On many days, Bob Foster is my all time favourite light-heavyweight. Tall, skilled, masterful jabber, and he knew how to use his height beautifully. He had quick hands, a good right hand, the THAT left hook, that left was just extraordinary. The greatest p4p left hook i have ever seen. I personally have Bob at #7 on my all time light-heavy list. I have been thinking about moving him higher. I love watching him but compared to Charles, Spinks, Moore, Langford etc. i am not overwhelmed by Bob's light heavyweight opposition. He dominated his era and was unbeatable at his peak but it wasn't a loaded era. Where do you rank Bob as a light-heavyweight? This content is protected
I rank Langford in my top 2, which i know not everyone will agree with. Charles, Langford, Moore, Spinks, Tunney, Conn and Foster. I am thinking about moving Foster into the top 5 but am not certain as of yet.
IMO, people rate Foster wayyyyyy too high. He's the Perez of the LHW division. Who did he beat? "Finnegan, old Tiger, Quarry".... yada yada yada. It's an abysmal résumé. Sure, he may have spent a long time at the top, but someone like Deontay ****in Wilder spent a lot of time at the top. It means much more - to me - if you beat great fighters, than if you're lingering around a division like a bad smell. That said, a long reign does have to count for something, and he does look unbelievable on film. I'd have him: #15. Roy Jones Jr #14. Lloyd Marshall #13. Billy Conn #12. Saad Muhammad #11. Maxie Rosenbloom #10. Bob Foster #09. Harold Johnson #08. John Henry Lewis #07. Jimmy Bivins #06. Gene Tunney #05. Tommy Loughran #04. Michael Spinks #03. Harry Greb #02. Archie Moore #01. Ezzard Charles
This i agree with. There are days where i think he may have been the greatest h2h light-heavyweight ever.
This. He was an amazing talent and H2H could potentially beat anyone but his resume is weak compared to the likes of Moore, Charles etc.
I think abysmal is a stretch. With no cruiserweight division or super middleweight division to have been champion, lineal and undisputed for that long in such dominant fashion counts for a lot. Sometimes when a champ is so dominant he probably stopped two or three guys from doing something special. I do agree with him in the lower half of the top 10 overall, but maybe a few spots higher. Head to head, I’m sure I’d have him higher.
This. I've always kind of discounted Foster and felt like a contrarian about doing so but the reality of it is, it's easier to look amazing when you fight the selection of LHW's he did. Tiger was old and hopelessly undersized and the rest of them aren't exactly a who's who. Spinks was infinitely more accomplished. Somewhere around #10 is about accurate. Top 3 is giving him WAY too much credit for basically doing nothing.
Lot's of sharp posts here ... certainly extremely dangerous but agree the resume is not the best .. he's an extremely live top ten guy who may surprise anyone ... I have Charles, Moore, Spinks, Langford, Tunney, Jones , Greb up there and there are many other dangerous and talented guys as well ..
Foster was a little before my time. I became a big boxing fan around 1978, and I usually don't try to rate guys who came before I was paying close attention to the boxing world. But my impression from watching film is that he was better than any LH from his time on. I prefer him slightly over Michael Spinks.