Bob Foster at SMW today- GOAT 49-0

That does seem reasonable, yes. He was allegedly even drinking beer and still not gaining weight, so he might have been one of the few people in history to be cursed with an excessive metabolism.

 

No, because cutting water is not some new discovery from the 2000's.

Foster, before winding down as champion, only fought to knockout victories. The only fight to break that streak was when he faced Anderson weighing 170. Yet here we're asked to believe he's supposed to have a prolonged reign at super middleweight without it having adverse effects. Worse, that he could further drain to middleweight, and, laughably, 154!

What's also interesting is how his weight for Ali is brought up, but not his weight for Frazier. In the resource you posted, no middleweight even approached 185. Nevermind again. He bulked up against Ali- someone you would think you'd want your speed against. And eleven years to the day before that encounter, he must have also bulked up against Ernie Knox, five fights from his debut! What about the formidable Vernon McIntosh? Yeah, we'll gain muscle for that guy so we can shed it again for our next defense.

Notice how you're not being fed any rhyme or reason for these claims? There's no logic, only fan fiction.

 

Case in point: the post above mine.

Anyone want to defend that Bob Foster wasn't cutting to make light heavyweight, or is it just snark we're supposed to ignore?

 

The through-line seems to be that the longer period between weigh-ins and rehydration allows fighters to use the same techniques known in the 70s, but to a more drastic degree. So a greater water weight loss and rehydration is possible in the longer recovery time available. At least, that's how I interpret the arguments being made.

Are you basically saying that there's only so much water the human body can lose and rehydrate, regardless of whether it's same day or somewhat later?

As far as the 170 weight goes -- you're interpreting that weight as Foster either (1) training down too much muscle ahead of time, or (2) accidentally drying out too much and weakening himself? I suppose either of those would provide an explanation for his failure to get a knockout, yes.

 

No, I agree that the process today enables fighters to drain more weight. You can refer to my past posts for that. I'm taking the conservative stance that someone rakishly thin like Foster could only maintain 168 for a time, and the logical stance that no prime version of Foster could ever make 160.

EDIT: I'll also add that water weight is not an advantage. Regardless of the styles, skill level or outcome, Daniel Jacobs vs Michael Spinks is not a fair fight.

 

Ah, ok. I see.

Your first point makes sense, and being a conservative/cautious sort of person myself, I'm inclined to agree that I wouldn't bet on anything lower than 168, having read all the arguments so far.

The second point about water weight confuses me somewhat, which leads me to believe I'm seriously missing your point.

It's my understanding that most of the human body is supposed to be water weight. So when Foster drains down to 168, he's missing some of the water that would ordinarily be a natural part of his muscles, organs, etc. When he rehydrates, he's not adding useless water weight. (Unlike, say, a guy who retains too much water due to using creatine.) Rather, he's merely returning to the normal, healthy body weight of a 182 pound man. It's not like the water weight is a useless additive he's lugging around. It's supposed to be there, and is temporarily missing. 182 pound rehydrated Foster would be identical (well, slightly less healthy, perhaps) compared to 182 pound walking-around Foster.

Or is that not getting at what you were saying?

 

That's correct. I wouldn't consider someone like Daniel Jacobs as a classical middleweight. He's bigger than even his contemporaries. What I was saying was that Foster's in-ring weight was unlikely to be capped off at 175. So a one-to-one comparison of Jacobs' 174 to Foster's 174 is misleading.

 

That was what was going on earlier when Jacobs was being compared to Marciano with nothing else to back it up.

 

You think Foster's in-ring weight at LHW was probably around 182 or so?

 

At least that, if we're talking averages.

 

There is no way in this world that you are going to put on 7 pounds in 8 hours. What are you going to do? Get off the scale and eat twice, drink a half gallon of Gatorade and then get in the ring? In those days, you ate, rested, moved your bowels then got ready to fight. You might gain a pound or two maybe.
Here's the thing...in those days the way you trained and managed weight was totally different. It had to be because you fought within 8 hours of making weight. Today, the whole process is focused on cutting and then regaining weight; the two processes have nothing in common.
And if you have ever read about Bob Foster, he said often that he would sometimes drink a few beers before the weigh ins to get his weight closer to 175.

 

At LHW he never weighed 182 in the ring. No way. Not ever.

 

No, because even in the era before we have records of Fullmer gaining 3-4 pounds. They can gain weight faster because their bodies are starved for food and water.

 

Did anyone ever bother to do unofficial weigh-ins on the way to the ring back in the 70s, I wonder? Or are there accounts from fighters back then about how much you could realistically sweat out?

EDIT: Just saw Quick Cash's post above mine about Fullmer.