Joe Frazier vs. Rocky Marciano

I think Matthews had a style more suited to fighting bigger men, being a mobile boxer while Foster was a patiently stalking puncher. Foster was greater though and I see him winning against Matthews if the two ever had fought.

 

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=by1h3Ink0Zw[/ame]


[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3JOrqcfeI8[/ame]

 

1. I am just pointing out how difficult it is to make snap judgements across time. Foster won the championship against an aging, blown up Tiger and held it against rather unexceptional competition through a very impressive NUMBER of defenses, but I don't think he ever defeated a lightheavy as good as Matthews, or for that matter Tommy Gibbons or Mauro Mina or Gregorio Peralta, let alone Moore or Conn types.

2. "I honestly don't know any boxing historian or expert that would say that Matthews was better than Foster"--I don't know if I would say he is better. I am asking what is the evidence he was worse.

3. Rex Layne was still good enough to edge Charles later that year. I definitely think he has a better chance of beating Foster than anyone Foster defeated has of beating Matthews.

 

Good points BUT I would still bet on Foster if they ever met.

 

Fair enough, Henry.

I would bet on Layne, though.

 

I was actually talking about Matthews and Foster, BUT at the time Layne fought Matthews, I would again put my money on Foster.

 

I knew you were. I should have made myself clear. Foster did practically all his good work at lightheavyweight. Picking him over Matthews at that weight is one thing. Picking him over the Layne of 1952 is quite another and I think a total leap into the dark.

 

"But at the time Layne fought Matthews, I would again put my money on Foster."

It would have been by far the most impressive win over a heavyweight in his career--far, far, far--and might well have been the most impressive win he ever had.

Personally, I take Layne. I don't think there is ANY historical evidence that Foster could ever have beaten Walcott, for example, or even Thompson.

 

It's all how you rate 2. I believe Rex was over rated and you made a good point about Foster, but I still would have to go with Bob.

 

sanders rules!

 

Certainly Foster defeated some decent fighters, but Cotton was a month short of forty and at the end of the string and he was never a champ even in his younger days.

Allen Thomas? It is not like the name we are talking about is Harold Johnson or someone like that.

 

Layne lost to Willie James, who was stopped by Ted Lowry, just 3 months before he fought Matthews. Rex was dropped 3 times during that bout. I just can't see that Rex Layne beating Bob Foster.

 

Layne in his prime stops foster late. Layne was a dangerous fighter in his brieft prime. especially for beanpoles like foster. He would give foster a vicious body beating and break him down. If Layne connects with the right, he might end things early. Layne had a good jab too, which could offset foster's remarkable jab a tad.

I am a big fan of Bob Foster though. He wasn't that bad at heavyweight. he outjabbed muhammad ali. the only man to ever cut Ali.

 

I have a hard time seeing Foster beating Willie James. He certainly never defeated a heavyweight of that calibre in his life.

Reading about Layne, he appears to have blown fights because of poor training habits. For big fights he settled down to business. Thus he has wins over Walcott, Charles, Satterfield, Thompson, etc, but bad performances against lesser men or men he took lightly. I am assuming he trains for Foster.