Michael Spinks vs. Bob Foster @ 175

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by Thread Stealer, Jul 6, 2007.


  1. Thread Stealer

    Thread Stealer Loyal Member Full Member

    41,945
    3,392
    Jun 30, 2005
  2. TBooze

    TBooze Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    25,495
    2,146
    Oct 22, 2006
    Spinks had way of rising to a fearful challenge (at 175lbs), so I take him to avoid Foster's bombs, have enough power himself to compete with Foster for 10 rounds, and then to use his speed and unorthadox-ness to edge the championship rounds and win a close by unanimous decision.

    Spinks WU15 (9-6)
     
    GoldenHulk likes this.
  3. Titan1

    Titan1 Boxing Junkie Full Member

    12,672
    2,546
    Oct 18, 2004
    Concur.:good
     
  4. apollack

    apollack Boxing Addict Full Member

    4,210
    1,569
    Sep 13, 2006
    I give Spinks the edge because I think he was more talented overall, although Bob had some really nice, crafty boxing skills, nice jab and timing, good snappy punches. But Spinks was special, could fight inside and out, good speed, nice pop at light heavy, good condition, and that intangible ability to win no matter what. Let's also face it, the fact that he beat Holmes (albeit past his prime Holmes) reflects quite favorably upon him, whereas Foster never did well with heavies.
     
    Smokin Bert likes this.
  5. Rspen46

    Rspen46 Member Full Member

    391
    165
    Jun 6, 2013
    Spinks would outbox then KO Foster and I love watching Foster's fights, I think Spinks is #1 at LHW.
     
  6. jowcol

    jowcol Boxing Addict Full Member

    4,333
    834
    Jul 22, 2004
    IMO Spink's legacy grew after the two Holmes bouts.
    Top 5 LHW all-time. That could be the case.
    Best LHW all-time? No way.
     
    Reinhardt and George Crowcroft like this.
  7. George Crowcroft

    George Crowcroft He Who Saw The Deep Full Member

    27,020
    44,577
    Mar 3, 2019
    I think Foster drops Spinks but is took out later on.

    Spinks TKO9
     
  8. AwardedSteak863

    AwardedSteak863 Boxing Addict Full Member

    5,901
    10,902
    Aug 16, 2018
    Love them both but Michael was the more versatile guy. He is just behind the Cincinnati Cobra for my number one all time lightheavyweight. I have stopping Foster late.
     
  9. The Funny Man 7

    The Funny Man 7 Boxing Junkie Full Member

    7,867
    2,042
    Apr 1, 2005
    I'll be the voice of dissent and vote for Foster. In the fights where he was 'On' he's one of the most impressive fighters to watch of all time. At his best he looked so good that he had entire fights that looked like one long highlight clip. He's easily one of the greatest knockout machines ever, but on top of that he rounded out his arsenal with good head movement, an ability to dictate range and tempo against skilled opponents, he had shoulder feints and lateral movement, and at 175 his durability wasn't an issue.

    Spinks is tall timber but I just think Foster gets it done.

    The question is: do we weigh what happened at heavyweight or not. It's hard not to let that color things, given that Spinks toppled Holmes, while Foster lost badly to Doug Jones, Frazier, and Ali.
    I have to wonder how Foster would have done with the aid of an S&C guru, and if he'd devoted himself to heavyweight, instead of treating it like a diversion, sort of like a big city mayor like Tom Bradley running for governor out of boredom with his current.
     
    Reinhardt and robert ungurean like this.
  10. Reinhardt

    Reinhardt Boxing Junkie Full Member

    13,727
    18,555
    Oct 4, 2016

    I'll go with you, and take Bob. He had a razor jab ,Foster is a notch above Qawi and I think he gets to Spinks at 175
     
    The Funny Man 7 likes this.
  11. Rspen46

    Rspen46 Member Full Member

    391
    165
    Jun 6, 2013
    Who do you have as the top 5 at LHW then if no Spinks as #1, Foster is right there, so definitely both top 3 and for sure both Top 5, but i would take Spinks over anyone, even Gibbons.