1972 Bob Foster vs 1983 Michael Spinks, 15 rounds at 175 lbs.

Spinks all day long I think Foster is overrated.

Spinks has numerous wins against very good or lower tier great Light Heavyweights.

Foster beat a blown up Middleweight in Tiger and doesn't really have any other real stand out wins against actual notable Light Heavyweights.

I'm not saying Foster H2H wise isn't one of the most dangerous Light Heavyweights of all time. But his resume isn't that strong if I'm being honest.

I like Spinks's better versatility and more proven wins at Light Heavyweight to get the job done.

 

Foster had little competition when he was beating everyone so badly. He was very good and a big power puncher but Spinks was clearly better all around. Like he did against Holmes Mike is able to move in do his damage and get away without taking much damage himself. This will wear down Foster who ends up being stopped in a late round after getting out fought the whole way.

 

No light heavy was going to KO Mike "out of nowhere"

 

It's very true '72 was Bob's peak and best / brilliant year vis a vis fighting 3 top 5 contenders and stopping them all (Rondon-Quarry-Finnegan). He then climaxed the year with the Ali fiasco. In '71 he had dogged it and been duly stripped by the WBA and went 15 with an unranked Ray Anderson (the division's pre-Ali Norton). Indeed, Bob was a late bloomer winning the title at 29 in his 30th year (dob DEC '38). Still, you're matching him against a guy half a dozen years younger and that's a TON of ring wear. As such, by '72 Bob was > 50 fights in, where at 27 Mike was < half that many fights in. All this factors into reflexes / timing with Mike's being the sharper per above and for two guys with similar reach, that 1/4 to 1/2 second would matter.