As we know, Bob Foster moved up to fight some of the best HW's of is day without much success. Would he do anybody better against Charles and JJW?
No. Foster didn’t just lose to the great heavyweights of his era; he lost to the good ones as well. The heavyweight division just wasn’t for him.
If the fight was above 175, then Charles would be a strong strong favourite. Foster never beat anybody worth beating, who weighted 176lbs+ at the weigh in.
i'm not sure about that, charles was not really a proper hw either, both men would weigh about the same so/and i don't think charles holds the same advantages as most of the hw's who beat foster did. he does have great skill, chin and, when he felt it, desire, but those weren't the things that put other guys over foster. edit - you're right, the bookies probably would have charles as fav, but i don't really like this fight for him.
They were both light heavyweights, but Foster was a light heavyweight with a consistent record of failure at heavyweight, and Charles was a light heavyweight with a consistent record of success at heavyweight. This is not a pick em fight on any level.
but neither was a natural hw so what charles achieved, and foster didn't achieve, against bigger men doesn't really matter to the result of this fight. foster was beaten by guys weighing over 200lbs, charles just isn't that size of bloke. dismissing foster vs a 180-190lb guy up from lhw on the basis of his results vs 200lb+ natural heavies seems a bit twisted to me.
from his 13th fight loss to jones(edit - mina) to his 64th fight loss to unweighed nobody foster lost 4 fights, in every one of those his opponent was over 200lbs. i don't see the vulnerability below 200lbs because over a 15 year period encompassing his prime he beat every man he faced between 175 and 199 lbs.
Even if you take the best possible view that you can of Foster, he never beat a live body over 175. Charles for contrast was on the verge of being a dominant champion! These are simply not men who are peers in this argument!
i disagree, quite strongly tbh. If foster never faced a decent 175-199'r and only lost to decent 200's how can you conclude any world level guy over 175 beats him? there just isn't the info to reach that conclusion. charles doesn't have the physical tools to replicate the wins those guys had over foster, and since they were the only wins over close to prime foster i see no basis to make charlse a huge fav. don't get me wrong, charles was amazing and imo is still underrated despite his stock having risen a lot in the past decades, but i see no clear advantage for him here.
