BoxRec

How do you feel Bob Foster would fair against the following ?
Ezzard Charles

Michael Spinks

Gene Tunney

Archie Moore

Harold Johnson

John Henry Lewis

Bernard Hopkins

Dwight Qawi

Pretty straight forward. Older era fighters get beatings, new era fighters kick his ass. Simple!

I think he'd lose all of them with the exception of possibly Hopkins.

I reckon Charles and Moore would be too much for him.

He has a chance versus Spinks and Tunney...more so against Spinks but not that I favour him.

JHL I haven't seen at his best so can't say.

Bob would be favourite against Hopkins and Qawi.

Johnson 50-50...

The End wrote:How do you feel Bob Foster would fair against the following ?
Ezzard Charles

Michael Spinks

Gene Tunney

Archie Moore

Harold Johnson

John Henry Lewis

Bernard Hopkins

Dwight Qawi

Charles would probably decision Foster, or stop him late.
Spinks would decision Foster, small percent chance he would stop Bob late.
Tunney would lose a decision to Foster, or be stopped late.
Moore would stop Foster in the middle rounds.
Johnson would probably decision Foster, 5% chance of Foster winning, most likely by decision, less by late round knockout.
Lewis and Foster would be a draw.
Hopkins would be kayoed by Foster.
Qawi would lose by decison, or late round knockout.

Nile4000 wrote:

The End wrote:How do you feel Bob Foster would fair against the following ?
Ezzard Charles

Michael Spinks

Gene Tunney

Archie Moore

Harold Johnson

John Henry Lewis

Bernard Hopkins

Dwight Qawi

Charles would probably decision Foster, or stop him late.
Spinks would decision Foster, small percent chance he would stop Bob late.
Tunney would lose a decision to Foster, or be stopped late.
Moore would stop Foster in the middle rounds.
Johnson would probably decision Foster, 5% chance of Foster winning, most likely by decision, less by late round knockout.
Lewis and Foster would be a draw.
Hopkins would be kayoed by Foster.
Qawi would lose by decison, or late round knockout.

Don't see Foster beating Tunney.

yancey wrote:

Nile4000 wrote:

The End wrote:How do you feel Bob Foster would fair against the following ?
Ezzard Charles

Michael Spinks

Gene Tunney

Archie Moore

Harold Johnson

John Henry Lewis

Bernard Hopkins

Dwight Qawi

Charles would probably decision Foster, or stop him late.
Spinks would decision Foster, small percent chance he would stop Bob late.
Tunney would lose a decision to Foster, or be stopped late.
Moore would stop Foster in the middle rounds.
Johnson would probably decision Foster, 5% chance of Foster winning, most likely by decision, less by late round knockout.
Lewis and Foster would be a draw.
Hopkins would be kayoed by Foster.
Qawi would lose by decison, or late round knockout.

Don't see Foster beating Tunney.

Me either, he isn't stopping Qawi or Hopkins either.

The more I think about Bob Foster, the more apt I am to come to the conclusion, that while he was an outstanding fighter, he happened to dominate an era of LHW's that wasn't particular strong. Add to that, he never fought the two best fighters of that era, John Conteh and Victor Galindez. Though in fairness, both were coming into there own around the end of his reign.

Monzon would have had a very good chance had he chose to step up to this division. Might have been a very interesting fight. I don't think any outcome would have tarnished either fighters reputation.

BoxBuzz wrote:Monzon would have had a very good chance had he chose to step up to this division. Might have been a very interesting fight. I don't think any outcome would have tarnished either fighters reputation.

This I disagree with .

Monzon would've taken a loss however he chose to play it. He could try to box and get out boxed or he could bring the pressure and get stopped.

BoxBuzz wrote:Monzon would have had a very good chance had he chose to step up to this division. Might have been a very interesting fight. I don't think any outcome would have tarnished either fighters reputation.

One thing is, that back then 160 to 175 was a hell of a leap. And fighters weren’t draining in the same way or using “supplements” to boost weight. Moving up was about growing into the division more naturally. Or looking for bigger bucks.

Monzon could not have been 15 rounds fit and naturally put on 15 pounds…so he’d be at a serious disadvantage.

polecateddy wrote:Pretty straight forward. Older era fighters get beatings, new era fighters kick his ass. Simple!

The End wrote:How do you feel Bob Foster would fair against the following ?
Ezzard Charles

Michael Spinks

Gene Tunney

Archie Moore

Harold Johnson

John Henry Lewis

Bernard Hopkins

Dwight Qawi

Charles.
Spinks.
Moore.
Tunney.
Johnson.
Don't know about Lewis.
I think Foster would decision Hopkins and Qawi.

Spinks, Charles and Tunney beat Foster by decision. The rest? they fall by the vicious right hand of Foster.

elmersalsa wrote:Spinks, Charles and Tunney beat Foster by decision. The rest? they fall by the vicious right hand of Foster.

The left hook was his best punch.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

elmersalsa wrote:Spinks, Charles and Tunney beat Foster by decision. The rest? they fall by the vicious right hand of Foster.

The left hook was his best punch.

The End wrote:How do you feel Bob Foster would fair against the following ?
Ezzard Charles

Michael Spinks

Gene Tunney

Archie Moore

Harold Johnson

John Henry Lewis

Bernard Hopkins

Dwight Qawi

Michae Spinks arguably had the fastest hands and reflexes of those mentioned on this list, and had a very tricky 'herky jerky' style defense. I think he would have given Foster alot of problems; and don't forget, the Spinks Jinx hit just as hard as Foster did.

Gene Tunney was a master tactician who considered boxing to be 'fencing with gloves', he had tremendous balance and was only dropped one time to my recollection and that was by Jack Dempsey. Muhammad Ali said of all the old timers, Tunney was the greatest boxer he seen on film. I think for as fast as Foster's hands were, and as hard hitting as he was, Tunney would have made him look foolish for the most part.

Archie Moore, of all the guys on this list was the best p4p, he was locked out of a middleweight title shot for over a decade, he became one of the most dominate champions of all time @ 175, and he was a contender for the heavyweight crown for several years; very tough, very durable, as strong as he was skilled, I think this would have been a WAR between Foster and Moore, but I see the Ol' Mongoose as being a bit too saavy for Foster.

Harold Johnson seldom ever gets any play, so am glad to see him on this list. I'd compare alot of his achievements to that of most these men on this list, as well as others who are not on the list. Very skilled, very tough, he often fought heavyweights and was a very dangerous man for several years. Foster-Johnson would be very, very, fun to watch. One of the best champions of all time, versus one of the greatest to never win a world's title. This could very well end in a DRAW.

John Henry Lewis, another man who seldom gets any play, and unfortunately is remembered as being an easy title defense for Joe Louis. But that was the well passed his prime, half blind, version of Lewis. At LHW he was something to behold, and I say he's comparable to Foster in some aspects. A champion at 175, and a top contender at heavyweight, is something you seldom see these days. Heck you don't see that many guys at 175 become contenders at Cruiserweight either. Lewis-Foster would be a barn burner imho. Though I have to say, I see Foster winning this. I blame this decision of mine on the fact that I have seldom seen much tape on Lewis, though from what I have read he was really special.

Bernard Hopkins; last night on our radio show we discussed B-Hop's legacy, and I suggested that if he is indeed successful this Saturday night against Tavoris Cloud, the question shouldn't be "Where does Hopkins fit on the top p4p list?" but his abilities as a lightheavyweight should be in contention, "Could Hopkins defeat Moore? Tunney? Conn? Spinks? Foster? And is Hopkins a top ten light heavyweight?", and my answer is, if he is indeed successful at this age, he is indeed most comparable to Archie Moore and deserving of a top five mention. Let's face it, 20 something title defenses at middleweight, becomes the top 175 pound fighter in the world with victories over Antonio Tarver and a complete 12-0 blow out against Kelly Pavlik, and still going strong at the weight at almost 50 is the sort of thing we havent seen since Duran and Fitzsimmons. Hopkins has the capability of outsmarting Foster, and catching him in traps, but whether Hopkins has the chin resistance to last is another matter. It would be a tension filled fight from bell to bell, but Hopkins has a solid chance of out boxing Foster.

Dwight Qawi; murderous, viscous, fearsome. I was damn impressed with his fights against Holyfield and Spinks. Equally dangerous at Cruiserweight as he was at 175. Problem with me is, I can't help but think that swarmer/brawler types would eventually get caught by Foster's tremendous right hand and sink to the canvas. Qawi had that same body build and strength that Dick Tiger had, and look what happened to Tiger. I wouldn't put Qawi in the same category as Tiger as it is anyways, so I'm going with Foster winning by knockout in ten rounds.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

elmersalsa wrote:Spinks, Charles and Tunney beat Foster by decision. The rest? they fall by the vicious right hand of Foster.

The left hook was his best punch.

And what about his right hand? Was not he awesome with it too?

elmersalsa wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

elmersalsa wrote:Spinks, Charles and Tunney beat Foster by decision. The rest? they fall by the vicious right hand of Foster.

The left hook was his best punch.

And what about his right hand? Was not he awesome with it too?

Not nearly as good as his hook. Definitely not a punch he's going to KO Moore, Lewis, Johnson, Qawi & Hopkins with.

HomicideHenry wrote:

The End wrote:How do you feel Bob Foster would fair against the following ?
Ezzard Charles

Michael Spinks

Gene Tunney

Archie Moore

Harold Johnson

John Henry Lewis

Bernard Hopkins

Dwight Qawi

Archie Moore, of all the guys on this list was the best p4p

Hell no

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

HomicideHenry wrote:

The End wrote:How do you feel Bob Foster would fair against the following ?
Ezzard Charles

Michael Spinks

Gene Tunney

Archie Moore

Harold Johnson

John Henry Lewis

Bernard Hopkins

Dwight Qawi

Archie Moore, of all the guys on this list was the best p4p

Hell no

That's what I was thinking but he left out Charles so maybe he didn't see him .

The End wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

HomicideHenry wrote: Archie Moore, of all the guys on this list was the best p4p

Hell no

That's what I was thinking but he left out Charles so maybe he didn't see him .

One would hope. If he just missed him, I'd agree with Gene having a case too.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

elmersalsa wrote:Spinks, Charles and Tunney beat Foster by decision. The rest? they fall by the vicious right hand of Foster.

The left hook was his best punch.

Down goes elmer from a perfect counter left hook from Saad!

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

HomicideHenry wrote:

The End wrote:How do you feel Bob Foster would fair against the following ?
Ezzard Charles

Michael Spinks

Gene Tunney

Archie Moore

Harold Johnson

John Henry Lewis

Bernard Hopkins

Dwight Qawi

Archie Moore, of all the guys on this list was the best p4p

Hell no

Charles holds that distinction. Clearly.

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