Rank them 1-4 on ability at lhw: E.Charles, A.Moore, B.Foster, M.Spinks

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by horst, Nov 25, 2009.


  1. horst

    horst Guest

    Bob Foster is not doing as well as I hoped so far. I am becoming a huge fan of his. I think he was a MONSTER at lhw.
     
  2. My2Sense

    My2Sense Boxing Junkie Full Member

    11,935
    92
    Aug 21, 2008
    Charles
    Moore
    Spinks
    Foster


    Same as above.
     
  3. My2Sense

    My2Sense Boxing Junkie Full Member

    11,935
    92
    Aug 21, 2008
    He was.

    The thing is, so were the others you named - at least as much if not moreso.
     
  4. Ezzard

    Ezzard Well-Known Member Full Member

    2,070
    19
    Nov 11, 2005
    Charles has to be number 1...

    I'd have Moore a close second.

    I think Foster has the best chance of beating Charles in a one-off fight.

    With guys this good anyone can beat anyone.
     
  5. horst

    horst Guest

    Agreed. What I wouldn't give to see this four-man tournament actually happen!!
     
  6. asero

    asero Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    17,373
    309
    Jan 8, 2009
    Charles, Moore, Spinks, Foster
     
  7. Flea Man

    Flea Man มวยสากล Full Member

    82,426
    1,465
    Sep 7, 2008
    Never during work hours :good soon as I get home it's play time.

    Right, here goes;

    For me, on film (EDIT: regardless of all I've seen of Charles against Bivins, I deduct my theories similar to how I feel about Ray Robinson at 147, i.e he'd be this much quicker, his punches would have this more effect, he'd be stronger. Fair way of reasoning?) AND in terms of resume, it's Charles. I think, due to extensively watching the other three as well as him (well, as much as I can get my hands on) that Charles has the right mix of fluidity, durability, all-round ability and power to come on top in a hypothetical series against all the others.

    Spinks' noted awkwardness makes him a horrible proposition against any of these. His wins at Light-Heavy are not really his fault; I have no doubt that if he'd come around a few years earlier he would've beaten Qawi, Yaqui, Mustafa, Saad. As it stands, the wins he did have were still decent, even if the division was not as packed with the prime beasts as it was a few years before.

    I'm a MASSIVE Foster fan. I actually think he has a damn good chance of being Charles' boogeyman; regardless of Charles' penchant for fighting much bigger guys weighing in around the Light-Heavy limit, Fosters ranginess, consistent and brilliant jab, and the bombs that would come off of it were deadly.

    Moore, Charles and Foster could all be hurt at Light-Heavy (Foster is the least durable of all of them at the higher weight, though this is not what is being asked)

    I think it's Spinks caginess that saw him through a lot of his fights. I'm not sure it would work here, he's in with two of the most canny operators boxing has ever seen, let alone this weight. They won't be perturbed by his standing off and waiting to land the big bombs, they will take the fight to him more than anyone else did at 175.

    Good idea? I'm not sure.

    This is a complete toss-up. For all I know Spinks could beat them all. I'm pretty sure that Charles>Moore.

    Very, very hard pick.

    Charles
    Moore
    Foster/Spinks

    But is it?

    More thought required methinks. I'm not gonna delve into Boxrec to find any inaccuracies that might aid my choices, not my style. All had consistent patches, some longer than others, some with better opposition.

    One thing I'm certain is that these four are probably the top 4 hardest punchers in the divisions history (unless I'm missing someone notable that for some reason has sliped my mind?) and even the ordering of that is subjective.
    EDIT: Despite their better/sometimes heavier comp', and Moore's massive K.O tally, on film Foster still looks the most destructive out of the four, even taken for his sub-standard opposition in comparison. Any disagreement here?

    Again, damn good thread and poses questions that are genuinely hurting my head:lol::good
     
  8. natonic

    natonic Boxing Addict Full Member

    5,581
    83
    Jul 9, 2008
    Charles, Spinks, Foster, Moore. This is razor close and my thoughts on these guys seems to change with who I've seen most recently.
     
  9. Flea Man

    Flea Man มวยสากล Full Member

    82,426
    1,465
    Sep 7, 2008
    Agreed. Whilst it's clear Moore has the biggest K.O%, Charles has the best resume, I think it's hard to definitively pick the biggest/best puncher and the 'best' fighter in a H2H sense.

    Charles is the GREATEST out of all four of them though, followed by Moore (Moore just outside top ten for me, Charles at no.4) and Spinks following (probably between 35-45) and Foster (bottom end of the top 50) off the top of me head, anyway:good
     
  10. he grant

    he grant Historian/Film Maker

    25,429
    9,410
    Jul 15, 2008
    I willtell you, I was underestimating Spinks for a while but rewatched his fight w Qwai and he looked exceptional against a great fighter in his own prime ... a very tough call here ..
     
  11. Flea Man

    Flea Man มวยสากล Full Member

    82,426
    1,465
    Sep 7, 2008
    Reasons? Oh, no I forgot, you know **** all about boxing. Why don't you rewatch Carbajal-Arce?:lol:
     
  12. JohnThomas1

    JohnThomas1 VIP Member

    52,804
    44,427
    Apr 27, 2005
    Was his fight vs Lopez too when Spinks was still learning his craft. Shows exactly what he was made of.