Bob Satterfield vs Bob Foster LH Who Wins ?

He did hurt him and he wasn’t way past his best.

 

Well that’s why I said he was inconsistent. I’m not even saying he beats Foster but he does have a much better resume. On their absolute best days id assume Satterfield kos him. But Bob was rarely on his best days which makes this fight hard to pick.

 

I didn't make that comparison, you did.

Yes, I literally just said that Foster was in a worse era than Satterfield. But even still, one was an inconsistent contender who got annihilated and didn't see past the third in the two attempts vs fighters as good as Foster, and the other was the most devastated and dominant champion in light-heavyweight history. Satterfield having better wins doesn't matter. Résumés don't win fights, and Foster is the unequivocally greater fighter, so I don't know what your point is.

Name me the light-heavyweights he didn't fight.

Only two of these wins are actually that impressive. Baker, Oma, old Valdez, Holman and Summerlin are the same level as the sorts which Foster defended against on a regular basis. Williams was extremely green. Only the wins over Johnson and Smith are more impressive than Foster's wins over Tiger, Hank and Fourie. Even then, they don't make up for an incredible title reign.

Winning one round vs Charles before being absolutely poleaxed in the second isn't that impressive. It's like saying "Well Terry Norris was winning before Jackson KOed him". It means nothing, I'm not boasting that Foster was giving Frazier hell. And Foster did much better vs Ali than Satterfield would, it's all irrelevant. Satterfield was a better heavyweight, but this isn't at heavyweight. Foster's a lock for a top five head-to-head light-heavy, Satterfield wasn't even top five in his era.

Satterfield does nothing better than Foster. He has a small puncher's chance. That's it. He lasted no more than three rounds vs the two fighters he fought who were in Foster's league. And in the one instance of this we see on film, he was flatlined by Foster's best punch.

Foster KO2 Satterfield

 

You could be right. I just disagree with your assessment like this is some mismatch. Satterfield beat better men then Foster is what my point was. Harold Johnson Baker and Valdez were all better (Baker and Valdez at hw not career) and would have beat Foster. It’s not out of the realm of possibility he wins.

 

He took some much bigger men than Foster!

 

Yeah, he hurt him in first round and got stopped in brutal fashion in 2nd round. Charles wasn't even in huge problems before the stoppage. It's ridiculous to give credit for a fight that you got knocked out in second round. By this logic, most top tier guys Marciano faced gave him far more problems.

Charles was absolutely past his best by 1954, it's not up to debate.

 

Satterfield can't get by Foster's classic left jab ... until ... he runs into Foster's kayo right-and-left-hook combination sometime in the first four rounds.

 

I think the stipulation that the fight is a light heavyweight makes a difference.

Satterfield lost the big ones at light heavy, and Foster didn't manage much north of 175.

You might want to give it to Foster based on that.

 

They were both natural light-heavies, even though it took Foster a while to figure that out!

 

Actually Foster always knew he was a light heavy, he said he took the heavyweight fights because he was paid far more than he was getting as a light heavy. It was just for the money

 

They were, but you would have to credit Satterfield with making the transition better.

Satterfield had some very respectable results at heavyweight.

 

I gotta believe Foster ko before rd5

 

Different level of fighter altogether. Foster stalking behind that whipping jab would shatter that chin in 2 rounds quite possibly with a one punch KO for the highlight reel.

 

Good posts...came in expecting to see the Foster trashing we get sometimes.

 

Bump
At 175lbs Foster destroys him, at 175.1lbs, Satterfield batters him.