Is Bob Foster overrated?

No. His era was not great... sure... but this is true to most guys that dominated for a fair amount of time, right ?
I believe the image of his brutal loss to Frazier makes him look bad, unfairly so....

 

Foster was a great fighter. No doubt about it but I don't have him up there with Spinks, Charles, Moore or Beterbiev. I think a guy like BHOP would have completely neutralized him.

All that said, he was a great fighter and scary dude with his power.

 

No, he is not overrated. Foster was a bad man. Saying he might lose to guys like Michael Spinks and Ezzard Charles is no slight on his reputation. Those two men would beat 99.9% of all men to lace them up at 175. I love MSM, but, I think he leaves himself open too often to survive Foster. (Even though I love Saad more )

 

Bob Foster had a seriously good jab that set up his power shots, and I saw how Qawi reacted after tasting Mike Spinks right hand in that loss. He'd have the same reaction to getting hit by Fosters left hook.

 

I have been on record here as being a bit hard on Foster myself, so I might agree that he's not as great as some make him out to be. It's easy to look good knocking over lesser men, but it makes you wonder what would happen if his challengers offered more.

He had real power and a good jab, but a lot of other greats had that and more.

 

That's an ordinary way to look at Saad. The guy was a fantastic fighter and often makes top 10's at the weight.

His power would be very very dangerous for Dwight. Dwight had a great chin but at 175 no chin is safe from a banger like Foster. Ring had him at #17 in their greatest punchers of all time. His power at 175 was totally insane.

Saad takes too many punches IMO to beat a horrific pitcher like Foster.

 

I would pick over him and rate these fighters higher than him: Archie Moore, Spinks, Tunney, Ezzard Charles and Qawi.

 

IDK that Foster is "overrated" as much as he is untested/unproven vs. a higher level of opposition. The reason I make that distinction is b/c "overrated" implies that he isn't as great as he looks, whereas he may well have been that great, but just didn't have the opportunity to demonstrate it.

Regarding a match w/ Qawi, I would favor Foster to beat him in a manner similar to this:

This content is protected

 

I think Foster absolutely had the chops so it’s hard for me to call him overrated. But stop and think about the folks people are suggesting would take him. I am not hearing any chopped liver mentioned, but ATGs who have a chance to take most anyone.

 

Revisionist history...(as usual)...I saw Foster fight in person defending his title in 1969....champ from 1968 to 1974...14 title defenses...BRUTAL left hook...one of a handful of the best Lt Heavyweight champs of all time...

 

Foster is pretty much a lock for top five H2H at 175 IMO. Stylistically, you'd expect him to shine against boxers and faulter against pressure fighters. It doesn't really play out that way though, coz walking into his wheelhouse is suicide. Ideally, you'd want a guy whose quicker, can stop Foster and is tough enough to take what's coming back. The only three I can think of are Spinks, Charles and Moore, and even then, Foster could win all three.

In terms of greatness, I agree. He's overrated. I think he could really be outside the top 15 at 175.

 

And who did he defend against on this auspicious occasion? The legendary Andy Kendall?

 

Thanks , I agree 100%

 

Damn, all the Classic Forum sacred cows being attacked this week..