Foster vs. Fitzsimmons

I'd say the other man in this hypothetical matchup has a very good case.

 

Itrymariti, on a personal level i can't accept that comment about it not getting worse than Foster. It's not about technical proficiency, this is a monster of a fighter at 175. There are definitley many questions hanging over his head to head ability at the weight though, i'll concede that willingly, the level of comp was never great/the styles match-up was never horrible for him etc etc, but i've always give him the benefit of the doubt mainly because that power is no joke and his aggression was undeniable, regardless of the jab.

 

Yeah, both do defo.

 

Fitz was faster, a better puncher with either hand, was much stronger, took a much better punch and was better defensively ... Fitz would keep him off balance with his own fast jab and put Foster's lights out. I clearly understand not matching Fitz up with the post 1960's huge fighters but from middle to cruiser he would be deadly in any era.

 

The jab might play a part, probably would. What happens though, if Foster just leans on him and starts unleashing hooks? Because he fought like that as well, i reckon he would devastate Fitz if he did that personally.

 

He wasn't a bad fighter. I just don't think he has any real stylistic attributes to distinguish him from other, really quite crude hyper-power-punchers like Jackson, and I certainly wouldn't class him on the level of pure punchers like Zarate or even Arguello in terms of skills. He does have the jab, fair enough, but that was barely enough to get him past solid, world-level but not great operators like Finnegan, so I don't see it being a game-breaker against the very best H2H at 175. And, honestly, some of his opponents were just awful, really really bad; I mean I've seen amateurs with much more ability than Tommy Hicks. Power can only take you so far.

Also RE his aggression - I don't think he was aggressive enough actually. He's aggressive at mid-range once you start getting in exchanges with him (he doesn't have the flaw that, say, Arguello or Louis sometimes did which was to just stand there covering up when an opponent let fly with a few shots - Foster did punch back over the top, which is a good thing). But in terms of pushing the fight or dictating the pace, in terms of cutting off the ring and getting your shots off first, I don't think he's aggressive enough. If he did that really well it would make a huge difference, because then everybody would just be overwhelmed by the power before they could get started, and he'd be a real handful H2H. But if he stands there too tentatively against Jones or Charles and doesn't let his hands go, they're just going to neutralise him and get there first the way I see it.

 

*And I think that would happen if they fought.

 

Yeah, i'm not disputing his lack of technical skills, i'm just making a case for his effectiveness, which is a strange thing regarding some fighters, but it is what it is imo. Again, itry, when i'm talking about his aggression, it's not a technical observation i'm making, cutting off the ring, educated pressure etc, these aren't his traits as you've said. But a lot of the time he'd just lean on men (you sometimes call him a hunchback for it) and punch the **** out of their faces, and it worked because he hit so hard.

Like i said earlier, i'll concede without debate that he never fought any true quality outboxing light-heavies who could attempt to exploit that style of fighting, but he did have an accurate jab and some movement, even if the footwork that was the vehicle for it wasn't pretty to watch, so you never know, BUT- That's why guys like Tommy Loughran i give a great chance of beating him

 

Yeah, Jones or Charles are ones that i'd favour over him, especially Jones, from a stylistic perspective, but he's definitely getting ko'd if Foster gets 'lucky'. Charles is one that Foster could fight with i reckon, because Charles liked to fight, albeit with supreme skill, but he liked to fight. The likelihood is that Charles simply gets off a lot more than Foster does and wins because of that. But Charles could be hurt so Foster has a chance imo.

 

Good point and I can't add anything to it, the big weakness with Bob was his not pushing the button, he did wait,,,and sometimes wait and wait and wait as with the fifteen round snoozer with Ray Anderson. When peeved though as with Rondon,,,!

 

Fitz was better than Bob Foster

BTW to clear up confusion, hes a New Zealander, clear as day, of incidental Irish and Cornish parentage.
Where you spend most of childhood and early adult life is where you get your formative influences. Colonial NZ was a very different place to Britain.

 

Foster by KO in 5.

 

i'd pick tommy hearns over fitz.fitz has no business being near a ring with charles, foster, moore, spinks or roy jones

 

Bobby Fitz is another dude who also has little to no real telling footage available for examination......... His legend is mostly based on newspaper clippings and tales from the hood.......

We can always pop in tapes of Bobby Foster laying mo-fo's out like light-bulbs any ol' day of the week..... Well, I can anyway.........

Foster is my pick......

OH! Foster's is a good beer on them hot summer days........ I can down a sixer easy....

MR.BILL

 

Good call, my mate's fridge is always full of Fosters, i might see him for the World Cup later:good