly in that era.

yancey wrote:

Ezzard wrote:The people who do well moving up are the defensive fighters. It's much more difficult to be a puncher and move up in weight.

Sounds reasonable.

To a point, then you have Langford, Greb, Armstrong, Hearns, Pacquiao, Marquez, Morales, etc..

He simply lacked the durability to take incoming flak from significanly bigger men...

The other LHW's that moved up successfully had one thing over Bob: durability.

I respect SaadOffTheDeck's opinion- so far he seems to be very similar to my standing on many issues, but I disagree with his assertion that Foster wasn't as skilled or had some deficiency in that area.

If anything, he's underrated in that regard.

I have an issue with overrating Foster's resume, not his skills.

His resume is open to criticism, but many greats' resumes are...

I always say that just because he didn't doesn't mean he couldn't...

And shame on you for questioning him even beating Dawson.... Foster knocks him out. Unconscious.

Ruiz is even money. I doubt he lands cleanly or consistently enough to knock Foster out, and I think Foster lands the cleaner punches to possibly win a decision.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

yancey wrote:

Ezzard wrote:The people who do well moving up are the defensive fighters. It's much more difficult to be a puncher and move up in weight.

Sounds reasonable.

To a point, then you have Langford, Greb, Armstrong, Hearns, Pacquiao, Marquez, Morales, etc..

Langford was a freak. Armstrong too. And Hearns struggled more and more as he went up...he was also a boxer...who just happened to have amazing punch power.

Pac is obviously not as effective as he has moved up in weight.

If Bob had lived in an era where he could choose the ref. And HBO were fully backing him. And he was on Roy's juice. He'd have a great chance to beat Ruiz.

I'd also guess that Jones would have lost to all the Heavies who beat Foster.

DaveK wrote:His resume is open to criticism, but many greats' resumes are...

I always say that just because he didn't doesn't mean he couldn't...

And shame on you for questioning him even beating Dawson.... Foster knocks him out. Unconscious.

Ruiz is even money. I doubt he lands cleanly or consistently enough to knock Foster out, and I think Foster lands the cleaner punches to possibly win a decision.

I always say that if they didn't, don't give it to them. I'm wrong on fights every week, far too often to slap Bob Foster in the top 5 all time at 175 because I think he could beat better guys than he fought.

Dawson would be a problem for a lot of Light Heavyweights. Foster better knock him out, if he doesn't he will lose.

Ruiz would make sweet love to Bob, not even competitive.

Ezzard wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

yancey wrote:
Sounds reasonable.

To a point, then you have Langford, Greb, Armstrong, Hearns, Pacquiao, Marquez, Morales, etc..

Langford was a freak. Armstrong too. And Hearns struggled more and more as he went up...he was also a boxer...who just happened to have amazing punch power.

Pac is obviously not as effective as he has moved up in weight.

Most fighters aren't as effective when they move up in weight. Defensive or offensive minded, the list isn't long. I simply listed guys off the top of my head that "did well" moving up in weight that weren't defensive fighters.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

DaveK wrote:His resume is open to criticism, but many greats' resumes are...

I always say that just because he didn't doesn't mean he couldn't...

And shame on you for questioning him even beating Dawson.... Foster knocks him out. Unconscious.

Ruiz is even money. I doubt he lands cleanly or consistently enough to knock Foster out, and I think Foster lands the cleaner punches to possibly win a decision.

I always say that if they didn't, don't give it to them. I'm wrong on fights every week, far too often to slap Bob Foster in the top 5 all time at 175 because I think he could beat better guys than he fought.

Dawson would be a problem for a lot of Light Heavyweights. Foster better knock him out, if he doesn't he will lose.

Ruiz would make sweet love to Bob, not even competitive.

Then how do place guys that are widely considered top 10 that have flimsy opposition?

Whitaker, Holmes, Louis, etc?

Surely the list becomes one of a quality of opposition:win ratio in that case...

Not all fighters are fortunate enough to have quality contemporaries and fight them at that....

DaveK wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

DaveK wrote:His resume is open to criticism, but many greats' resumes are...

I always say that just because he didn't doesn't mean he couldn't...

And shame on you for questioning him even beating Dawson.... Foster knocks him out. Unconscious.

Ruiz is even money. I doubt he lands cleanly or consistently enough to knock Foster out, and I think Foster lands the cleaner punches to possibly win a decision.

I always say that if they didn't, don't give it to them. I'm wrong on fights every week, far too often to slap Bob Foster in the top 5 all time at 175 because I think he could beat better guys than he fought.

Dawson would be a problem for a lot of Light Heavyweights. Foster better knock him out, if he doesn't he will lose.

Ruiz would make sweet love to Bob, not even competitive.

Then how do place guys that are widely considered top 10 that have flimsy opposition?

Whitaker, Holmes, Louis, etc?

Surely the list becomes one of a quality of opposition:win ratio in that case...

Not all fighters are fortunate enough to have quality contemporaries and fight them at that....

I don't consider those guys to have faced flimsy opposition. And yes, I rate guys primarily on the quality of their opponents but not just on a win ratio. I rate losses too, not sure why most people don't. Losing a tight decision to Harry Greb would mean more to me than icing 25 journeyman.

It's all subjective, Pep is a guy I think I rate higher than his resume warrants. Though he is still high above Foster in that regard. Jimmy Wilde is someone I find highly overrated because of his competition(or my lack of knowledge of his foes). That's just how I look at it, Foster was a great fighter, just an overrated one to me. Too many people mistake overrated for sucks, nobody rates crap.

On another note…with weigh in times, he’d likely be fighting at 168 these days…

Ezzard wrote:On another note…with weigh in times, he’d likely be fighting at 168 these days…

Perhaps, he also might be a juiced up Cruiserweight.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Ruiz would have whipped Foster's ass. Then again, he'd be lucky to beat Chad Dawson.

? Huh? I concur historically Foster is over-rated, but he'd easily beat Ruiz and he'd beat Dawson too.

dempseyfire wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Ruiz would have whipped Foster's ass. Then again, he'd be lucky to beat Chad Dawson.

? Huh? I concur historically Foster is over-rated, but he'd easily beat Ruiz and he'd beat Dawson too.

Ruiz was annoying and lacked talent, but he would smother someone like Foster for 12 rounds. Whipping his ass was a drunken exaggeration, but I can't see a scenario where Foster wins.

Dawson would be a tough out for Foster, just a style thing. Bob's jab wouldn't be effective and Dawson matches his size and surpasses his speed.

According to Jerry Evans ( WBA #4 ranked contender at one point) he claimed Foster beat the shit out of several heavyweights in the gym.

Are we talking about the same Chad Dawson that just got knocked stiff in one round Adonis Stevenson and got dropped repeatedly by the average hitting Andre Ward? I simply can't envision any scenario were Dawson beats Bob Foster. I'd be surprised if he could beat Dick Tiger, John Conteh, Eddie Mustafa Muhammad, or Victor Galindez let alone Foster.

Goldust wrote:Are we talking about the same Chad Dawson that just got knocked stiff in one round Adonis Stevenson and got dropped repeatedly by the average hitting Andre Ward? I simply can't envision any scenario were Dawson beats Bob Foster. I'd be surprised if he could beat Dick Tiger, John Conteh, Eddie Mustafa Muhammad, or Victor Galindez let alone Foster.

No, I was talking about the Dawson that was winning fights.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:
No, I was talking about the Dawson that was winning fights.

Fair enough, however I don't remember watching any Dawson fights where I sat there thinking "Wow this guy really looks like an all time great, he would totally kick Bob Foster's ass."

While it may be true that Foster's opposition wasn't anything to write home about, Dawson's career best wins were decisions over Tomasz Adamek, Antonio Tarver (40 years old), Glen Johnson (39 years old), and Bernard Hopkins (46?!). He's only 31 years old and he already looks like he might be washed up. This is hardly the resume of a guy who I would rank anywhere near the top all time light-heavyweights, nor pick over any of the all time light-heavyweights either even when he was winning.

Goldust wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:
No, I was talking about the Dawson that was winning fights.

Fair enough, however I don't remember watching any Dawson fights where I sat there thinking "Wow this guy really looks like an all time great, he would totally kick Bob Foster's ass."

While it may be true that Foster's opposition wasn't anything to write home about, Dawson's career best wins were decisions over Tomasz Adamek, Antonio Tarver (40 years old), Glen Johnson (39 years old), and Bernard Hopkins (46?!). He's only 31 years old and he already looks like he might be washed up. This is hardly the resume of a guy who I would rank anywhere near the top all time light-heavyweights, nor pick over any of the all time light-heavyweights either even when he was winning.

Just an opinion, not one I'd fight over. Those guys, regardless of age, are superior to Foster's title reign. I don't rank either of them in the top 20 of Light Heavyweights. I just think Chad's size and speed would be a problem, I also should state that I was hammered when I said Bob would be lucky to beat him. Foster would obviously be the favorite.

I too wonder why the slightly built bob foster couldn't cut it in the best heavyweight era yet seen...hhhmmm!