Should Bob Foster by in the top5 of lightheavyweights? A few thoughts..

[OLD FOGEY]

Originally Posted by JohnThomas1

Fair go mate, Foster was having his 9th pro fight and was still fighting 6 and 8 rounders for goodness sakes. I don't think it shows anything. On top of this Jones didn't have a single win in his 4 fights right before Foster (including Harold) so it's not like Johnson was on his own.

Well, Jones' other two defeats were to high ranked heavyweights Machen and Folley and Jones was soon to knock out Folley in a rematch. Johnson defeated Jones far more decisively that Folley or Machen did, or for that matter than Ali did in the very next fight after the Folley knockout.

[OLD FOGEY]

Originally Posted by ChrisPontius

I adressed that point in my original post.


But the champions that Foster would need to defeat were Frazier, Ali and Foreman, all 210+ pound monsters.
Spinks had the same with Holmes and Tyson.

Tunney, Charles and Moore didn't have that big a disadvantage against the reigning champions.

What is the evidence Foster could defeat the 180 to 200 lb contenders either?

[OLD FOGEY]

Originally Posted by JohnThomas1

Personally i don't hold his heavyweight losses against him one bit when judging him at 175. His losses vs Mina and Jones came in his first 13 fights, Terrell (Decent fighter in my book)had 10 wins on the trot including Williams and was still only Bob's 17th fight (we now have 3 of these losses pre 18 fight point) Folley was vastly heavier and his last loss to a non great heavyweight before going on a tear of 31 fights without loss (not counting Ali and Frazier of course) including umpteen defenses, a unification etc), he also had some wins over bigger men during that time, admittedly poor quality.

An aggressive view would find Charles having a similar 2 losses and a draw in his first 22 fights, with the losses being at his own weight. His record is a bit patchy before his 3 year break when he came back and went on his own tear (excepting a very dubious decision loss we won't count at all) thru a 5 year period. A hard line would tell us Charles never won the 175 title let alone defended it, tho his resume is sensational. He is however rated by many numero uno in a division he didn't officially rule.

So in summing up i don't hold much weight in Foster's above the weights losses when ranking him at 175 for the reasons stated above, just like i choose to accept Charles was a different animal after his service. I definitely have Foster top 10, but don't rate as far back as Langford.

It may well have been different if Foster fought a couple of contenders when developed around the time he fought Ali and Frazier, not that it matters with his 175 ranking.

In his first 22 fights, Charles also had a victory over former champion and Hall-of-Famer Teddy Yarosz and former lightheavy champion Anton
Christoforidis. Also, 22 is a handy cutout number, for during the rest of that year, when Charles was 21, he won eight straight fights, seven against ranked opposition, and four against Hall-of-Famers (two each against Charley Burley and Joey Maxim).
Foster was simply not defeating that level of competition.

[ChrisPontius]

Originally Posted by OLD FOGEY

What is the evidence Foster could defeat the 180 to 200 lb contenders either?

There isn't.

As i said, the fact that he was going from average lightheavyweigths to very good heavyweights was a big step, not just because of the additional size but also because he was facing better fighters.

[JohnThomas1]

Originally Posted by OLD FOGEY

Well, Jones' other two defeats were to high ranked heavyweights Machen and Folley and Jones was soon to knock out Folley in a rematch. Johnson defeated Jones far more decisively that Folley or Machen did, or for that matter than Ali did in the very next fight after the Folley knockout.

Sounds like Bob's loss to Jones is quite understandable then, given he was raw and Jones seems much better than given credit for.

[JohnThomas1]

Originally Posted by OLD FOGEY

In his first 22 fights, Charles also had a victory over former champion and Hall-of-Famer Teddy Yarosz and former lightheavy champion Anton
Christoforidis. Also, 22 is a handy cutout number, for during the rest of that year, when Charles was 21, he won eight straight fights, seven against ranked opposition, and four against Hall-of-Famers (two each against Charley Burley and Joey Maxim).
Foster was simply not defeating that level of competition.

Different fighters different level of development. One is fighting at a higher level earlier. Some come on fast, some take longer. Foster cleaned out the 175 division once he got going and ruled convincingly. Losses to heavyweights cannot be held against him, simple. At 175 he kicked ass, again and again, winning the title and taking on all comers for 6 or so years and was undefeated in the 175 ranks for 13 odd years. I can't ask for much more, it's just a shame the division wasn't richer at the time so he could poleaxe some bigger fish.

The sucesses against heavyweights should not even be considered when ranking at light-heavyweight UNLESS the fighter weighed inside or around the 175 pound mark.

So, for example, Michael Spinks' win over Holmes does not make him a greater light-heavyweight, because he weighed 200 pounds.
However, if you are impressed by Billy Conn getting KO'd by Joe Louis you can count that towards his worth as a light-heavyweight because he weighed inside the 175 limit.

Leeway of 5 pounds might be acceptable, since many non-title light-heavyweight fights would accept fighters weighing 178 or 180.

But when it's men going in at 185, 190, 200 pounds I dont see how that can count as merit for LIGHT-HEAVYWEIGHT.

Gene Tunney was probably more comfortable and better as a 185-190 pounder than as a light-heavyweight. His wins over Dempsey are not merit for light-heavyweight rankings.
The fact is that he was well above the light-heavy limit and stronger than ever, not "puffed up" and was actually almost EXACTLY the same size as Dempsey in every way. If Dempsey had won would that bring Dempsey up in the light-heavyweight rankings ? No, the guys weighed in as solid 190 pounders, so light-heavy is irrelevant.

Some fighters - Jimmy Ellis for example - actually have all their career success at a weight that appeared too much for them, but does that bring their standing up in the lighter divisions that started off at ? No, of course not. As a middleweight Ellis couldn't quite cut it, no matter what he proved he could do against heavyweights.
Each individual is different and it's wrong to assume success against heavier opponents means they could be even better against smaller fighters in a division that would appear more "natural" for them.

[JohnThomas1]

Originally Posted by Sonny's jab

The sucesses against heavyweights should not even be considered when ranking at light-heavyweight UNLESS the fighter weighed inside or around the 175 pound mark.

So, for example, Michael Spinks' win over Holmes does not make him a greater light-heavyweight, because he weighed 200 pounds.
However, if you are impressed by Billy Conn getting KO'd by Joe Louis you can count that towards his worth as a light-heavyweight because he weighed inside the 175 limit.

Leeway of 5 pounds might be acceptable, since many non-title light-heavyweight fights would accept fighters weighing 178 or 180.

But when it's men going in at 185, 190, 200 pounds I dont see how that can count as merit for LIGHT-HEAVYWEIGHT.

Gene Tunney was probably more comfortable and better as a 185-190 pounder than as a light-heavyweight. His wins over Dempsey are not merit for light-heavyweight rankings.
The fact is that he was well above the light-heavy limit and stronger than ever, not "puffed up" and was actually almost EXACTLY the same size as Dempsey in every way. If Dempsey had won would that bring Dempsey up in the light-heavyweight rankings ? No, the guys weighed in as solid 190 pounders, so light-heavy is irrelevant.

Some fighters - Jimmy Ellis for example - actually have all their career success at a weight that appeared too much for them, but does that bring their standing up in the lighter divisions that started off at ? No, of course not. As a middleweight Ellis couldn't quite cut it, no matter what he proved he could do against heavyweights.
Each individual is different and it's wrong to assume success against heavier opponents means they could be even better against smaller fighters in a division that would appear more "natural" for them.

Good read.

[mcvey]

Originally Posted by janitor

You could make the argument but you would be wrong. Langford, Charles, Moore Dillon and Loughran were all verry proven against world class fighters over 200lbs.

Dillon was called "Jack The Giant Killer",and Loughran fought behemoths like Carnera and Impelliettiere,,plus 6 2 210 Baer,all those mentioned were proven against big men,as you say Janitor.