Roy Jones jr vs Bob Foster

Why? Because Jones landed frequently on the journeymen he beat? No, he would be up against a different animal in Foster than the garbage men and wal-mart greeters he was used to.

 

Thats one way to look at it. Another is that he'd land because Foster has about as much defensive capability and movement as Lurch from the Addams family, so even the Montgomery Ward tv salesmen he fought didn't have much trouble landing.

 

Yeah, keep telling yourself that...

 

Foster probably knocks Jones out.

Head-to-head Foster is a beast at 175 pounds.

 

I'll say it again: Roy Jones beat better fighters than Foster did.

 

Who? Because Id pick Foster to beat every single fighter Jones beat or lost to with the possible exception of Ruiz and even then Foster beat some ****ty HWs and Ruiz was definately ****ty. Hide Jones bottle of steroids and I doubt he beats Ruiz (or some of the other people he beat) either. No, at LHW Foster leaves Jones drooling on the canvas.

 

There's not even an argument to be made for Foster having a better resume, unless you count being starched by heavyweights as a resume builder. This is why you aren't making the argument.

 

I'd give Jones less than a round against either Frazier, or Terrell, and as long against Ali as Muhammad wanted to carry him.

 

What are you waffling on about? Did Foster beat and KO more Heavyweights than Jones?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

Did Foster EVER weigh in as heavy as Jones did for his one and only Heavyweight fight? Yet sherriff Bob still KO'd guys 20 - 30 lbs heavier than him.

Again a simple yes or no will suffice.

 

this is part of the reason why jones would toy with Foster. He'd be stronger and heavier than Foster. Add a large speed/reflex advantage for Jones and its game over.

 

Yes. Bob did KO more heavyweights than Jones.

But wait, there's more!

Now, which heavyweight win for Bob was better than Jones beating Ruiz?

Would you favor Foster to beat Ruiz?

This is completely irrelevant to Foster vs Jones at 175, mind you, but I find it humorous that a man who lost to every decent heavyweight he fought, and usually by knockout, is being talked up as being more proven. He is more proven, but not in the sense you're trying to sell, and not in the sense that helps your argument.

It's proven that Foster was a mediocre, gatekeeper caliber heavyweight. A fringe contender at best. It's proven that Jones one fight at the weight netted him a win superior to any of Bob's heavyweight wins.

All that, and Bob knocking out Roy at 175 is still a quite probable outcome, despite Bob not fighting a single fighter at the weight who would trouble Roy.

 

Bob losing less quickly than Roy would in your brain is your measure for being more proven, and you're the one laughing at his logic?

Which fighter did Bob actually beat that beats Roy?

 

I say again: Does Jones get to use his steroids? If so does Bob? Because Foster on steroids is a lengthy hospital stay waiting to happen for Jones. Foster off steroids is a quick trip the E.R. and a cat scan for Jones.

 

foster ko jones

see: johnson-jones

 

Not really fair to compare Jones on the downside (i.e. post Tarver II) where the return to LH did his body no favours.
That being said, I think Foster could, and probably would, have an excellent chance of stopping any version of Jones.
However, Jones could certainly have beat Foster, at LH there is nobody I would pick against him in his prime with complete confidence. However, he could also probably have lost to a heck of a lot of guys too, especially if they could crack.