Bob Foster vs Michael Spinks LHW

it means a lot. The guys Foster beat at light heavyweight never moved up and competed at heavyweight to show versatility and Foster did not show that versatility.. The fact Spinks could do it shows he had something Foster did not, and his right hand was decent even at heavyweight as Cooney and Tangsted would attest to.

 

Spinks was just a better fighter than Foster. That is saying a lot, because Foster is one of the best LH's ever. Michael's style was much more complex and effective than Foster. Foster may have hit slightly harder, but Mike's power was right up there with Foster. Mike had the better chin, too. If they fought, I would go with Spinks.

 

Much of that "something" may simply have been Spinks willingness and committment to put on 25 plus pounds and give the Heavyweight division his full attention.

 

You're right there. Foster showed some excellent skills in that fight (I have called it his most skilled performance before). His bobbing style would have fitted a short Heavyweight brilliantly. As a Light Heavyweight, though, it makes him look like the Hunchback of Notre Dame.

 

Eddie Mustafa Muhammad made an exploratory foray into the heavyweight ranks a few years before Michael, with the support of Archie Moore, but failed miserably against Snipes. But Spinks undertook a conditioning and weight gaining regimen which was unlike that ever performed by any previous light heavyweight challenger of the heavyweight crown. Between the ears, Michael was as clever as any champion has ever been, and trained with intelligence as well as discipline. JT, remember this?:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1119972/1/index.htm

 

Bob Foster is very underrated. Watch him take apart a prime good contender in Allen Thomas. Foster is perhaps the greatest 175lb puncher of all time. His arms were so long, he could hit you anywhere, anytime. He was accurate, his punches had top speed and plenty of snap on them. When he hit you flush, you were dead. His jab is his best weapon. Very long, it was fast sharp and elegant...one of the best of all time. He actually outjabbed muhammad Ali. The only man to ever cut Ali.


Spinks ackward, gumbi like style would make Foster look bad at times..but I see foster eventually catching spinks in the wrong position on one of his unpredictable motions with a big hook and then fishing off Michael. Michael was a tall, hard hitting, and a very intelligent unpredictable boxer. He would have success vs Foster's height and reach. He will sneak under the jab and land punches at a wide variety of angles. But Spinks put himself into danger zone one too many times..and Foster needs only one mistake to put your lights out.

Foster KO 8 Spinks- Spinks ahead on the cards.

 

Remember it fondly my friend. Look at the excruciating preparation and forward planning of Spinks and co vs Foster usually just fighting about 5 pounds heavier and that was it. No comparison.

 

From the 80s (when Spinks fought) to now, moving up in weights has got easier.

Back in the day fighters either naturally grew into the weight OR simply fought at their same weight in a higher division. You can’t really compare Foster’s campaign at heavy to Spinks’…and in recent times it’s got far, far easier than back on the 80s.

 

Was enough to see him destroyed by Frazier and Ali , and maintaining he wuz also destroyed by Terrell and Johnson to know that he is not even a top 10 all time LHW , comparable to Spinks ? of course not.
The better question should have been : Eric Harding vs. Bob Foster.
My answer ? probably Harding.

 

I'm only willing to say it's to bad their respective prime years did not coincide, and I don't think anyone will argue against that.

 

Michael Spinks is the very innovator responsible for that, the very individual who finally proved it was possible (at the expense of Holmes). He's the reason why RJJ and others knew it could be done, and deserves credit for breaking through to the very top, and initiating that change. (Well, the fact is that Roy hired Mackie Shilstone to successfully condition himself for Ruiz in 2003, just as Michael had worked with Shilstone prior to Holmes in 1985. Shilstone would not be an irrational choice for the IBHOF's non participant category.)

 

In actuality, the late Mustafa Wassaja did stop a 39 year old Foster after five rounds in Bob's first defeat after Ali. Four years later, Michael used multiple hooks to turn Wassaja into a bobblehead doll in his second title defense.

The final win and final defeat of Bob Foster's career came against the suicidally juiced Bob Hazelton. Even with Foster advancing in years, there's no way Hazelton ever could have competed with him as actually happened without benefit of extreme steroid use. Hazelton claimed to have evolved the notion to undertake steroid use as a result of his 1969 squashing at the hands of Foreman, and began experimenting with them in 1971, long before they were outlawed. What might have happened if Bob Foster himself likewise decided to start using steroids in response to his crushing loss against Frazier? Is there any way he then manages to pull off an upset win for the heavyweight championship over a post Manila Ali?

Could steroids have bolstered his ability to take a heavyweight punch by that much? I just watched Bob get floored by 182 pound Doug Jones in the first, and 202 pound string bean Ernie Terrell in the seventh. DePaula sneaked in a flash opening round knockdown. Frazier nearly had him down for the count with a single hook. (With today's pussified and skittish, paranoid referees, their title fight might have been stopped then and there, as he had significant trouble regaining his footing.) Ali bounced him off the deck several times with mostly singular punches (including a few of Muhammad's much less heralded left hooks) before flooring him for the full count, and this is somebody who the Sheriff claims, "Couldn't bust a grape!" Well, only Richard Dunn came this close to being made into a basketball by an extremely well prepared and conditioned GOAT. (Granted, Bonavena would have shared the same bouncing fate without the three knockdown rule in place, but that was as the result of damage from one single wrecking ball hook delivered after 14 rugged rounds.)

Michael was a notoriously slow starter who got caught cold and frozen in the headlights by a peaking and legendary fast starter Tyson in 90 seconds, when Michael was on the brink of turning 32 and hadn't fought in over a year. There is nothing in Michael's peak to suggest that Bob would have been able to stop him, while Foster's ability to stand up to Michael's heavy artillery is considerably more questionable.

After spectacularly dethroning Tiger, Bob stepped in the ring a second time with the rugged but very mediocre Eddie Vick. In the first round, Vick, who had NO stoppage victories in his 11 recorded wins, put Foster on the deck. (This is the ONLY knockdown boxrec credits to Vick in 29 fights!) It took Robert a total of 19 rounds to finally stop this sub 200 pound also ran.

Now that brings up another point. Did Bob ever possess a legitimate heavyweight punch? (He says that if he could have weighed 190 pounds for Frazier and Ali that he would have knocked both out. Does anybody buy this?) He'd better have an all time heavyweight punch (not that this did Cooney any good), because there is absolutely nothing from Michael's entire career to suggest that anything less would suffice to cause serious distress, let alone from Michael's peak years, especially once the Jinx had a chance to warm up.

Eddie Mustafa Muhammad was virtually shut out by Snipes over ten rounds, yet never took a backwards step. Michael then put Eddie on the deck. Does Bob Foster last ten rounds with the 215 pound Mister Snipes, or remain upright throughout if he does?

While I initially favored Michael by decision, I've been scanning footage of both to try bolstering a case for Bob. What I'm finding instead is that Foster's power seems to largely disappear even against the smallish Jones, who also dents his chin in short order. Delete Holmes and Cooney from Michael's record, and Steffen Tangstad remains far and away the best heavyweight either man defeated (let alone dropped and stopped), with the Norwegian's wins over Bugner, Evangelista, Rodriguez and Lakusta (who then had a Canadian Heavyweight Title win in his near future), and draw with Douglas.

This content is protected

. (Etienne, Stewart, Marvis Frazier, Carl Williams, Seldon, Tillman and Savarese also got wiped out by Tyson in one, so I'm inclined to give the notoriously slow starting, rusty, aging and intimidated Michael a pass here. That result indicates nothing about how Bob might have done against Michael peak for peak.)

This content is protected

.

 

Neither of them showed any notable heavyweight power imo.tangsted and that inept faded version of Cooney were glorified journeymen challengers.Spinks power in those fights was no more impressive than Conteh cutting a swathe through(and easily hurting) journeymen heavyweights in his first 15 odd fights.I certainly wouldn't say he proved he had a notable heavy punch and neither did Spinks imo.

Foster of course fought better opposition than Spinks and often on their terms, ie in tough learning bouts as a young neophyte pro..and tended to lose.Tough to say where his power stood above 175.

It's likely neither would be anything special as heavyweight punchers when pitted against the field.imo it's not near the most relevant things in deciding the outcome between the two.


I have a feeling it will come down to who copes better with the other's jab and stance myself.

 

Spinks would catch Foster with more clean shots, but he would feel the pain as well.

 

I particularly don't vs Frazier, can't see that 2 extra pounds helping that much