BoxRec

He was taller than M Spinks, and Holyfield, as tall as Haye, but he really struggled above 175. The obvious explanation would seem to be that he just couldn't successfully pack on enough pounds to withstand the rigors of the HW division. At 6-3, he should have been able to get up to 200, but I don't he went higher than 185.

One of those fighters whose power didn't carry well coupled with not bulking up and being quite heavily outweighed. Plus he fought a peak Frazier and Ali so didn't stand much of a chance in reality.

Better HW competition...

That, and he was just too slender.

Holyfield & Spinks were tougher and more skilled. Bob was a brute puncher at 75, but all in all he's one of the more overrated fighters in history. Great, but not as great as people make him out to be.

I should also add that Holy & Spinks had supplemental help putting on weight.

Controversial wrote:One of those fighters whose power didn't carry well coupled with not bulking up and being quite heavily outweighed. Plus he fought a peak Frazier and Ali so didn't stand much of a chance in reality.

Foster's advantages at Light Heavyweight were Size ;he was around 6 ft 3 and had good reach....at Heavyweight these advantages were taken away; his punch at 175 was phenomenal and again was a massive advantage for him,,but once at Heavyweight he lost this edge in power against bigger stronger guys. His chin couldn't cope really either being stopped by Jones, Terrell, Ali and Frazier...

evrenb

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.

To me it shows how Foster is over-rated historically at 175. He dominated a very poor crop of guys, and when he went up not only got pummeled by Ali and Frazier (no shame there) but got beaten in one-sided fashion by Terrell and Jones, and Jones himself was a former light heavy. The top 10 calibre light heavyweights all were able to beat quality heavyweights, but Foster's chin was shaky and his style too dependent on having the height and reach advantage.

I think Foster was a guy who's natural body build was one that was very slender. Packing on 25 lbs despite his tall frame was probably too difficult, and then he had to find out that heavies have much better chins and punching power.

The losses to Terrell and Jones were rather early in Foster's career and losing to Ali and prime Frazier is hardly any disgrace. As a heavyweight he didn't enjoy the same height and reach advantage that he had against light-heavyweights, couldn't hurt the bigger guys as easily, and was so skinny that he simply couldn't take very much punishment from them in return.

Also, besides having to deal with a better crop of heavyweights, Foster had that tall slim build that makes it difficult to put on a substantial amount of mass. Steroids hadn't yet infested boxing in Foster's day as well.

I suspect that if he were fighting in more recent days with the benefit of modern "supplementation" he would have been able to put on more weight and with title holders like John Ruiz around, he would have had more success as a heavyweight and been able to win a title like Roy Jones and James Toney did.

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

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? :(

Rondon
Cotton
Finnegan
Hank x2

Bob was quality.

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.

Ezzard wrote:Rondon
Cotton
Finnegan
Hank x2

Bob was quality.

Sure, but some rate him as the greatest ever at 175 when his resume isn't really worthy of being in the top 20.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Holyfield & Spinks were tougher and more skilled. Bob was a brute puncher at 75, but all in all he's one of the more overrated fighters in history. Great, but not as great as people make him out to be.

I should also add that Holy & Spinks had supplemental help putting on weight.

What's that, every illegal PED they could lay their hands on?

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)

Foster also beat the underrated Pierre Fourie twice, a guy who had a 30 fight win streak at the time of there first bout, BUT even with those 2 wins, when you really compare Foster's record with that of other great LHW's it doesn't stack up as well. Unfortunately for his legacy, Conteh and Galindez were coming around at the end of his reign when he was past his best. Would he have beaten those guys ? Based on the Ahumada fight I'd say no.

The great Bob Foster was too small for the BIG DOGS. We also forgot that he was fighting heavyweights of great skill, matched with strength and weight. Not only the greats Muhammad Ali and Joe Frazier were heavier than he was, they were really good.

In his prime, he did not lose a fight. He was an excellent puncher. He lost to Mauro Mina when Foster was kind of green, just learning the trade. Once he had that winning streak going, he was unstoppable.

I believe he was one of the best light heavyweights ever. A fine light heavyweight and an all-time great.

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.

elmersalsa wrote:The great Bob Foster was too small for the BIG DOGS. We also forgot that he was fighting heavyweights of great skill, matched with strength and weight. Not only the greats Muhammad Ali and Joe Frazier were heavier than he was, they were really good.

In his prime, he did not lose a fight. He was an excellent puncher. He lost to Mauro Mina when Foster was kind of green, just learning the trade. Once he had that winning streak going, he was unstoppable.

I believe he was one of the best light heavyweights ever. A fine light heavyweight and an all-time great.

Agreed.

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.