Should Bob Foster by in the top5 of lightheavyweights? A few thoughts..

Well, Jones' other two defeats were to high ranked heavyweights Machen and Folley and Jones was soon to knock out Folley in a rematch. Johnson defeated Jones far more decisively that Folley or Machen did, or for that matter than Ali did in the very next fight after the Folley knockout.

 

What is the evidence Foster could defeat the 180 to 200 lb contenders either?

 

In his first 22 fights, Charles also had a victory over former champion and Hall-of-Famer Teddy Yarosz and former lightheavy champion Anton
Christoforidis. Also, 22 is a handy cutout number, for during the rest of that year, when Charles was 21, he won eight straight fights, seven against ranked opposition, and four against Hall-of-Famers (two each against Charley Burley and Joey Maxim).
Foster was simply not defeating that level of competition.

 

Sounds like Bob's loss to Jones is quite understandable then, given he was raw and Jones seems much better than given credit for.

 

Different fighters different level of development. One is fighting at a higher level earlier. Some come on fast, some take longer. Foster cleaned out the 175 division once he got going and ruled convincingly. Losses to heavyweights cannot be held against him, simple. At 175 he kicked ass, again and again, winning the title and taking on all comers for 6 or so years and was undefeated in the 175 ranks for 13 odd years. I can't ask for much more, it's just a shame the division wasn't richer at the time so he could poleaxe some bigger fish.

 

The sucesses against heavyweights should not even be considered when ranking at light-heavyweight UNLESS the fighter weighed inside or around the 175 pound mark.

So, for example, Michael Spinks' win over Holmes does not make him a greater light-heavyweight, because he weighed 200 pounds.
However, if you are impressed by Billy Conn getting KO'd by Joe Louis you can count that towards his worth as a light-heavyweight because he weighed inside the 175 limit.

Leeway of 5 pounds might be acceptable, since many non-title light-heavyweight fights would accept fighters weighing 178 or 180.

But when it's men going in at 185, 190, 200 pounds I dont see how that can count as merit for LIGHT-HEAVYWEIGHT.

Gene Tunney was probably more comfortable and better as a 185-190 pounder than as a light-heavyweight. His wins over Dempsey are not merit for light-heavyweight rankings.
The fact is that he was well above the light-heavy limit and stronger than ever, not "puffed up" and was actually almost EXACTLY the same size as Dempsey in every way. If Dempsey had won would that bring Dempsey up in the light-heavyweight rankings ? No, the guys weighed in as solid 190 pounders, so light-heavy is irrelevant.

Some fighters - Jimmy Ellis for example - actually have all their career success at a weight that appeared too much for them, but does that bring their standing up in the lighter divisions that started off at ? No, of course not. As a middleweight Ellis couldn't quite cut it, no matter what he proved he could do against heavyweights.
Each individual is different and it's wrong to assume success against heavier opponents means they could be even better against smaller fighters in a division that would appear more "natural" for them.

 

Good read.

 

Dillon was called "Jack The Giant Killer",and Loughran fought behemoths like Carnera and Impelliettiere,,plus 6 2 210 Baer,all those mentioned were proven against big men,as you say Janitor.