Page 1 of 1

Who perform better at heavyweight? Bob Foster or Vicente Rondon

Posted: 24 Jun 2018, 05:31
by scorpio83
I would please like to know which former light heavyweight champions would have fought better at heavyweight between Bob Foster and Vicente Rondon based on their performances? :box:

Re: Who perform better at heavyweight? Bob Foster or Vicente Rondon

Posted: 24 Jun 2018, 09:08
by bwu
Both had heavyweight fights before, during and after their reigns at light heavy. Unfortunately, Rondon never seemed to recover from the Foster knockout so his post-championship record at heavy is very poor. Have to go with Foster.

Re: Who perform better at heavyweight? Bob Foster or Vicente Rondon

Posted: 24 Jun 2018, 14:51
by SenorPipino
But we all know that Foster was no ball of fire as a heavyweight.

Before winning the light heavy title, veteran contenders Doug Jones, Zora Folley and Ernie Terrell all thumped a young Foster.

He was tall at 6'3" but just didn't have the frame to withstand the power and strength of the bigger guys.

Of course after winning the LH crown, both Frazier and Ali ( who Foster describes as the best overall fighter he faced) ran over him.

Here and there Foster was able to pick up some victories over heavyweight journeymen, but he was wholly unsuccessful versus ranking heavies.

After Foster destroyed him, Rondon fought mostly as a heavy and basically went through the motions, going just 4-10 in the final 2 years of his career.

Interestingly Rondon somehow managed to last 10 rounds with Shavers (I'd love to see a tape of that bout to witness how he accomplished it) but other heavies like Lyle, Urtain, Roman and Rodney Bobick got him out quick.

So neither Foster or Rondon demonstrated anything special at heavy.

I call it even. But if they had met up again in the heavyweight division, my money would have been on Foster.

Re: Who perform better at heavyweight? Bob Foster or Vicente Rondon

Posted: 26 Jun 2018, 05:24
by scorpio83
SenorPipino wrote: 24 Jun 2018, 14:51 But we all know that Foster was no ball of fire as a heavyweight.

Before winning the light heavy title, veteran contenders Doug Jones, Zora Folley and Ernie Terrell all thumped a young Foster.

He was tall at 6'3" but just didn't have the frame to withstand the power and strength of the bigger guys.

Of course after winning the LH crown, both Frazier and Ali ( who Foster describes as the best overall fighter he faced) ran over him.

Here and there Foster was able to pick up some victories over heavyweight journeymen, but he was wholly unsuccessful versus ranking heavies.

After Foster destroyed him, Rondon fought mostly as a heavy and basically went through the motions, going just 4-10 in the final 2 years of his career.

Interestingly Rondon somehow managed to last 10 rounds with Shavers (I'd love to see a tape of that bout to witness how he accomplished it) but other heavies like Lyle, Urtain, Roman and Rodney Bobick got him out quick.

So neither Foster or Rondon demonstrated anything special at heavy.

I call it even. But if they had met up again in the heavyweight division, my money would have been on Foster.
I strongly agree SeniorPipino, Bob Foster would have beat Vincente Rondon again at heavyweight, but this time he would punish him with sharp left jabs and putting him away with right hands and left hooks in 8 rounds, where it would have been longer than their light heavyweight unification fight.

Re: Who perform better at heavyweight? Bob Foster or Vicente Rondon

Posted: 01 Jul 2018, 08:18
by klompton
Bob Foster already beat him at heavyweight. Its never mentioned but when Foster fought Rondon in the unification bout Rondon weighed in at 177. It was even officially announced as 177 by the local boxing commissioner. The Miami commission marked it down as 175 and allowed Rondon to fight anyway because they wanted him to beat Foster and keep the title in Miami (where Rondon was based at the time). Foster was furious, knocked Rondon out easily in two rounds, and afterwards when asked if hed give him a rematch he said "Hed be crazy to ask for a rematch after what I did to him. Id just knock him out again. I wont fight him in Miami though after what the commission here and the WBA did to me. He weighed 177. It dont matter to me though, I would have knocked him out if he weighed 185 pounds."

Re: Who perform better at heavyweight? Bob Foster or Vicente Rondon

Posted: 02 Jul 2018, 05:18
by scorpio83
klompton wrote: 01 Jul 2018, 08:18 Bob Foster already beat him at heavyweight. Its never mentioned but when Foster fought Rondon in the unification bout Rondon weighed in at 177. It was even officially announced as 177 by the local boxing commissioner. The Miami commission marked it down as 175 and allowed Rondon to fight anyway because they wanted him to beat Foster and keep the title in Miami (where Rondon was based at the time). Foster was furious, knocked Rondon out easily in two rounds, and afterwards when asked if hed give him a rematch he said "Hed be crazy to ask for a rematch after what I did to him. Id just knock him out again. I wont fight him in Miami though after what the commission here and the WBA did to me. He weighed 177. It dont matter to me though, I would have knocked him out if he weighed 185 pounds."
You meant Bob Foster beat Rondon mentally at heavyweight because he already beaten him at the unification at light heavyweight. I wonder how good was Rondon's jab in his career? :box:

Re: Who perform better at heavyweight? Bob Foster or Vicente Rondon

Posted: 02 Jul 2018, 07:54
by Flump
SenorPipino wrote: 24 Jun 2018, 14:51 But we all know that Foster was no ball of fire as a heavyweight.

Before winning the light heavy title, veteran contenders Doug Jones, Zora Folley and Ernie Terrell all thumped a young Foster.

He was tall at 6'3" but just didn't have the frame to withstand the power and strength of the bigger guys.

Of course after winning the LH crown, both Frazier and Ali ( who Foster describes as the best overall fighter he faced) ran over him.

Here and there Foster was able to pick up some victories over heavyweight journeymen, but he was wholly unsuccessful versus ranking heavies.

After Foster destroyed him, Rondon fought mostly as a heavy and basically went through the motions, going just 4-10 in the final 2 years of his career.

Interestingly Rondon somehow managed to last 10 rounds with Shavers (I'd love to see a tape of that bout to witness how he accomplished it) but other heavies like Lyle, Urtain, Roman and Rodney Bobick got him out quick.

So neither Foster or Rondon demonstrated anything special at heavy.

I call it even. But if they had met up again in the heavyweight division, my money would have been on Foster.
Excellent post.

In his autobiography Shavers said Rondon was slick and that he hit Rondon with everything but couldn't get him out of there. Seems Rondon sparred lots of rounds and trained hard.

Re: Who perform better at heavyweight? Bob Foster or Vicente Rondon

Posted: 02 Jul 2018, 10:49
by klompton
scorpio83 wrote: 02 Jul 2018, 05:18
klompton wrote: 01 Jul 2018, 08:18 Bob Foster already beat him at heavyweight. Its never mentioned but when Foster fought Rondon in the unification bout Rondon weighed in at 177. It was even officially announced as 177 by the local boxing commissioner. The Miami commission marked it down as 175 and allowed Rondon to fight anyway because they wanted him to beat Foster and keep the title in Miami (where Rondon was based at the time). Foster was furious, knocked Rondon out easily in two rounds, and afterwards when asked if hed give him a rematch he said "Hed be crazy to ask for a rematch after what I did to him. Id just knock him out again. I wont fight him in Miami though after what the commission here and the WBA did to me. He weighed 177. It dont matter to me though, I would have knocked him out if he weighed 185 pounds."
You meant Bob Foster beat Rondon mentally at heavyweight because he already beaten him at the unification at light heavyweight. I wonder how good was Rondon's jab in his career? :box:
No I meant at 177 for the weigh in he was a heavyweight, especially by fight time.

Re: Who perform better at heavyweight? Bob Foster or Vicente Rondon

Posted: 04 Jul 2018, 05:16
by scorpio83
klompton wrote: 02 Jul 2018, 10:49
scorpio83 wrote: 02 Jul 2018, 05:18
klompton wrote: 01 Jul 2018, 08:18 Bob Foster already beat him at heavyweight. Its never mentioned but when Foster fought Rondon in the unification bout Rondon weighed in at 177. It was even officially announced as 177 by the local boxing commissioner. The Miami commission marked it down as 175 and allowed Rondon to fight anyway because they wanted him to beat Foster and keep the title in Miami (where Rondon was based at the time). Foster was furious, knocked Rondon out easily in two rounds, and afterwards when asked if hed give him a rematch he said "Hed be crazy to ask for a rematch after what I did to him. Id just knock him out again. I wont fight him in Miami though after what the commission here and the WBA did to me. He weighed 177. It dont matter to me though, I would have knocked him out if he weighed 185 pounds."
You meant Bob Foster beat Rondon mentally at heavyweight because he already beaten him at the unification at light heavyweight. I wonder how good was Rondon's jab in his career? :box:
No I meant at 177 for the weigh in he was a heavyweight, especially by fight time.
That's what you meant, sorry my bad. :TU: