Bob Fitzsimmons vs Joe Frazier

Foster is probably better and bigger, he just fought in a much better HW era

 

I watched Foster v Frazier and clips of Foster v Ali yesterday.

Foster really was dreadful on film. If you didnt know that he has such a good record (as a light heavyweight), you would probably struggle to believe he was a professional, or at least i would. Still, obviously his strange style worked for him.

Foster was totally outclassed by Ali and Frazier. He was lost as soon as each landed a decent punch. I really do struggle to understand how he did so well at light heavy based on his filmed performances. Obviously he must have had real power but even not allowing for film problems, he looks worse on film (even by modern techniques) than Fitzsimmons imo.

 

but boiler, you're judging him by two ridiculously ill conceived matches. a lanky, not terribly physical, light heavy moving up against 2 of the top 10 ever heavyweights.

judging by his peak performances at 175, he does appear to be a force to be reckoned with. he had power, a deceptive judge and was a brilliant judge of distance in my opinion.

the footage i've seen of fitz, imo, is barely worth viewing because of it's quality and his age. it certainly doesn't give us any indication of what he was capable of

 

All true, but last time i watched Foster, even his good fights, i wasnt any more impressed. He obviously has stunning (even unexplainable KO power), but no matter which way you look at things, he was flat footed, stood upright, and has his feet positioned like a first night amateur. He faces 90degrees to his opponent and it is hard to see how he could take a hook. Frazier showed he couldnt, but that is understandable because it was Frazier. I also thought the ali frazier fights showed he had no idea what to do when hurt, although as you say, this is perhaps unfair, because these two guys would do this to most.

 

i've never understood his power either. i've heard it described that he was abysmal at using his height and jab to their fullest, rarely utilizing his physical advantages. from what i've seen, i have no reason to dispute this. for such a tall fighter, he should've had a brilliant right hand but as exemplified against tiger he preferred getting in close for the left hook; that was his power shot to be sure but it negated so many obvious advantages

 

Foster's right hand was there allright, watch him against Finnegan.

Foster was a stalker, against quality heavyweights such as Ali and Frazier he became the prey ,the hunted instead of the hunter, and his dragging footwork became an issue because he could not fight effectively going backwards ,similar to Norton.

 

From what ive seen, Bob Fitzsimmons fights similar to how Harry Greb spars. Like ****.

 

x2.

 

The difference in era's alone is not suficient to explain Fosters lack of sucess against the top heavyweights.

Even if beating the Ali's and Fraziers of the division was an impossible dream, he ought to have been able to do something against the second and third teir of heavyweight contenders, if he was as good at dealing with bigger fighter as Fitzsimmons.

 

Bob Foster never beat a single all time great fighter at any point except for a Dick Tiger 16 years into his career.

There is absolutely no comparison in terms of quality, period.

 

Which doesn't mean Foster wouldn't tear him a new one, or that Fitz would beat any of the heavyweights Foster fought, or even do as well.

 

Actually, when you are a pound for pound talent on that level compared to a guy that doesn't really have a legit single strap on his name that's exactly what it means, to be honest. Gulfs in class and resume that wide are pretty much the easiest way of being assured of a beatdown.

 

O.K lets say that Fitz is totaly out of his depth against Ali and Frazier.

If he fought Jones, Mina, Terrel and Folley, wouldn't you expect him to have something to show for it?

Dosn't Fosters lack of sucess against these fighters suggest that he would have got indifferent results against Maher, Corbett, Sharkey and Ruhlin?

 

For sure, 70 years doesn't mean a thing.

He's a dino for me, and i don't believe for a second his skillset would carry.

Achievement wise, extraordinary and a great among greats among and vs his comtempories, which i do rate him on. He belongs in a select group in history.

As for effectiveness in modern day boxing, i'll pass thanks. I'd back a Hagler to beat him everytime let alone the Fosters and top heavyweights. I don't see it fair to judge someone from so far back in this manner tho and prefer to see him for wat he definitely was - an extreme great in his own era whose achievements have him in a select group historically.

 

Indeed, a lot of pain and bruises.

Not at all for me.