We all know the story. Foster was absolutely dominant at LHW, but came up short every time he stepped up against a decent HW. Tunney, Charles and even Moore had all been more succesful stepping up, why wasn't Foster? Was it because of his style or was it because the difference between LHWs and HWs just had become bigger since the 1950's? How would Foster fare as a HW if he had been active sometime pre 1960?
A decent heavy? He never lost to any terrible ones sans Hazelton who he beat in his second to last fight, and then lost to.
Foster was a 6 3 string bean a natural LH he had difficulty putting on weight and could not absorb the punches of the bigger men ,Moore was much more durable ,6' and very well built,he in contrast struggled for years to make the LH limit.Charles and Tunney, well built 6 footers were in the Moore mould.Tunney went to a logging camp and chopped trees to toughen up his body and spent hours running backwards in sand ,prepping for Dempsey.Foster' physique made him a great LH ,but worked against him when he moved up ,also he was in to the era of big Heavies .
No, He would only have trouble with the best Heavyweights. Pre 1960-Foster weould be able to stick around the division for a while. The Heavies were slightly smaller. If Foster followed in Tunney's footsteps then he might have been just as succesful IMO. A Heavyweight version of Foster might have pulled it off against a faded Dempsey.
