Bob Foster vs Artur Beterbiev

Actually, there's only 4 LHWs I'd pick over Foster... Ever.

 

Reckon I can hazard a guess who they are.

Spoiler

Ezz, obvs.. sisi1

Moore. Bivins. Conn, and ... Spinks?

 

Gvozdyk.

Remember that guy, that everyone had a hard-on over for the past few years?

 

You need more than a left hook to beat Beterbiev......

Beterbieb is a 2x Olympic and has defeated Kovalev and Gvozdyk as an amateur. He also took Usyk the distance.

Yet for some reason people think a left-hook happy Bob Foster can negate everything Beterbiev has to offer....

 

Actually no,

Ezzard, Spinks, Loughran & Lewis (yeah, my research went well).

Bivins is an easy nights work for Foster actually imo, Conn was elusive, but not elusive enough to attack all night without tasting that left hook and/or getting by his awkward ass jab. Moore is a 50-50 imo, can see either winning but I think Foster lands first, and then wins.

 

I meant to say Conn or Spinks rather than "and" (me can real good counts to four!! )

I was pretty rock solid on the other three being Ezz/Archie/Jimmy. Moot point, guess idk sheeeeeyit.

 

Bivins is a brawler with long arms. I'd say that's like candy for Foster. He has a tough chin but it wasn't uncrackable, Foster would apply pressure w his jab for a few rounds until he had Bivins figured out, then start tagging him with rights before lining up a brutal counter. He'd then follow through and finish him off imo.

Moore is an interesting one, as his skill at and knowledge of opening people up and power is enough to beat foster on its own, then add in the footwork, speed and agility with his accuracy and angles, you'd be hard pressed to not favour Moore.

But Moore would have an issue w Foster's jab imo, and his tactic of crossing his arms and slipping to the right would set him up perfectly for a left hook. If he couldn't take Patterson's or Charles's... This is a whole different kettle of fish.

Although Foster wasn't bulletproof and Moore was the equivalent of a 12 Gauge at 175. 50-50 imo.

Charles is a really really bad match up for him, and is on a level of his own when it comes to light heavyweights. His counter punching style and slick way of getting inside would cause Foster issues on his own. Then Charles's footwork would let him steer Foster into position, and line up some bloodcurdling shots, probably like a more drawn version of the Satterfield fight.

 

Foster had much more than a left hook...

 

Oh, as for Spinks and Lewis

Spinks

Adding to this, I'd say it looks like the Yaqui Lopez fight in terms of length and the momentum shifting drastically as it's drawn out, and of course Spinks's power, or Foster's lack of durability, being the largest deciding factor.

Lewis imo is a complete enigma due to the lack of footage, but based on reports and styles, I'd say he's awful for Foster. An in and out darting fighter with excellent balance, brilliant boxing skills, lightning fast speed and reflexes with punching power good enough to drop and hurt Slapsie Maxie as well as having good body shots and an iron chin.

I think he'd end up timing Foster's jab and countering it long enough to start swelling up Foster's eyes and landing body shots to slowly start putting it on Foster, with straight rights over the jab and does it long enough to win a decision. Foster's jab is more than good enough to take rounds off Lewis and would cause a lot of issues but ultimately be the reason he'd lose this one imo.

It should be noted that Ray Arcel said Lewis was the best boxer and fighter he'd ever seen at LHW, including Foster.

 

The jury's out on him too, he's awesome, but he didn't look very impressive against Stevenson, although was against AB. Until he looks good in a winning performance over an elite fighter who isn't old, he's still no more proven than say, Chris Finnegan.

Although I think he'd beat Chris quite comfortably, who's to say he won't get ironed out by Storm Alverez or Anthony Yarde?