I remember reading a boxing writer writing about Bob Foster. While extolling the qualities of Foster as a boxer, the writer commented that he would have, no doubt, beaten Floyd Patterson at HW. While gladly admitting that Foster was, without doubt, one of the greatest LHWs ever, I beg to differ from the Patterson comment made by the writer. Considering the achievments of both fighters in the HW division, I am pretty sure that Floyd Patterson would have beaten Bob Foster at HW - possibly by a late knockout. It is very possible that Foster might have knocked down Floyd one or even two times in the fight. But Floyd was a great one at getting up. At LHW it would probably be a different story, but at HW my vote goes to Patterson. What do you gentlemen think?
Patterson was the better boxer, faster, bigger puncher and better HW chin. Foster is underrated at HW though
well they could both easily fight at cruiserweight but if you did put them at the old fashion heavyweight scale when there wasn't a cruiserweight you'd get one or the other adding a little more weight prolly to add bulk to their punches... i could see either man winning in a patterson vs ingo type series ..with each putting the other out now who wins the series is another thing all together
I'll take Patterson aswell, i'm finding it hard coming to a decision on McGrain's version of this one though, if Floyd had grown into an experiened 175 pounder and fought peak Foster.....
