A difficult one. Archie Moore had a long, highly successful career as a LHW. Nobody could really get the measure of him except Ezzard Charles. But then Ezzard Charles was truly one of a kind. It can be said that during his days as a LHW, Charles was really a HW in LHW clothing. Some LHWs did give Moore some competition, but old Archie always found a way to beat them. Archie was a real cutie. It seemed that he could do almost anything. He could box masterfully and he could punch with real power. He did find some success as a HW, though he failed in his most important tests. But by then he was getting old and his opponent in the first test was none but the one and only Rocky Marciano. He did put up a superb effort, though. Nothing but credit and honour there. In his second big test, he was still older and he came up short against a young and hungry Floyd Patterson. Bob Foster really looked the all conquering type as a LHW when in his prime. Nobody could really give him competition. But he was beaten while coming up by Mauro Mina. Maybe Foster was a bit 'green' then. He did have a few minor hiccups at the *** end of his career. But no one should really fault him for this. After all, we all get old. As a boxer, I wouldn't call Bob a highly skillful boxer in the classic sense. But he did know how to get the best out of his unique physical tools. An elongated, slim but muscular build, long reach, a great, great jab, real power in his punches. He knew how to reach, hurt and finish his opponents. No LHW of his times could cope with this package. But Bob failed badly whenever he tried to take on HWs. Summing up, Foster was the more dominant as a LHW while Archie had better success against bigger guys. Archie was the better overall fighter but Foster seemed to have honed his comparatively limited package to deadly perfection. My pick? Well I will take Archie to take two of three fights. But I am not too sure.
By no means a slam dunk, but I think I like Foster in this one. Foster can just shoot that jab all night and wait on Archie to make a mistake coming across the gap. I'd lean toward a decision for Foster, but wouldn't rule out one of those uppercuts that got Dick Tiger finding it's way through. The trouble with fighting Foster is that it literally only took one to get through to do the job.
Both great LH's Foster was more dominant ,but his opposition wasn't on a par with Archie's ,I think Foster had better one shot power,but both were real bangers,the difference was Moore could take a much better shot,so I see him winning by late ko,around the 11th.
I will go with Suzie and McVey on Valdes-Foster. Valdes had a loss record against Archie Moore but so far as Foster is concerned, he was a HW. And as we all know, Bob Foster had a dismal record against HWs. A prime Valdes, the one who beat Ezzard Charles and Tommy "Hurricane" Johnson, would have kayoed Foster for sure.
