Michael Spinks vs Bob Foster 175

As do I , grew up with Foster and have huge admiration for his lengthy title reign, but Spinks was a formidable LHW in his own right, and feel he would be too much of everything for Bob, if pressed, Spinks by late stoppage or RSF, but he would be treading through a minefield, one lack of concentration.........
stay safe buddy.

 

Spinks wins one of the hardest fights of his career late or via UD.

 

Spinks on points.

 

My take also. Some here are seeing it as Foster never fought anyone with the physical advantages of Spinks.... But that goes both ways. The key here is could Spinks awkwardness offset Foster's battering ram of a jab.
This fight could be boring . With both fighters respecting the fact both had lethal power at the weight.
A tough one. Spinks ability to move , and attack from odd angles should be enough to keep Foster's jab from dominating, and setting up the devastating power shots behind it. Plus Foster would need to be very mindful that Spinks "Spinks Jinxs" overhand right is just as deadly as his left hook.
Two power punchers that would need to be very careful of each other.
Probably a slow fight, Spinks does just enough to get the dec. Prime vs prime.

 

Your right that Spinks never beat anyone with the physical advantages Foster had, but what i will say and i do think this has some merit, even if it was at a different weightclass. Spinks beat bigger men than himself Holmes x2, Cooney, and lets not forget Holmes had a great jab himself, and Spinks was able to nullify Holmes's jab. So if Spinks could take away Holmes's jab. I think he could also nullify Foster's jab, and be able to cope with a big Light Heavyweight like Foster.

Lastly i just think Spinks was much more proven of the two regarding opposition, Spinks fought so many good fighters with a variety of challenging styles Marvin Johnson, Dwight Muhammad Qawi, Eddie Davis, Eddie Mustafa Muhammad, Yaqui Lopez, Murray Sutherland, and he overcame them all. Bob Foster as much as i like him as a fighter, was never really tested against a real elite Light Heavyweight. Had he beat Galindez, Conteh, we would of found out a bit more about him, unfortunately those fights didn't happen.

 

Both fighter were great in their own respective eras, but as I have always posted, A fighter can only fight the fighters that are put in front of them, not fighters from the past or present. Fantasy fights are very subjective, very opinion based which is cool. It depends on a fight fans taste. Maybe a fighter fights some very recognizable names at a certain time in boxing's rich history but that does not guarantee a victory. What is always said on this site by very talented posters, Styles Makes Fights. Bob Foster lost to heavyweights, that is a given, he did. Michael Spinks like Foster was an undisputed World Light Heavyweight Champion, then won the IBF Heavyweight Title from a great champion Larry Holmes, who was on his last legs as a champion in 1985. Bob never became champion as a heavyweight, too much talent in his era, Foster was obliterated by champion Joe Frazier on Dec 18 1970, KO 2. But like Foster, Spinks was demolished against a very legitimate champion in Mike Tyson in 1988. Michael's victory over a shot Gerry Cooney made headlines but it did not guarantee a victory over Tyson. In my opinion it is hard to say, Foster and Spinks defeated all of their 175 lb challengers except Foster's June 17 1974 draw against challenger Jorge Ahumada, Bob then retired as champion. As posted both were great proven champions.

 

I've always thought Spinks wins this. Both are colossal punchers at the weight and both were incredibly fast and accurate too. Neither were especially great defensively, and so both would get hit. The only difference is that Spinks' chin is much, much better. It's a really close fight, where the two slowly build into it and they trade jabs, Foster likely takes an early lead and probably rocks Spinks as well. But later on in the contest, Spinks starts getting into his groove and eventually starts hurting Foster and finishes him shortly thereafter. In a fifteen round fight, with no knockout, these two are as evenly matched as they come, so I'd say given the fact they're both gonna land hard on eachother, I wanna take the one with the much better chin.

Spinks TKO8 while narrowly behind on the cards.

 

Fancied Spinks ( see my post ) but this is a very thought out break down of the imaginary contest, and almost impossible to disregard or come back with counter arguments, props to you amigo.
stay safe guys.

 

Great post George. I will add tho that Spinks, when he wanted or needed to be, was a superb defensive fighter and one of the finest of his day. I know he trained him but Futch considered him one of the best 3 or so defensive fighters in the game when he was at his 175 peak.

 

Foster KO 3 Round

 

Spinks was really good at spoiling offensives. He was brilliantly awkward in a way that Foster wouldn't have dealt with before and would had to have issues with. That, and I just think Spinks is better on every level.

 

Yeah, I know. He did often assume a stance and posture that was like a shell against the ropes, and from there he could parry and slip very well, and counter too. But he usually did let a big shot slip through even then, and he usually didn't fight that way from the start, and if he did against Foster, he'd start losing rounds badly. I still think the comment about both landing big at some point in the contest holds true.

 

Spinks would smoke him.

 

H2H he's a machine and he certainly has a great resume. It's not high in quantity but it's big in quality.