Who ranks higher P4P Joe Fraizer or Bob Foster?

Isn't Foster's best win the corpse of Dick Tiger? I'd take Frazier and by a distance too. Better resume and better fighter imo.

 

Obviously Foster

 

If Panama whacks on another 107 pounds Tua would have no chance pal. Everyone was laughing when Hearns was talking about taking on Tyson but I knew. If Tommy comes in 230 plus it's a no-brainer.

 

I want to say Foster but then Frazier has the better singular win over Muhammad Ali himself, Frazier.

 

There’s just not a lot of meat on Foster’s resume. He came along in a very, very weak era for 175-pounders.

None of them stood out above the others and none of them did much of anything apart from fighting (and losing to) Foster. Dick Tiger had a resume but he wasn’t exactly peak when Bob fought him.

Frazier’s win over Ali makes this a pretty easy one for me.

 

But…. But it’s pound for pound, not inch for inch.

Of all of the bat**** crazy takes I’ve seen of yours on the forum (including Lyle beats Tyson), this very well might be the worst.

 

It wasn't until I finished the exchange that I realised that I think (could be wrong, apologies if so) that I'd been engaging with a poster who claims Foreman (RIP) is the GOAT at HW and Ali's win over him didn't count as Ali "tricked" him.

I need to compile a list of trolls on this site so I don't forget who there are and engage them.

 

That would be correct hahaha

There's a few trolls sneaking about, and some that aren't

 

If Foster had beaten a few decent smaller heavies like Quarry or Ellis, i can see a case being made for him. But Frazier beat better competition at heavy than Bob did at light heavy. Frazier also overcame a significantly taller elite opponent in Ali while Bob had big physical advantages at 175 lbs.

Frazier for me.

 

Thing is, I don’t think this guy is a troll. He seems to actually believe everything that he posts.

 

Joe. He had better wins.

 

Hmm, I find it difficult to believe that a mentally stable adult genuinely believes that height is the ONLY determining factor to natural overall size.

Now, you may respond that the "mentally stable" part of the above paragraph is pertinent, and if you do, you could well be correct, but personally, I suspect it's more likely the guy is laughing to himself - "For a while there, I had that idiot believing that I genuinely think all men naturally have identical body composition, relative to their height, how gullable must he be? No one is stupid enough to truly think that, but that plonker believed that I genuinely did for a few minutes."

 

Back on topic, I'm in the small minority who voted Foster, though I consider it close and understand why the majority have voted Frazier.

HW names are higher profile, which hurts Foster here from the start when comparing their respective resumes. That said, I concede that even though Ali wasn't long back from exile by FOTC, it is the best win either possess.

Foster's dominance at his best weight impresses me, though. He never lost a fight contested at under 180lbs, going around 35-0-1, including 14-0-1 in lineal title fights, the draw coming well past Bob's best. No one in history bettered, and only Michalczewski matched, that number of defences of the lineal LHW crown, and by Dariusz's time, the lineal title had mostly lost its relevance.

Whilst I agree Foster lacks the signature wins of some other LHW ATGs, Dick Tiger, Chris Finnegan, Henry Hank x 2, Eddie Cotton, Pierre Fourie x 2, Mike Quarry, Vicente Rondon, Mark Tessman and Hal Carroll isn't a bad win resume for a guy unbeaten at the weight. Furthermore, with Foster at LHW, it's not just who he beat, but how he beat them. He was so dominant against the field and stopped a lot of decent LHWs who had never been stopped previously.

 

Perfect response. Cheers, Hearns was a 6'2" welterweight- lt .heavy with a 78"reach
By his reasoning that would give him the advantage over 5'11" with a 71"
reach Mike Tyson who weighed 215-225 lbs , or 5'11" with a 73"reach Joe Frazier
who weighed between 205-220