Bob Foster v Jack Delaney

[Seamus]

Consummate boxer with a bit of pop versus the ultimate light heavy sledgehammer. Both fell short against the best of the big boys, and unfortunately this cast a shadow on the fantastic light heavy achievements.

Head to head, how does this play out over 15?

[janitor]

One of the more interesting fantasy fights that has been put forward.

I honestly think that this pair would have split a series if they had fought three times.

True to form, I am slightly leaning towards Delaney.

[Seamus]

Seriously, as the astute Janitor says above, this is a great match-up.

And only one guy has the gumption, intellect or insight to comment? And every time Wlad or Vitali enter a ring there are 30 threads on how they would do in such and such an era...

Where the hell is Burt?

[LittleRed]

I think that if you were going to beat Foster you needed to be able to move him back and hurt him which wasn't exactly Delaneys cup of tea. But really janitor could be right: the guys foster fought at 175 were less than spectacular while Delaneys resume is littered with Hall of Famers. Still Foster was all beast at LHW.

[Seamus]

Originally Posted by LittleRed

I would comment but I don't know enough about Delaney.

The only footage I have seen is him late stage against heavyweight challenger Heeney. By that time, Delaney was a full blown alcoholic and not what he was in his prime.

In this prime, he beat Loughran, Berlenbach, Bogash, Flowers, Rosenblum and McTigue, along with other notable middles, light heavies and heavies. He was light on his feet with quality clout in his mitts. Anyone who can defeat Loughran as soundly as Delaney did deserves a serious look.

I have some articles, one from the Flowers match and one from one of the Loughran matches, but I will have to dig them up or pay for them online.

He is a forgotten, but great, fighter.

[Lord Tywin]

Delaney was too inconsistent even at light heavyweight to beat Foster. He could string together some good wins and then look horrible against a complete non-entity.

You can throw out his victory over Rosenbloom who was good but still developing and only 18 or 19 years old.

[Seamus]

Originally Posted by Lord Tywin

Delaney was too inconsistent even at light heavyweight to beat Foster. He could string together some good wins and then look horrible against a complete non-entity.

You can throw out his victory over Rosenbloom who was good but still developing and only 18 or 19 years old.

I won't throw away the Rosenbloow victory as Maxie had had over 40 fights and faced guys like Greb and Slattery already. Sure, he was young but not entirely green.

I'm more concerned if Delaney had the style and abilities to defuse Foster's powerpunching, or if Foster would just be too much.

[Titan1]

I see Bobby boy beating Delaney, but as mentioned before, Jack's competition was tougher at the weight than Bobby's, so instead of having that knockout, Foster could also lose by a close decision, but prime Foster chances of winning are higher.

[MagnaNasakki]

I don't think Delaney has quite the style to stay safe.

I give him a damn good chance, but I gotta say Foster by late knockout. He'd catch him eventually.

[burt bienstock]

Originally Posted by Seamus

Seriously, as the astute Janitor says above, this is a great match-up.

And only one guy has the gumption, intellect or insight to comment? And every time Wlad or Vitali enter a ring there are 30 threads on how they would do in such and such an era...

Where the hell is Burt?

I am doing the backstroke courtesy of Hurricane Sandy...

[Lord Tywin]

Unlike most powerpunchers Delaney was a counterpuncher. He would lay back and wait for opportunities to land big shots and I dont see that strategy being very successful against a guy with advantages that Bob had.

It might prolongue the fight but it would only be prolonguing the inevitable.