Prime Bob Foster 1968 vs Prime Thomas The Hitman Hearns, 175 lbs, 15 rounds.

Yes I'm absolutely positive that Foster can't out-do the Iran Barkley's and Freddie Delgado's of the world.

 

D!ck Tiger didn't last 4 rounds with Foster.
Vincente Rondon went 10 rounds with Earnie Shavers. You reckon Hearns would do that ?
I mean, we can all go back and forth all day with that stuff. It means nothing.

At the end of the day, Foster was only really stopped by heavyweights (the lightest being 182 pound Doug Jones). Hearns was stopped by welterweight and a couple of middleweights.
Foster has the chin advantage.
Hearns usually had the height and reach advantage. Against Foster he's be smaller in every way.
Hearns usually had the power advantage. Against Foster this would not be the case.

Can't see Hearns have any success here at all.

 

Freddie Delgado didn't beat Hearns. And Hearns was 38 years old.

Are we matching Hearns and Foster when they were 38? If so, Hearns by KO.

 

Well, there's where we differ. Hearns beat better light heavyweights than Foster.

Foster never beat a light heavyweight as good as Hill or HEARNS, frankly.

And Hearns never had height advantages over everyone. He didn't over Miller, or Maynard, or Shuler, didn't seem to matter.

 

He was two fight removed from being a champion.... and notice how I said 'out-do'. I know he didn't win, but he had him down. Foster demolished fighters much tougher than Hearns. Easily. It's what he did. He also squashed everyone smaller back down in weight.

Hearns has been stopped early, IN HIS PRIME, TWICE! by fighters who aren't as good as Foster (yes that includes Hagler) and yet Foster can't do it?

 

You've made more than your share of clown/outlandish statements over the years.

Michael Spinks lasted the same amount of rounds against Tyson that Marvis Frazier did. Does that mean Marvis and Spinks were on the same level?

Foster would steamroll Hearns, and early.

 

I love Hearns but I don't think he would win this one. Wouldn't be a total blowout but Foster wins.

 

What LHW did Hearns beat who was good as Foster, seeing as that's how it works, huh?

 

That's just it. Foster DID NOT demolish fighters better than Hearns. He never beat anyone better than Hill or Hearns.

In fact, Doug Jones wasn't exactly a beast.

 

Virgil Hill certainly accomplished far more than Foster did at the weight. And Hill was more successful above light heavyweight, too. Again, I wouldn't take Hill over Foster, necessarily. It's another close fight.

But Hearns beat Hill. Hearns beat Andries. Hearns beat Miller.

Foster beat Andy Kendall. And Frankie DePaula. And Roger Rouse. And Mark Tessman.

Tommy Hearns wasn't Mark Tessman.

 

Doug Jones would **** Hearns up himself. Hell, if man like Mina beat Hearns I wouldn't be surprised.

He didn't beat them, because they weren't around. Guys like Finnegan and Hank aren't exactly slouches either. He beat what was in front of him. Exceptionally.

 

Mike Tyson beat better fighters than Michael Spinks.

Bob Foster didn't beat anyone better than Tommy Hearns.

 

Losing to welterweight and needing a SD vs Tiozzo is more impressive? Okay dumbass.

Hill can hurt Muhammad Ali, can he? Doubtful.

Your persistence of that these two are on a level of Foster is ridiculous. It's on film, Foster walking through world class opponents... I don't know what more you want.

 

Finnegan went 14 rounds with him. Finnegan wasn't a slouch. But neither was Hearns. Hearns was better than Finnegan.

 

Finnegan was bowled over and banged around for the majority of the fight after the 7th. Hearns doesn't have that toughness. Especially not at 175.