175 lb 1st Round-Tommy Loughran vs Bob Foster

I'll repeat my call on that other thread, only with the Reader's Digest version and say Loughran w12 Foster.

 

Although Loughran had deceptive power, I don't see him denting Foster. Also I don't see Foster taking out Loughran as Tommy had an excellent chin and the style to get himself out of trouble in case plan A failed. I'm leaning towards it coming down to the jabs and Foster taking it over 12.

Scartissue

 

for 12 rounds Loughran plays a matador, darting in and out of Fosters range with a whipping left hand landing on Bob Fosters face (albeit lightly) before skip[ping out of range and getting away. When he does get cornered Tommy just cooly ties up or spins away.

Foster does start to come on in the mid rounds but Tommys mixture of experiance, chin and ring generalship lets him just edge it.

Loughran SD

 

I would put my money on Loughran because he outboxed and even outfought tall rangy power punchers at light heavyweight.

Loughran was a feather fisted fighter who rarely lost a scrap. IOf you were a banger and he wasn't he would outpoint you in a brawl and not care if he was outpointing a guy with a machete with a fruit knife.

 

Fleaman but you hate all pre WW2 fighters

 

im just kidding

 

Tommy famously decisioned a trio of heavyweight champions, while Foster was never able to break through at that weight. Could Bob have beaten the quick tiring and immature Mike Quarry over the 12 round distance without dropping him? Loughran was infinitely more accomplished and efficient, while Foster's trailing foot stayed in the bucket. (Of course nobody at any weight ever came close to putting Tommy's lights out like that.)

Bob did not have Jack Sharkey's speed, Max Baer's power, or Carnera's effective use of size and reach (at a time when Tommy was 34). The erratic and unpredictable Sharkey (not known for a particularly devastating punch) managed to surprise him with the best right hand he ever struck on film, but got taken in the rematch. The more rhythmic Foster wouldn't have the chance to catch Loughran off guard like that. The young Jimmy Braddock had advantages of height, reach and power, yet Loughran looked like he was shadowboxing when they met.

I agree with janitor that even with Foster's punch I'd put my money on Tommy. After 1925, he was as invincible a lightheavyweight as any cutie could be. (38-0, with 36 by decision, concluding with Braddock.) He was by then too much for fellow champions Latzo, Carpentier, Slattery, McTigue, Walker and others. As dominant as Bob was at LHW, his record of wins doesn't glitter with a multitude of names like these. At Loughran's LHW peak, he had far too much experience for Foster to cope with.

How many opponents with a noted jab was Foster able to beat with his own jab? Terrell? Ali? I'd like to see more examples of Bob's supporters making a case for a decision in his favor. When I look at Loughran/Walker and Loughran/Braddock, I just don't see how the slower and less mobile Foster could pull this off.

 

I dont rate foster any where near as much as most people on here do. I can see no reason why Loughran wouldnt stay away from Fosters right hand, and i think that Loughran has more than proved he isnt going to fold the first time Fosters power lands. Like Duodenum, i also would like to see how Fosters fans see him winning the fight, but at this stage i feel confident that Loughran wins a lopsided decision.

 

I dont know what Im missing with Tommy.

I cant for the life of me see why this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qu7KhqxIzy4

Is so noticeably better then this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rm0wuLHykU0&feature=related

I dont even think Ill pick Foster here...Just think Tommy has the right combination of toughness and slickness for the power of Foster to have as much as an impact as usual ..but I really struggle to picture how the shorter Loughran is going win lopsided over a highly effective and powerful fighter from range...this aint the cumbersome and sloppy (relative to Foster) Primo Carnera here..or a 5'9 middleweight Walker..

Ill make the call...a 175 pound Foster is a harder, more dangerous puncher then Jack Sharkey.

As much as Tommy will give Bob the fits...I cant really see from the evidence how Bob wont do the same, at least enough for the fight to be bloody hard to Tommy.

Call my eye untrained but thats just the way I see it.

 

Well, again, that's exactly what he did to Max Baer and Jimmy Braddock. Maxie would have killed Foster, and Bob never defeated a heavyweight of Braddock's caliber. (Foster would have also had to decision the version of Jimmy that Loughran schooled. Only a peaking Louis could cleanly knock out a fading and arthritic Braddock.)

This is clearly true on a consistent basis, but Sharkey's unpredictable speed and abrupt rush forward was the key to his success in nailing Tommy, who I think would have little difficulty timing Foster. (It bears repeating that Sharkey really caught lightning in a bottle, something Steve Hamas later did as well. Loughran avenged himself against Hamas twice before he returned the favor to Sharkey.) Jack's sudden charging knockdowns of Loughran and Carnera (especially Carnera) can seem to be wildly out of context, uncontrolled and spontaneous bursts of fire. Foster was more inclined to play chess, patiently biding his time in getting set for the right opening, not a good idea with Loughran.

Foster might start off trying to box with Loughran, but I think he'd quickly become frustrated and start looking to land bombs like Baer tried. Again, Tommy was able to play with the top big boys, something Bob couldn't do with Doug Jones and Terrell.

Hey, thanks for the feedback.

As a 27 year old lightheavyweight champion against Braddock, Loughran was not only far more experienced than Foster ever became, but he was over three years younger than Bob was when he knocked out Tiger for that title. He would always have that minimum advantage in youth if they were to meet at 175.