Bob Foster Vs Michael Spinks (LHW)

I'd pick Spinks to stop Foster late. Spinks was very good at adapting and changing his game plan in the middle of the fight. It would take him a couple of rounds to figure Foster out, and then Michael would come on in the middle/later rounds to win.

 

Spinks by decision.

 

It isn't easy to hit bob foster with right hands; he kept his body turned and he understood distance real well. he had a much more educated left hand than did Spinks- brilliant jab and, of course, that hook- and a pretty solid right hand of his own.
Of course Spinks could stop anybody any time he hit them with his right hand, and he knocked out somebody (one of the guys named Davis around at the time?) with a left uppercut off the break. I think Foster would beat him, though. by decision in a pretty tactical fight.

 

That's how I see it.

 

I agree.

madmanc is indeed an idiot/troll, but ranking Foster over Spinks at LHW is nothing outrageous at all.

Spinks beat better opposition, H2H can go either way. These are two of the best LHWs era in H2H matchups.

 

At 175? And let's not forget the previous poster's mention of the 'bulking up regimen' that occured 12 years or so after Bob's prime.
I know, Gregory nuthugger here, but, right or wrong, did anyone know that the Associated Press scored the Gregory-Spinks title fight a 145-145 draw? This after 'mind-numbed' Eddie gains 20+ pounds to fight 'Mr. Snipes' then has to go into a pressure cooker to make weight against Spinks looking like a shriveled pear when he entered the ring. Don't know why a rematch didn't occur, probably big bucks and behind the scenes BS!
Spinks? Great LH! Foster? Greater LH (IMO). Gregory? Had his head been on straight IMHO he could have been one of the best pvp fighters EVER!
Look at the tools he wasted with his nonsense...slick, ****y, stylish boxer, numbing lights out puncher, great set of whiskers, NO ONE stopped him, forget his last fight.
Back to thread, I'd lean towards Bob at 175 all things considered.

 

This really is a tough pick. I could see either winning. Both were devastating punchers at LHW and both could box. Despite the potential for a lot of fireworks, I believe each would be respectful of the other's abilities and it would be a tactical battle that would go the limit, similar to the Spinks-Qawi unification bout.

Foster usually enjoyed huge physical advantages in height and reach over his LHW opposition, and in Spinks he would be meeting another tall, lanky, and skilled opponent who would offset most of Bob's physical advantages. As has been aptly noted, Spinks fared much better as a heavyweight than did Foster but that is not to say he would beat Foster as a LHW.

If pressed I would lean toward Foster winning a close decision but would not be surprised however it ended.

 

One quick note...Spinks fared better at HW because he beat the likes of an older Holmes tho still capable, a completely washed up Cooney and some other non entity before being destroyed by a young lethal HW in Tyson. How would he have done if he had to take on a threshing machine in Joe Frazier and perhaps the greatest HW of all time in Ali like Foster did?