I really do prize longevity though I must say, it's something I believe in. Any star can burn brightly for a short time, it's about maintaining that in all weathers that matters when it comes to greatness IMO. You don't think Foster was troubled by Finnegan?
I think dominating over a very good division for a fair length oftime is better than dominating over a good division fora long time. As Zarate wasnt exactly a flash in the pan, he was a long-time reigner. Actually, yeh he was troubled. I mean Foster never really liked being punched did he? And he did tend to get abit jittery when he wasnt in command. Zarate seemed much calmer and more well rounded IMO.
Foster never really showed any durability issues at Light Heavyweight. Only at Heavyweight, when consistently out-muscled and out-weighed against opponents able to take him out of his comfort zone did he show vulnerabilities, really. I actually think a guy like Spinks, who liked to box and await his opportunities, would be a pretty ideal opponent for Foster. Of course it could go the other way with one well placed bomb, but I'd favor Bob more often than not in that one. Same with Charles, really.
I think that better describes Foster than it does Spinks. Spinks was just a slow starter, but he'd more accustomed to picking up the pace and going on the offensive than Foster would..who liked to work patiently behind jab and throw the right cross. That fight is decided on superior toughness in my judgment, Spinks still had a solid look about him when he had to take good shots...Foster less so.
Do you think there is any way his fragility at HW could be "re-created" by the very best LHW's? How far behind Foster do you feel Zarate is in a purely h2h sense? I find the question, "who is better?" pretty nightmarish to answer myself.
Spinks never really seemed the type to go on the offensive unless the fight was brought to him or he felt he needed it. It showed against a guy like Eddie Davis especially, being as Davis showed superb defense throughout, boxed on even terms (at least), and actually started to walk Spinks down toward the end of the bout, landing solid combinations to both the body and the head. Davis was a different type of fighter than Foster, mind, but I think Foster was capable of giving him some of the same issues with a similar gameplan, his power playing the equalizer the way Davis's defense did.
I was just typing out a response to your last post when it froze up and the tabs closed for whatever reason. **** like that happens all the time.
The Davis fight came nearing the end of his time at Light Heavyweight, and although I'm not suggesting Spinks was past his best, he certainly wasn't producing the goods at that time. I tend to think he had bigger fish to fry, he had dealt with the main names at 175lbs and had ambitions to make waves at Heavyweight. Boredom could have been settling in. Purely speculation...but nobody could have envisioned Spinks beating Holmes after watching 16 fight novice McDonald take him to 8. The way you described Michael Spinks briefly was almost as if Foster would have Spinks at the end of the jab and reluctant to close the distance. Spinks was a slower starter, and he wasn't always in complete control of the action, but he had no problen stepping inside and committing to short, compact combination's. I find Bob Foster to be quite basic...Spinks would have the jab, straight right hand and the left hook to deal with....whereas Spinks delivered shots from all kinds of angles, and only needed 2-3 inches space to get his shots off. Quite amazing for a big man. Spinks was able to move up to Heavyweight and still win despite being at a disadvantage physically. Whether that has any relevance here I don't know.
Even a lackadaical Holmes would have beat him, Fosters attack wasnt as mulitdimensional as Spinks, even an unmotivated Holmes would have finished him by the 8th or 9th round.