Jack Dempsey vs Bob Foster

dempsey would "bob" under bobs hook and ****ing murder him.

 

yea i have heard your total disrespect for anyone born before 1940..so i cant reallly take what you say seriously

 

:blood

what footage of dempsey have you watched? i am guessing the first round with willard..and????

 

As for Foster's records against HWs it's worth pointing out that his losses to Jones, Terrell and Folley came within his first 20 fights, the last of them 2,5 years before he won the LHW title, so he was probably still a bit green.

 

stylistically i dont see bob having anything to trouble dempsey with really....footwork isnt good enough..to stright up and down....he might get lucky with dempsey coming in..but the young mobil dempsey would handle him well.

 

Former Foster pupil Doug Jones was 182 for Bob, decked his former coach in the opening round, then staggered him in rounds seven and eight when the referee called a halt. Bob could be a monster against 175 pounders who might be drained from having to make weight, or oversized former middleweights. However, when testing his punch on heavyweights of any quality at all, his power seemed virtually impotent. Ali mocked him, and Frazier blew right through him at the outset of round two. With Dempsey, he'd be extremely fortunate to survive the outset of round one.

 

No, Bob's something of a special case in that respect. We all know that he didn't just compete in the amateur ranks for the USAF, he was also a coach, who tutored future conqueror Doug Jones among others. Bob was already 24 years old when Jones beat him in 1962, and 26 years old when Terrell turned the trick. He was 27 when Folley dominated him.

Right before losing to Jones, he took an eight round SD over the very seasoned Bert Whitehurst, quality experience. Due to his relatively late professional start, he had no time to waste. Therefore, I do think these defeats are more significant than they might be for others with a similar amount of professional background in their resumes.

 

It is worth pointing out, but we are talking about matching him aghainst Jack Dempsey here.

A fighter would have surely have to gain at least one win against a world class heavyweight before it was even worth debating whether he could beat Dempsey?

 

A great match-up..... Not a mismatch at all..... However, I doubt this fight goes past 6 rds in a time machine... Foster would be taller than Dempsey by a couple of inches, but also a hair lighter as well...

I see Foster at 6' 3" tall and around 181 pounds going to war with the solid 6' and 188 pound Dempsey from the early getgo... BUT! This fight comes down to who the better catcher is; not the better pitcher... Both guys can pitch really well, however, Dempsey would be the better catcher and wear down Foster for the 6th round KO....

MR.BILLbbb

 

Smokin Joe steamrolled Foster and smashed him with a chilling left hook.....Dempsey would do the same.

 

I was counting on seeing you in here and saying something to this effect. ...That's how I know I'm here too much.

 

That's a terribly negative and narrow assessment of poor Bob. Just because Bob didn't polaxe heavyweights doesn't mean he wasn't an awesome unit of destruction at 175.

Michael Spinks lost immense power going up to heavyweight as well and Holmes shrugged off his great right hands as if they were absolutely nothing. Remember too that Michael made quite the scientific effort to put on weight that would be effective where Foster simply came in 5 or so pounds heavier than 175 and never campained seriously there.

What never gets talked of is that when Foster took on lower level heavyweights he almost invariably ko'd them.

 

I think we should give him the same benefit of a doubt we give late starters as for example Holmes and Lewis. We also treat them as pre-prime at that age, considering their relative few pro fights.

 

Sure. It was only to give a bit of perspective on those losses.

 

Since Dempsey was not a lower level heavyweight, I don't see the relevance of this remark.