BoxRec

Two tall & lanky light heavies...

Hopkins by decision

Foster would totally shut down Hopkins' offense before the inevitable KO or Hopkins fouling his way into a DQ loss followed by incessant complaining to the ref.

Foster would certainly be the defensive master in the ring.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Foster would certainly be the defensive master in the ring.

Nobody's talking about his defense. He'd shut down Hopkins' offense with his own and put him entirely on the defensive.

Very hard to pick against Foster at Light Heavy.

Who do you think would match up best?

Archie Moore
RJJ
Antonio Tarver
Michael Moorer (when he was a light heavy)
Billy Conn
Jose Torres
Victor Galindez
Michael Spinks
Virgil Hill
Willie Pastrano

Cutman Scabbers wrote:Very hard to pick against Foster at Light Heavy.

Who do you think would match up best?

Archie Moore
RJJ
Antonio Tarver
Michael Moorer (when he was a light heavy)
Billy Conn
Jose Torres
Victor Galindez
Michael Spinks
Virgil Hill
Willie Pastrano

Wait till Saad gets a hold of this...

King Carlos wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Foster would certainly be the defensive master in the ring.

Nobody's talking about his defense. He'd shut down Hopkins' offense with his own and put him entirely on the defensive.

That's just silly, Foster wasn't a suffocating pressure fighter. Hopkins would take away Bob's jab and make a stinker out of it. Bob could take a decision, no way in hell he stops him. I doubt he ever has him in trouble.

Cutman Scabbers wrote:Very hard to pick against Foster at Light Heavy.

Who do you think would match up best?

Archie Moore
RJJ
Antonio Tarver
Michael Moorer (when he was a light heavy)
Billy Conn
Jose Torres
Victor Galindez
Michael Spinks
Virgil Hill
Willie Pastrano

Not for me, I've done it twice inside of 24 hours. Of this list I'd tip Moore, Conn & Spinks to take a series of fights by a wide number. The only one I'd say would never beat him is Hill.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

King Carlos wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Foster would certainly be the defensive master in the ring.

Nobody's talking about his defense. He'd shut down Hopkins' offense with his own and put him entirely on the defensive.

That's just silly, Foster wasn't a suffocating pressure fighter. Hopkins would take away Bob's jab and make a stinker out of it. Bob could take a decision, no way in hell he stops him. I doubt he ever has him in trouble.

He doesn't have to be a suffocating pressure fighter to put him on the defensive. His steady pressure, ramrod jab and the threat of his power did the trick more than enough. But if you think a mid 40's former Middleweight is going to have the tools to negate these factors against one of the greatest offensive forces in the division's history, then by all means, stick to that opinion.

King Carlos wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

King Carlos wrote:Nobody's talking about his defense. He'd shut down Hopkins' offense with his own and put him entirely on the defensive.

That's just silly, Foster wasn't a suffocating pressure fighter. Hopkins would take away Bob's jab and make a stinker out of it. Bob could take a decision, no way in hell he stops him. I doubt he ever has him in trouble.

He doesn't have to be a suffocating pressure fighter to put him on the defensive. His steady pressure, ramrod jab and the threat of his power did the trick more than enough. But if you think a mid 40's former Middleweight is going to have the tools to negate these factors against one of the greatest offensive forces in the division's history, then by all means, stick to that opinion.

Hopkins is always on the defensive. And he always took away his opponents best punch so your ramrod jab would almost certainly be rendered ineffective. I wouldn't rule out Bob winning a dull decision, but he never stops Bernard. And thanks, I will stick to my opinion. You go on thinking the guy who couldn't stop Pierre Fourie would run over an all time great that happens to be one of the greatest defensive fighters the sport has ever seen.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

King Carlos wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote: That's just silly, Foster wasn't a suffocating pressure fighter. Hopkins would take away Bob's jab and make a stinker out of it. Bob could take a decision, no way in hell he stops him. I doubt he ever has him in trouble.

He doesn't have to be a suffocating pressure fighter to put him on the defensive. His steady pressure, ramrod jab and the threat of his power did the trick more than enough. But if you think a mid 40's former Middleweight is going to have the tools to negate these factors against one of the greatest offensive forces in the division's history, then by all means, stick to that opinion.

Hopkins is always on the defensive. And he always took away his opponents best punch so your ramrod jab would almost certainly be rendered ineffective. I wouldn't rule out Bob winning a dull decision, but he never stops Bernard. And thanks, I will stick to my opinion. You go on thinking the guy who couldn't stop Pierre Fourie would run over an all time great that happens to be one of the greatest defensive fighters the sport has ever seen.

*one of the greatest spoilers the sport has ever seen.

Fourie was a very good fighter, actually. Nice, smooth technician. Like a Lt. Heavyweight Davila. Underrated these days.

As for Hopkins, he was on his way to getting bullied by Sad Chad's jab before he took the easy way out. He couldn't even handle Jermain "I have a Forrest Gump level IQ" Taylor's jab. Foster would have him impersonating Carl Lewis. And Foster's crouch and high left shoulder made him a difficult target for counter rights (B-Hop's best punch), to say nothing of his length.

Hopkins may not get stopped, but the old man doesn't have a prayer of winning.

King Carlos wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

King Carlos wrote:He doesn't have to be a suffocating pressure fighter to put him on the defensive. His steady pressure, ramrod jab and the threat of his power did the trick more than enough. But if you think a mid 40's former Middleweight is going to have the tools to negate these factors against one of the greatest offensive forces in the division's history, then by all means, stick to that opinion.

Hopkins is always on the defensive. And he always took away his opponents best punch so your ramrod jab would almost certainly be rendered ineffective. I wouldn't rule out Bob winning a dull decision, but he never stops Bernard. And thanks, I will stick to my opinion. You go on thinking the guy who couldn't stop Pierre Fourie would run over an all time great that happens to be one of the greatest defensive fighters the sport has ever seen.

*one of the greatest spoilers the sport has ever seen.

Fourie was a very good fighter, actually. Nice, smooth technician. Like a Lt. Heavyweight Davila. Underrated these days.

As for Hopkins, he was on his way to getting bullied by Sad Chad's jab before he took the easy way out. He couldn't even handle Jermain "I have a Forrest Gump level IQ" Taylor's jab. Foster would have him impersonating Carl Lewis. And Foster's crouch and high left shoulder made him a difficult target for counter rights (B-Hop's best punch), to say nothing of his length.

Hopkins may not get stopped, but the old man doesn't have a prayer of winning.

He was 47 when he was fighting Dawson, and Chad wasn't landing any jabs. And Dawson is better than any fighter Foster defended against. Roy Jones ridiculed opposition is HOF compared to Bob's.

It's cute that you want the prime incarnation of Foster against a 47 yr old Hopkins. At least the KO is no longer inevitable, you're coming around to reality kid. Glad I could help you.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

King Carlos wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote: Hopkins is always on the defensive. And he always took away his opponents best punch so your ramrod jab would almost certainly be rendered ineffective. I wouldn't rule out Bob winning a dull decision, but he never stops Bernard. And thanks, I will stick to my opinion. You go on thinking the guy who couldn't stop Pierre Fourie would run over an all time great that happens to be one of the greatest defensive fighters the sport has ever seen.

*one of the greatest spoilers the sport has ever seen.

Fourie was a very good fighter, actually. Nice, smooth technician. Like a Lt. Heavyweight Davila. Underrated these days.

As for Hopkins, he was on his way to getting bullied by Sad Chad's jab before he took the easy way out. He couldn't even handle Jermain "I have a Forrest Gump level IQ" Taylor's jab. Foster would have him impersonating Carl Lewis. And Foster's crouch and high left shoulder made him a difficult target for counter rights (B-Hop's best punch), to say nothing of his length.

Hopkins may not get stopped, but the old man doesn't have a prayer of winning.

He was 47 when he was fighting Dawson, and Chad wasn't landing any jabs. And Dawson is better than any fighter Foster defended against. Roy Jones ridiculed opposition is HOF compared to Bob's.

It's cute that you want the prime incarnation of Foster against a 47 yr old Hopkins. At least the KO is no longer inevitable, you're coming around to reality kid. Glad I could help you.

We're talking about the Lt. Heavyweight versions of both men. Hopkins has always been an old man at Lt. Heavyweight, unless you're taking the version that lost to Clinton Mitchell in his debut. Make your pick. Doesn't bode well for you either way.

Dawson was more talented than someone like Finnegan, but I wouldn't say he was the better fighter. And I'll take Ahumada over him every day of the week and twice on Sundays. I'll take Ahumada over old man Hopkins as well.

That said, the version of Foster that faced Ahumada would be a lot more susceptible to losing to your boy.

King Carlos wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

King Carlos wrote:*one of the greatest spoilers the sport has ever seen.

Fourie was a very good fighter, actually. Nice, smooth technician. Like a Lt. Heavyweight Davila. Underrated these days.

As for Hopkins, he was on his way to getting bullied by Sad Chad's jab before he took the easy way out. He couldn't even handle Jermain "I have a Forrest Gump level IQ" Taylor's jab. Foster would have him impersonating Carl Lewis. And Foster's crouch and high left shoulder made him a difficult target for counter rights (B-Hop's best punch), to say nothing of his length.

Hopkins may not get stopped, but the old man doesn't have a prayer of winning.

He was 47 when he was fighting Dawson, and Chad wasn't landing any jabs. And Dawson is better than any fighter Foster defended against. Roy Jones ridiculed opposition is HOF compared to Bob's.

It's cute that you want the prime incarnation of Foster against a 47 yr old Hopkins. At least the KO is no longer inevitable, you're coming around to reality kid. Glad I could help you.

We're talking about the Lt. Heavyweight versions of both men. Hopkins has always been an old man at Lt. Heavyweight, unless you're taking the version that lost to Clinton Mitchell in his debut. Make your pick. Doesn't bode well for you either way.

Dawson was more talented than someone like Finnegan, but I wouldn't say he was the better fighter. And I'll take Ahumada over him every day of the week and twice on Sundays. I'll take Ahumada over old man Hopkins as well.

That said, the version of Foster that faced Ahumada would be a lot more susceptible to losing to your boy.

I would pick the one that fought Tarver long before the current incarnation that you're going on about. I'm sure you would take Ahumada, that doesn't change that Dawson is the more accomplished fighter. Hopkins would school Ahumada. But I get your routine, you like older fighters and that's refreshing for a young fan of the sport. You just come off with some massive exaggerations, and Foster not having a hard time with Hopkins is definitely one of them.

The closest thing to Hopkins that Foster ever faced was Mina. Bob would struggle mightily to land on bernard, no doubt about it.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

King Carlos wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote: He was 47 when he was fighting Dawson, and Chad wasn't landing any jabs. And Dawson is better than any fighter Foster defended against. Roy Jones ridiculed opposition is HOF compared to Bob's.

It's cute that you want the prime incarnation of Foster against a 47 yr old Hopkins. At least the KO is no longer inevitable, you're coming around to reality kid. Glad I could help you.

We're talking about the Lt. Heavyweight versions of both men. Hopkins has always been an old man at Lt. Heavyweight, unless you're taking the version that lost to Clinton Mitchell in his debut. Make your pick. Doesn't bode well for you either way.

Dawson was more talented than someone like Finnegan, but I wouldn't say he was the better fighter. And I'll take Ahumada over him every day of the week and twice on Sundays. I'll take Ahumada over old man Hopkins as well.

That said, the version of Foster that faced Ahumada would be a lot more susceptible to losing to your boy.

I would pick the one that fought Tarver long before the current incarnation that you're going on about. I'm sure you would take Ahumada, that doesn't change that Dawson is the more accomplished fighter. Hopkins would school Ahumada. But I get your routine, you like older fighters and that's refreshing for a young fan of the sport. You just come off with some massive exaggerations, and Foster not having a hard time with Hopkins is definitely one of them.

The closest thing to Hopkins that Foster ever faced was Mina. Bob would struggle mightily to land on bernard, no doubt about it.

Oh yeah, you've got me figured out. I just want to fit in with the old fogies. Help me fit iiiinnnn.

Anyways, Mina may very well beat Hopkins, too (I wouldn't favour him outright, though, as I haven't seen enough footage outside of the disappointing Hank bout). I'm not the one exaggerating by questioning a 40+ year old former Middleweight's credentials against genuine high quality Lt. Heavyweights. Hopkins is a greater fighter than most of these men if not all, but he's not a better Lt. Heavyweight.

King Carlos wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

King Carlos wrote: We're talking about the Lt. Heavyweight versions of both men. Hopkins has always been an old man at Lt. Heavyweight, unless you're taking the version that lost to Clinton Mitchell in his debut. Make your pick. Doesn't bode well for you either way.

Dawson was more talented than someone like Finnegan, but I wouldn't say he was the better fighter. And I'll take Ahumada over him every day of the week and twice on Sundays. I'll take Ahumada over old man Hopkins as well.

That said, the version of Foster that faced Ahumada would be a lot more susceptible to losing to your boy.

I would pick the one that fought Tarver long before the current incarnation that you're going on about. I'm sure you would take Ahumada, that doesn't change that Dawson is the more accomplished fighter. Hopkins would school Ahumada. But I get your routine, you like older fighters and that's refreshing for a young fan of the sport. You just come off with some massive exaggerations, and Foster not having a hard time with Hopkins is definitely one of them.

The closest thing to Hopkins that Foster ever faced was Mina. Bob would struggle mightily to land on bernard, no doubt about it.

Oh yeah, you've got me figured out. I just want to fit in with the old fogies. Help me fit iiiinnnn.

Anyways, Mina may very well beat Hopkins, too (I wouldn't favour him outright, though, as I haven't seen enough footage outside of the disappointing Hank bout). I'm not the one exaggerating by questioning a 40+ year old former Middleweight's credentials against genuine high quality Lt. Heavyweights. Hopkins is a greater fighter than most of these men if not all, but he's not a better Lt. Heavyweight.

I don't think you're trying to fit in, it's just your mindset. Nothing wrong with that, I'll bet you're on a deserted island that Ahumada is better than Hopkins at any weight.

You're predicting an outcome that the results of either fighter show no inclination of happening. That doesn't make it impossible, but it is next to impossible that Foster toys with Hopkins until he inevitably knocks him flat. That's a gigantic reach however confident you may be.

Bernard doesn't rate all-time at Light Heavy, but he has fought and dominated a better one than any of Foster's defenses. It always astounds me how much credit Bob gets for dominating second rate contenders. Not to say he wasn't a great fighter, but there has never been a fighter that wouldn't have a degree of difficulty hitting Hopkins. Not one.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

King Carlos wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote: We're talking about the Lt. Heavyweight versions of both men. Hopkins has always been an old man at Lt. Heavyweight, unless you're taking the version that lost to Clinton Mitchell in his debut. Make your pick. Doesn't bode well for you either way.

Dawson was more talented than someone like Finnegan, but I wouldn't say he was the better fighter. And I'll take Ahumada over him every day of the week and twice on Sundays. I'll take Ahumada over old man Hopkins as well.

That said, the version of Foster that faced Ahumada would be a lot more susceptible to losing to your boy.

I would pick the one that fought Tarver long before the current incarnation that you're going on about. I'm sure you would take Ahumada, that doesn't change that Dawson is the more accomplished fighter. Hopkins would school Ahumada. But I get your routine, you like older fighters and that's refreshing for a young fan of the sport. You just come off with some massive exaggerations, and Foster not having a hard time with Hopkins is definitely one of them.

The closest thing to Hopkins that Foster ever faced was Mina. Bob would struggle mightily to land on bernard, no doubt about it.

Oh yeah, you've got me figured out. I just want to fit in with the old fogies. Help me fit iiiinnnn.

Anyways, Mina may very well beat Hopkins, too (I wouldn't favour him outright, though, as I haven't seen enough footage outside of the disappointing Hank bout). I'm not the one exaggerating by questioning a 40+ year old former Middleweight's credentials against genuine high quality Lt. Heavyweights. Hopkins is a greater fighter than most of these men if not all, but he's not a better Lt. Heavyweight.

I don't think you're trying to fit in, it's just your mindset. Nothing wrong with that, I'll bet you're on a deserted island that Ahumada is better than Hopkins at any weight.

You're predicting an outcome that the results of either fighter show no inclination of happening. That doesn't make it impossible, but it is next to impossible that Foster toys with Hopkins until he inevitably knocks him flat. That's a gigantic reach however confident you may be.

Bernard doesn't rate all-time at Light Heavy, but he has fought and dominated a better one than any of Foster's defenses. It always astounds me how much credit Bob gets for dominating second rate contenders. Not to say he wasn't a great fighter, but there has never been a fighter that wouldn't have a degree of difficulty hitting Hopkins. Not one.[/quote]

I think very highly of Ahumada. I think he had fantastic ability, just didn't get the right breaks at the right times of his career. He improved quite a bit after his early career series with Galindez, and I think a fight between the two in the mid 70's would've been up for grabs.

I don't think he'd be toying with Hopkins per se, but I don't think anything less than an old, decrepit version finds a way to lose the fight. He was too consistent a performer and had the physical tools and style to offset Hopkins' strengths.

I'm not sure which fighter you're referring to that Hopkins beat that was better than any of Foster's Lt. Heavy opponents, by the way. I'm assuming Tarver, which I obviously disagree with. Masterclass of a performance against a weight-drained opponent. Not that he'd have ever beaten Hopkins.

King Carlos wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

King Carlos wrote: We're talking about the Lt. Heavyweight versions of both men. Hopkins has always been an old man at Lt. Heavyweight, unless you're taking the version that lost to Clinton Mitchell in his debut. Make your pick. Doesn't bode well for you either way.

Dawson was more talented than someone like Finnegan, but I wouldn't say he was the better fighter. And I'll take Ahumada over him every day of the week and twice on Sundays. I'll take Ahumada over old man Hopkins as well.

That said, the version of Foster that faced Ahumada would be a lot more susceptible to losing to your boy.

I would pick the one that fought Tarver long before the current incarnation that you're going on about. I'm sure you would take Ahumada, that doesn't change that Dawson is the more accomplished fighter. Hopkins would school Ahumada. But I get your routine, you like older fighters and that's refreshing for a young fan of the sport. You just come off with some massive exaggerations, and Foster not having a hard time with Hopkins is definitely one of them.

The closest thing to Hopkins that Foster ever faced was Mina. Bob would struggle mightily to land on bernard, no doubt about it.

Oh yeah, you've got me figured out. I just want to fit in with the old fogies. Help me fit iiiinnnn.

Anyways, Mina may very well beat Hopkins, too (I wouldn't favour him outright, though, as I haven't seen enough footage outside of the disappointing Hank bout). I'm not the one exaggerating by questioning a 40+ year old former Middleweight's credentials against genuine high quality Lt. Heavyweights. Hopkins is a greater fighter than most of these men if not all, but he's not a better Lt. Heavyweight.

I don't think you're trying to fit in, it's just your mindset. Nothing wrong with that, I'll bet you're on a deserted island that Ahumada is better than Hopkins at any weight.

You're predicting an outcome that the results of either fighter show no inclination of happening. That doesn't make it impossible, but it is next to impossible that Foster toys with Hopkins until he inevitably knocks him flat. That's a gigantic reach however confident you may be.

Bernard doesn't rate all-time at Light Heavy, but he has fought and dominated a better one than any of Foster's defenses. It always astounds me how much credit Bob gets for dominating second rate contenders. Not to say he wasn't a great fighter, but there has never been a fighter that wouldn't have a degree of difficulty hitting Hopkins. Not one.[/quote]

I think very highly of Ahumada. I think he had fantastic ability, just didn't get the right breaks at the right times of his career. He improved quite a bit after his early career series with Galindez, and I think a fight between the two in the mid 70's would've been up for grabs.

I don't think he'd be toying with Hopkins per se, but I don't think anything less than an old, decrepit version finds a way to lose the fight. He was too consistent a performer and had the physical tools and style to offset Hopkins' strengths.

I'm not sure which fighter you're referring to that Hopkins beat that was better than any of Foster's Lt. Heavy opponents, by the way. I'm assuming Tarver, which I obviously disagree with. Masterclass of a performance against a weight-drained opponent. Not that he'd have ever beaten Hopkins.[/quote]

He was a fun fighter to watch, but Tarver definitively did more than Ahumada. Head to head would be an interesting fight though. However highly you think of him he wasn't on the level of a Bernard Hopkins. And I didn't even bother getting into the difference with same day weigh ins. You know damn well Hopkins could have went to 170 with ease in the absolute prime of his career. Not that it matters, I'm picking the early 40's Nard here. Either way, I'm certain it would be a dull distance fight.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

Cutman Scabbers wrote:Very hard to pick against Foster at Light Heavy.

Who do you think would match up best?

Archie Moore
RJJ
Antonio Tarver
Michael Moorer (when he was a light heavy)
Billy Conn
Jose Torres
Victor Galindez
Michael Spinks
Virgil Hill
Willie Pastrano

Wait till Saad gets a hold of this...

Why? Is he a big fan of MM?

Cutman Scabbers wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

Cutman Scabbers wrote:Very hard to pick against Foster at Light Heavy.

Who do you think would match up best?

Archie Moore
RJJ
Antonio Tarver
Michael Moorer (when he was a light heavy)
Billy Conn
Jose Torres
Victor Galindez
Michael Spinks
Virgil Hill
Willie Pastrano

Wait till Saad gets a hold of this...

Why? Is he a big fan of MM?

Actually I am, I just think he is overrated at Light Heavy and under valued as a heavyweight.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

King Carlos wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote: We're talking about the Lt. Heavyweight versions of both men. Hopkins has always been an old man at Lt. Heavyweight, unless you're taking the version that lost to Clinton Mitchell in his debut. Make your pick. Doesn't bode well for you either way.

Dawson was more talented than someone like Finnegan, but I wouldn't say he was the better fighter. And I'll take Ahumada over him every day of the week and twice on Sundays. I'll take Ahumada over old man Hopkins as well.

That said, the version of Foster that faced Ahumada would be a lot more susceptible to losing to your boy.

I would pick the one that fought Tarver long before the current incarnation that you're going on about. I'm sure you would take Ahumada, that doesn't change that Dawson is the more accomplished fighter. Hopkins would school Ahumada. But I get your routine, you like older fighters and that's refreshing for a young fan of the sport. You just come off with some massive exaggerations, and Foster not having a hard time with Hopkins is definitely one of them.

The closest thing to Hopkins that Foster ever faced was Mina. Bob would struggle mightily to land on bernard, no doubt about it.

Oh yeah, you've got me figured out. I just want to fit in with the old fogies. Help me fit iiiinnnn.

Anyways, Mina may very well beat Hopkins, too (I wouldn't favour him outright, though, as I haven't seen enough footage outside of the disappointing Hank bout). I'm not the one exaggerating by questioning a 40+ year old former Middleweight's credentials against genuine high quality Lt. Heavyweights. Hopkins is a greater fighter than most of these men if not all, but he's not a better Lt. Heavyweight.

I don't think you're trying to fit in, it's just your mindset. Nothing wrong with that, I'll bet you're on a deserted island that Ahumada is better than Hopkins at any weight.

You're predicting an outcome that the results of either fighter show no inclination of happening. That doesn't make it impossible, but it is next to impossible that Foster toys with Hopkins until he inevitably knocks him flat. That's a gigantic reach however confident you may be.

Bernard doesn't rate all-time at Light Heavy, but he has fought and dominated a better one than any of Foster's defenses. It always astounds me how much credit Bob gets for dominating second rate contenders. Not to say he wasn't a great fighter, but there has never been a fighter that wouldn't have a degree of difficulty hitting Hopkins. Not one.[/quote]

I think very highly of Ahumada. I think he had fantastic ability, just didn't get the right breaks at the right times of his career. He improved quite a bit after his early career series with Galindez, and I think a fight between the two in the mid 70's would've been up for grabs.

I don't think he'd be toying with Hopkins per se, but I don't think anything less than an old, decrepit version finds a way to lose the fight. He was too consistent a performer and had the physical tools and style to offset Hopkins' strengths.

I'm not sure which fighter you're referring to that Hopkins beat that was better than any of Foster's Lt. Heavy opponents, by the way. I'm assuming Tarver, which I obviously disagree with. Masterclass of a performance against a weight-drained opponent. Not that he'd have ever beaten Hopkins.[/quote]

He was a fun fighter to watch, but Tarver definitively did more than Ahumada. Head to head would be an interesting fight though. However highly you think of him he wasn't on the level of a Bernard Hopkins. And I didn't even bother getting into the difference with same day weigh ins. You know damn well Hopkins could have went to 170 with ease in the absolute prime of his career. Not that it matters, I'm picking the early 40's Nard here. Either way, I'm certain it would be a dull distance fight.[/quote]

I thought these were prime v. prime hypotheticals . . . If that's true, the prime light-heavyweight Foster was the guy who was scoring withering KOs over guys like Mike Quarry and Dick Tiger. The prime light-heavyweight Hopkins is an old-man who has seen his best days. Prime v prime, Foster winning.

But if you are talking about the post-Ali Foster - the guy who fought Fourie and Ahumada, then, yeah, he would struggle against Hopkins (not sure he would lose, though). But prime v. prime as light heavyweights . . . it's a no brainer really.

raylawpc wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

King Carlos wrote: We're talking about the Lt. Heavyweight versions of both men. Hopkins has always been an old man at Lt. Heavyweight, unless you're taking the version that lost to Clinton Mitchell in his debut. Make your pick. Doesn't bode well for you either way.

Dawson was more talented than someone like Finnegan, but I wouldn't say he was the better fighter. And I'll take Ahumada over him every day of the week and twice on Sundays. I'll take Ahumada over old man Hopkins as well.

That said, the version of Foster that faced Ahumada would be a lot more susceptible to losing to your boy.

I would pick the one that fought Tarver long before the current incarnation that you're going on about. I'm sure you would take Ahumada, that doesn't change that Dawson is the more accomplished fighter. Hopkins would school Ahumada. But I get your routine, you like older fighters and that's refreshing for a young fan of the sport. You just come off with some massive exaggerations, and Foster not having a hard time with Hopkins is definitely one of them.

The closest thing to Hopkins that Foster ever faced was Mina. Bob would struggle mightily to land on bernard, no doubt about it.

Oh yeah, you've got me figured out. I just want to fit in with the old fogies. Help me fit iiiinnnn.

Anyways, Mina may very well beat Hopkins, too (I wouldn't favour him outright, though, as I haven't seen enough footage outside of the disappointing Hank bout). I'm not the one exaggerating by questioning a 40+ year old former Middleweight's credentials against genuine high quality Lt. Heavyweights. Hopkins is a greater fighter than most of these men if not all, but he's not a better Lt. Heavyweight.

I don't think you're trying to fit in, it's just your mindset. Nothing wrong with that, I'll bet you're on a deserted island that Ahumada is better than Hopkins at any weight.

You're predicting an outcome that the results of either fighter show no inclination of happening. That doesn't make it impossible, but it is next to impossible that Foster toys with Hopkins until he inevitably knocks him flat. That's a gigantic reach however confident you may be.

Bernard doesn't rate all-time at Light Heavy, but he has fought and dominated a better one than any of Foster's defenses. It always astounds me how much credit Bob gets for dominating second rate contenders. Not to say he wasn't a great fighter, but there has never been a fighter that wouldn't have a degree of difficulty hitting Hopkins. Not one.[/quote]

I think very highly of Ahumada. I think he had fantastic ability, just didn't get the right breaks at the right times of his career. He improved quite a bit after his early career series with Galindez, and I think a fight between the two in the mid 70's would've been up for grabs.

I don't think he'd be toying with Hopkins per se, but I don't think anything less than an old, decrepit version finds a way to lose the fight. He was too consistent a performer and had the physical tools and style to offset Hopkins' strengths.

I'm not sure which fighter you're referring to that Hopkins beat that was better than any of Foster's Lt. Heavy opponents, by the way. I'm assuming Tarver, which I obviously disagree with. Masterclass of a performance against a weight-drained opponent. Not that he'd have ever beaten Hopkins.[/quote]

He was a fun fighter to watch, but Tarver definitively did more than Ahumada. Head to head would be an interesting fight though. However highly you think of him he wasn't on the level of a Bernard Hopkins. And I didn't even bother getting into the difference with same day weigh ins. You know damn well Hopkins could have went to 170 with ease in the absolute prime of his career. Not that it matters, I'm picking the early 40's Nard here. Either way, I'm certain it would be a dull distance fight.[/quote]

I thought these were prime v. prime hypotheticals . . . If that's true, the prime light-heavyweight Foster was the guy who was scoring withering KOs over guys like Mike Quarry and Dick Tiger. The prime light-heavyweight Hopkins is an old-man who has seen his best days. Prime v prime, Foster winning.

But if you are talking about the post-Ali Foster - the guy who fought Fourie and Ahumada, then, yeah, he would struggle against Hopkins (not sure he would lose, though). But prime v. prime as light heavyweights . . . it's a no brainer really.[/quote]

Fourie & Ahumada are the only challengers of Foster's worth mentioning. Mike Quarry certainly doesn't fit that bill. Tiger was obviously a very impressive win. One of the few Bob ever had.

Foster UD for me. His fast, combination punching & freaky power would put Hopkins into the same shell Jermain Taylor put him into.

loaded_gloves wrote:Foster UD for me. His fast, combination punching & freaky power would put Hopkins into the same shell Jermain Taylor put him into.

Agreed, I just try to take these match ups on like the judges actually know what they are watching.