View Full Version : Who would you pick over Bob Foster at 175?


DarkTerror88
05-11-2011, 07:03 PM
At Light Heavyweight, there arent many fighters i would pick to beat Bobby Foster. Who do you pick To Beat him.

I think Charles could beat him.

Barn
05-11-2011, 07:15 PM
Spinks and Charles.

I think he would trouble Tunney.

joseph5620
05-11-2011, 07:16 PM
At Light Heavyweight, there arent many fighters i would pick to beat Bobby Foster. Who do you pick To Beat him.

I think Charles could beat him.




I would also favor Charles and possibly Moore. There are a few others who possibly could beat him but I wouldn't necessarily favor them.



Foster is a tough match up for any light heavyweight in history.

$Natedatpkid$
05-11-2011, 07:59 PM
Moore, Charles, maybe Spinks, and I think Roy Jones could beat him too. I wouldn't count out Roy Jones against anybody in his prime.

CarlosG815
05-11-2011, 08:38 PM
Maybe Qawi and Spinks.

Scott9945
05-11-2011, 08:38 PM
Foster was the best lightheavy I've ever seen. But there are about a half dozen other ones I'd give a shot at beating him. People should think twice before assuming that Foster would be outboxed by anyone at 175.

Wild Blue Yonda
05-11-2011, 09:17 PM
Give me Moore, Tunney, Charles, & as one nobody's yet made mention of, Conn.

What of Fitzsimmons?

Ziggy Stardust
05-11-2011, 09:41 PM
Foster was the best lightheavy I've ever seen. But there are about a half dozen other ones I'd give a shot at beating him. People should think twice before assuming that Foster would be outboxed by anyone at 175.

Foster doesn't get much love in these parts unfortunately.....I've had arguments in the past with people who say he doesn't belong in the top-10 at 175, go figure.

That being said, I'd favor Charles, Moore, Tunney, and probably Spinks over him as others have mentioned. That's about it. The only one of the above I could see blowing Foster out of there is Charles. I think he's competitive with the other three even though I'd favor them.

Fitzsimmons was well past-it when he fought at Light-Heavy and picked up the belt simply because it was a new division that hadn't attracted any talent yet.

Poet

JAB5239
05-11-2011, 10:02 PM
There are a few who have already been mentioned that COULD do it. But I wouldn't bet against Foster against anyone at 175. Jmo.

Joey Giardello
05-11-2011, 10:20 PM
I think both spinks and billy conn could of beat foster

Terry A
05-11-2011, 11:03 PM
I have Gene Tunney, Ezzard Charles, Archie Moore & Roy Jones rated my all-time best lightheavyweights, in that order. #5 is Bob Foster.

I feel pretty strong about Tunney & Charles beating him. He has a better chance against Moore & Jones, but still, I'd make them favorites.

I think Foster beats Spinks (#6).

I gotta admit I never had a whole lot of awe for Gene Tunney. But after I read his biography (Tunney by Jack Canaugh) I have a new found respect for just how great a fighter this man was. Most of his career was at lightheavy, yet he lasted 20 rounds with Dempsey & beat him twice, albeit a somewhat rusty version of Dempsey.

Personally, I doubt if Foster could have stayed 20 rounds with Jack Dempsey.
And I can't see Doug Jones or Ernie Terrell stopping Tunney, Charles, Moore or Roy Jones, as they did Foster.

House of Stone
05-12-2011, 04:05 AM
I have Gene Tunney, Ezzard Charles, Archie Moore & Roy Jones rated my all-time best lightheavyweights, in that order. #5 is Bob Foster.

I feel pretty strong about Tunney & Charles beating him. He has a better chance against Moore & Jones, but still, I'd make them favorites.

I think Foster beats Spinks (#6).

I gotta admit I never had a whole lot of awe for Gene Tunney. But after I read his biography (Tunney by Jack Canaugh) I have a new found respect for just how great a fighter this man was. Most of his career was at lightheavy, yet he lasted 20 rounds with Dempsey & beat him twice, albeit a somewhat rusty version of Dempsey.

Personally, I doubt if Foster could have stayed 20 rounds with Jack Dempsey.
And I can't see Doug Jones or Ernie Terrell stopping Tunney, Charles, Moore or Roy Jones, as they did Foster.

Charles, moore and jones get the nod alright

Spinks ... well I reckon spinks would be a tough one, they both got destroyed at heavyweight by tyson/frazier - but I actually favour spinks, (I mean who wouldn't have lost to tyson that night?) Spinks had a way of pulling out the win -I call it mainly due to the fact that imo Spinks did a bit better at heavy than foster did (showing he can pull it out against the odds) - Spinks got the win over holmes whereas foster lost his big heavyweight fights and imo would have lost conclusively against the version of holmes that spinks got the nod over. (obviously spinks would have lost to the likes of ali/frazier too but u can only judge the guys by what they did, but really spinks losing to zory foley/ doug jones/ ernie terrell - personally i don't see it happening - not to all of them at least)

- I find one thing about naming guys like Tunney etc is its just so hard to tell how good they really were from watching that super old footage but yeah my gut tells me if people like foley beat him then tunney takes him pretty easily-

Barn
05-12-2011, 04:53 AM
Charles, moore and jones get the nod alright

Spinks ... well I reckon spinks would be a tough one, they both got destroyed at heavyweight by tyson/frazier - but I actually favour spinks, (I mean who wouldn't have lost to tyson that night?) Spinks had a way of pulling out the win -I call it mainly due to the fact that imo Spinks did a bit better at heavy than foster did (showing he can pull it out against the odds) - Spinks got the win over holmes whereas foster lost his big heavyweight fights and imo would have lost conclusively against the version of holmes that spinks got the nod over. (obviously spinks would have lost to the likes of ali/frazier too but u can only judge the guys by what they did, but really spinks losing to zory foley/ doug jones/ ernie terrell - personally i don't see it happening - not to all of them at least)

- I find one thing about naming guys like Tunney etc is its just so hard to tell how good they really were from watching that super old footage but yeah my gut tells me if people like foley beat him then tunney takes him pretty easily-

Ali, Liston and Foreman :)

House of Stone
05-12-2011, 05:15 AM
Ali, Liston and Foreman :)

lol got me there

Terry A
05-12-2011, 09:41 AM
Charles, moore and jones get the nod alright

Spinks ... well I reckon spinks would be a tough one, they both got destroyed at heavyweight by tyson/frazier - but I actually favour spinks, (I mean who wouldn't have lost to tyson that night?) Spinks had a way of pulling out the win -I call it mainly due to the fact that imo Spinks did a bit better at heavy than foster did (showing he can pull it out against the odds) - Spinks got the win over holmes whereas foster lost his big heavyweight fights and imo would have lost conclusively against the version of holmes that spinks got the nod over. (obviously spinks would have lost to the likes of ali/frazier too but u can only judge the guys by what they did, but really spinks losing to zory foley/ doug jones/ ernie terrell - personally i don't see it happening - not to all of them at least)

- I find one thing about naming guys like Tunney etc is its just so hard to tell how good they really were from watching that super old footage but yeah my gut tells me if people like foley beat him then tunney takes him pretty easily-

You make good points about Spinks, & I agree he was far more successful at heavyweight then Foster was. Close fight either way.

As for Tunney, take a peek at his record. I't clean except for Harry Greb. He was a special champion. He dominated his era.

That's what's so fun about these fantasy matches....taking what we all know & trying to make an educated guess on who does what. This section & the history section are my two favorite parts of this site. Lots of good reading in both.

Wild Blue Yonda
05-12-2011, 10:34 AM
Charles, moore and jones get the nod alright

Spinks ... well I reckon spinks would be a tough one, they both got destroyed at heavyweight by tyson/frazier - but I actually favour spinks, (I mean who wouldn't have lost to tyson that night?) Spinks had a way of pulling out the win -I call it mainly due to the fact that imo Spinks did a bit better at heavy than foster did (showing he can pull it out against the odds) - Spinks got the win over holmes whereas foster lost his big heavyweight fights and imo would have lost conclusively against the version of holmes that spinks got the nod over. (obviously spinks would have lost to the likes of ali/frazier too but u can only judge the guys by what they did, but really spinks losing to zory foley/ doug jones/ ernie terrell - personally i don't see it happening - not to all of them at least)

- I find one thing about naming guys like Tunney etc is its just so hard to tell how good they really were from watching that super old footage but yeah my gut tells me if people like foley beat him then tunney takes him pretty easily-

Foley was easily a superior HW to Spinks and would account for him accordingly.

IronDanHamza
05-12-2011, 01:39 PM
I pick Ezzard Charles over anyone at Light Heavyweight.

Bob Foster is a great fighter and is competitive with almost anyone at Light Heavyweight.

I think he beats Billy Conn, Micheal Spinks, Archie Moore and Gene Tunney. They give him issues but he beats them IMO.

Anyone else who I rank under that I believe he beats; Gibbons, Rosenbloon, Johnson, Loughran etc etc.

I believe he beats Roy Jones with little problems.

I read a comment that people don't rank Foster in the Top 10 at 175. I can't see how you can make that assessment.

Ziggy Stardust
05-12-2011, 02:17 PM
I read a comment that people don't rank Foster in the Top 10 at 175. I can't see how you can make that assessment.

Check out this gem by Frankenfvcktard :hahahaha9:Jones' and Johnsons' KO's of Foster at 175 , are the explanations to why Foster is in no way a top15 at 175. Tarver is definitely above Foster. Even Glen Johnson and Reggie Johnson are above Foster at this weight.

IronDanHamza
05-12-2011, 02:37 PM
Check out this gem by Frankenfvcktard :hahahaha9:

Wow, that is incredible.

I don't know who that poster is. Does he still post here?

:lol1: @ Tarver, Glen and Reggie Johnson. Utterly abserd.

I see little argument to even rank Harold Johnson above him. Glen and Reggie? That has to be a troll or a mental disorder that restrains you from seeing logic.

Scott9945
05-12-2011, 07:39 PM
Foley was easily a superior HW to Spinks and would account for him accordingly.

I would add that Foster's losses to Jones, Terrell, Foley, etc. were early in his career when he was poorly managed and had to train while holding a day job.

joseph5620
05-12-2011, 08:02 PM
I would add that Foster's losses to Jones, Terrell, Foley, etc. were early in his career when he was poorly managed by had to train while holding a day job.

Interesting and I never knew about that. Thanks for pointing that out. It's always cool to learn something new.

SCtrojansbaby
05-13-2011, 12:53 PM
I would take Spinks, Roy Jones and Hopkins

Ziggy Stardust
05-13-2011, 04:04 PM
I would take Spinks, Roy Jones and Hopkins

Yeah, right. A past-prime Hopkins (everything Hopkins did at 175 was past-prime) is going to beat Foster. Take another toke Junior.

Poet

SCtrojansbaby
05-13-2011, 04:28 PM
Yeah, right. A past-prime Hopkins (everything Hopkins did at 175 was past-prime) is going to beat Foster. Take another toke Junior.

Poet


Fighters reinvent themselves. Hopkins got 3 of his 5 best wins at light heavy and Hopkins that was just another version of him. Hopkins with his aggressive inside fighting would be too much for the taller finesse fighter.

Barn
05-13-2011, 04:29 PM
Yeah, right. A past-prime Hopkins (everything Hopkins did at 175 was past-prime) is going to beat Foster. Take another toke Junior.

Poet
They're all the NEWEST LHW's therefore the GREATEST LHW's.

Ziggy Stardust
05-13-2011, 04:34 PM
Fighters reinvent themselves. Hopkins got 3 of his 5 best wins at light heavy and Hopkins that was just another version of him. Hopkins with his aggressive inside fighting would be too much for the taller finesse fighter.

You can reinvent yourself like you're Thomas Fvcking Edison and you're still going to be past-prime when your reflexes slide. And for the record, old slow 175 B-Hop isn't going to get inside on Foster.

Poet

Ziggy Stardust
05-13-2011, 04:35 PM
They're all the NEWEST LHW's therefore the GREATEST LHW's.

LOL no doubt :hahahaha9:

SCtrojansbaby
05-13-2011, 04:38 PM
You can reinvent yourself like you're Thomas Fvcking Edison and you're still going to be past-prime when your reflexes slide. And for the record, old slow 175 B-Hop isn't going to get inside on Foster.

Poet


lol yeah so old and slow he got 3 of his top 5 wins

Scott9945
05-13-2011, 04:48 PM
lol yeah so old and slow he got 3 of his top 5 wins

You think that any of those three (Tarver, Pavlik, and ???) could have hung with Bob Foster? I'm damn sure that Jean Pascal couldn't have. Hopkins has no power at 175 to hold someone like Foster off of him.

Ziggy Stardust
05-13-2011, 04:51 PM
lol yeah so old and slow he got 3 of his top 5 wins

Ali got two of HIS biggest wins past-prime. And the grossly overrated Pavlik is NOT one of Hopkins' biggest wins :jerk0ff9:

Poet

Terry A
05-13-2011, 04:58 PM
Hopkins got 3 of his 5 best wins at light heavy and Hopkins that was just another version of him. Hopkins with his aggressive inside fighting would be too much for the taller finesse fighter.

I have to respectfully disagree with you. If Hopkins & Bob Foster fought 10 times, I'd bet real big that Foster wins all 10 of them.

Have you ever seen Bob Foster fight? If you haven't, I dug this up for your viewing pleasure......
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rm0wuLHykU0

IronDanHamza
05-13-2011, 06:17 PM
Bernard Hopkins stands so little chance against Bob Foster at 175 the comparison didn't even remotely begin to surface in my brain at any point of this thread.

joseph5620
05-13-2011, 07:02 PM
Bernard Hopkins stands so little chance against Bob Foster at 175 the comparison didn't even remotely begin to surface in my brain at any point of this thread.

:lol1: I feel the same way.

joseph5620
05-13-2011, 07:05 PM
Fighters reinvent themselves. Hopkins got 3 of his 5 best wins at light heavy and Hopkins that was just another version of him. Hopkins with his aggressive inside fighting would be too much for the taller finesse fighter.







This confirms for me that you have no idea who Bob Foster is.

goblin213
05-13-2011, 07:05 PM
Harold Johnson

IronDanHamza
05-13-2011, 07:24 PM
Harold Johnson

You think?

I'm not so sure. Breakdown how you think the fight would go, if you will.

JAB5239
05-13-2011, 07:49 PM
I have to respectfully disagree with you. If Hopkins & Bob Foster fought 10 times, I'd bet real big that Foster wins all 10 of them.

Have you ever seen Bob Foster fight? If you haven't, I dug this up for your viewing pleasure......
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rm0wuLHykU0

Foster was just a brutal puncher. He didn't just stop guys, he literally put them to sleep!

Wild Blue Yonda
05-13-2011, 08:26 PM
I'm surprised Conn doesn't have more support here against Foster.

IronDanHamza
05-13-2011, 09:22 PM
I'm surprised Conn doesn't have more support here against Foster.

You think Conn beats him?

I think he will give him a problem here and there but I wouldn't bet on him to be honest.

SCtrojansbaby
05-14-2011, 03:29 AM
Hopkins beats any tall lanky fighter like Foster. Hopkins would bury his head in to Foster chest and pound away on the inside. Fosters only hope would be to catch him coming in but even then I don't thing he could hurt Hopkins enough to deter him.

JAB5239
05-14-2011, 03:56 AM
Hopkins beats any tall lanky fighter like Foster. Hopkins would bury his head in to Foster chest and pound away on the inside. Fosters only hope would be to catch him coming in but even then I don't thing he could hurt Hopkins enough to deter him.

What exactly are you basing this on? Foster isn't Antonio Tarver or Pascal and Bhop was past his best at 175.

SCtrojansbaby
05-14-2011, 04:35 AM
What the heck makes you people think B-Hop was past his prime at light heavy? He got 3 of his top 5 wins their. Oh and taller fighters are almost always at a disadvantage on the inside that is common knowledge most generally just hold. B-hop is special in that he is pretty tall yet still a superb inside fighter. Show me a fight where Foster shows good skills on the inside and I will reconsider

JAB5239
05-14-2011, 04:53 AM
What the heck makes you people think B-Hop was past his prime at light heavy? He got 3 of his top 5 wins their. Oh and taller fighters are almost always at a disadvantage on the inside that is common knowledge most generally just hold. B-hop is special in that he is pretty tall yet still a superb inside fighter. Show me a fight where Foster shows good skills on the inside and I will reconsider

Here's a better idea, show me a fight where Hopkins fought one of the best light heavies in history and controlled the inside. The fact is he would be at physical disadvantages against a guy considered one of, if not the hardest punch in the history of the division. And if you think Hopkins is and was prime at 175, you're crazy. The Calzaghe fight proved this.

SCtrojansbaby
05-14-2011, 05:11 AM
Here's a better idea, show me a fight where Hopkins fought one of the best light heavies in history and controlled the inside. The fact is he would be at physical disadvantages against a guy considered one of, if not the hardest punch in the history of the division. And if you think Hopkins is and was prime at 175, you're crazy. The Calzaghe fight proved this.

Hopkins controls the inside against everyone he would have a field day against a tall guy.

The Calzaghe fight proved what? Go watch the Tarver, Pavlik and Winky, if your getting 3 of your top 5 wins you aint past your prime its that simple. Fighter reinvent themselves

JAB5239
05-14-2011, 05:22 AM
Hopkins controls the inside against everyone he would have a field day against a tall guy.

The Calzaghe fight proved what? Go watch the Tarver, Pavlik and Winky, if your getting 3 of your top 5 wins you aint past your prime its that simple. Fighter reinvent themselves

The question is, who are Tarver, Pavlik or Winky in the pantheon of great light heavyweights? Hell, who is Calzaghe? Hopkins is great and his longevity amazing, but if you think he hasn't lost a step You're only fooling yourself. So again I'll ask, when has Hopkins proved he could get inside a tall, rangy all time great light heavyweight who could take your head off with one punch. And please come with something better than Tarver, Pavlik and Winky my friend.

SCtrojansbaby
05-14-2011, 06:08 AM
The question is, who are Tarver, Pavlik or Winky in the pantheon of great light heavyweights? Hell, who is Calzaghe? Hopkins is great and his longevity amazing, but if you think he hasn't lost a step You're only fooling yourself. So again I'll ask, when has Hopkins proved he could get inside a tall, rangy all time great light heavyweight who could take your head off with one punch. And please come with something better than Tarver, Pavlik and Winky my friend.


Why do you keep asking that? Its a fantasy fight the whole point is that it will never happen and you can only guess. Hopkins got inside against everybody if he choose to fight there. Foster let far lesser fighters like Ernie Terrell get inside on him no reason to think Hopkins wouldn't as well. Fosters only chance would to catch Hopkins coming in early in the fight. I think Hopkins has chin to take anything Foster could throw and by the middle rounds Foster would be worn out.

JAB5239
05-14-2011, 06:31 AM
Why do you keep asking that? Its a fantasy fight the whole point is that it will never happen and you can only guess. Hopkins got inside against everybody if he choose to fight there. Foster let far lesser fighters like Ernie Terrell get inside on him no reason to think Hopkins wouldn't as well. Fosters only chance would to catch Hopkins coming in early in the fight. I think Hopkins has chin to take anything Foster could throw and by the middle rounds Foster would be worn out.


The Terrell-Foster fight was contested from long rage for the vast majority of the fight. When they are on the inside Terrell was using his size to lean on Foster and wear the smaller guy down. Hopkins wouldn't have that luxury.

And how do you figure Foster would be the one worn out? He was a 15 round fighter and would be prime, where as Bhop wouldn't be. He certainly wasn't going full throttle against the best fighter he faced at 175, Calzaghe.

As far as Hops chin goes....Dick Tiger is considered to have one of the best chins in history and Foster waxed him with a single left hook. The possibility he could do it to pst prime Hopkins is very good in my opinion.

IronDanHamza
05-14-2011, 07:47 AM
The Terrell-Foster fight was contested from long rage for the vast majority of the fight. When they are on the inside Terrell was using his size to lean on Foster and wear the smaller guy down. Hopkins wouldn't have that luxury.

And how do you figure Foster would be the one worn out? He was a 15 round fighter and would be prime, where as Bhop wouldn't be. He certainly wasn't going full throttle against the best fighter he faced at 175, Calzaghe.

As far as Hops chin goes....Dick Tiger is considered to have one of the best chins in history and Foster waxed him with a single left hook. The possibility he could do it to pst prime Hopkins is very good in my opinion.

In fairness, Dick Tiger was utterly dwarfed by Foster, who had a monsterous size advantage.

Not that it always mattered for Dick Tiger, who was an exceptional fighter. But, although he had battled size disadavantages before, he had never seen one in the way of a much stronger, freakishly powerful Bob Foster. And it showed to be too much for him.

I don't see him taking Hopkins head off in 4 rounds like he did to Tiger. But, I could definitely see a knockout.

SCtrojansbaby
05-14-2011, 07:50 AM
The Terrell-Foster fight was contested from long rage for the vast majority of the fight. When they are on the inside Terrell was using his size to lean on Foster and wear the smaller guy down. Hopkins wouldn't have that luxury.

And how do you figure Foster would be the one worn out? He was a 15 round fighter and would be prime, where as Bhop wouldn't be. He certainly wasn't going full throttle against the best fighter he faced at 175, Calzaghe.

As far as Hops chin goes....Dick Tiger is considered to have one of the best chins in history and Foster waxed him with a single left hook. The possibility he could do it to pst prime Hopkins is very good in my opinion.

Watch the fight again the last 3 rounds Terrell is staying close with little resistance from Foster. No reason a far more clever B-Hop couldn't do the same and B-Hop wouldn't lean he would land punches like he always does on the inside.

How many times do i have to say it? Hopkins wasn't past his prime at 175 until maybe the Roy Jones fight. B-Hop had a slightly off night against Calzaghe and still won the fight.

Oh and lol Calzaghe is the worst fighter out of Winky Tarver and Pavlik.

The_Demon
05-14-2011, 08:52 AM
Charles is the only guy i would actually favour-Tunney and Spinks are 50/50s for me

The_Demon
05-14-2011, 08:56 AM
Watch the fight again the last 3 rounds Terrell is staying close with little resistance from Foster. No reason a far more clever B-Hop couldn't do the same and B-Hop wouldn't lean he would land punches like he always does on the inside.

How many times do i have to say it? Hopkins wasn't past his prime at 175 until maybe the Roy Jones fight. B-Hop had a slightly off night against Calzaghe and still won the fight.

Oh and lol Calzaghe is the worst fighter out of Winky Tarver and Pavlik.

No he didnt,and you are fooling yourself if you think Bhop wasnt past his prime at 175,a blown up winky and pavlik plus the slightly above average Tarver are not great wins and Foster is better than any of those guys,for that matter so is calzaghe

joseph5620
05-14-2011, 12:40 PM
What the heck makes you people think B-Hop was past his prime at light heavy? He got 3 of his top 5 wins their. Oh and taller fighters are almost always at a disadvantage on the inside that is common knowledge most generally just hold. B-hop is special in that he is pretty tall yet still a superb inside fighter. Show me a fight where Foster shows good skills on the inside and I will reconsider

This is an irritating myth I see a lot here. When people assume that big win equals prime. Judging by this logic, Ali was in his prime when he beat Foreman and Frazier. Duran was in his prime when he beat Moore and Barkley,Leonard was in his prime when he beat Hagler. I can go on forever with examples.



The Bottom line is Hopkins is not in his prime at 175 and never has been. He's less active at that weight, he's not knocking anybody out, and his stamina has diminished. We are not talking about Tarver, Pavlik or Jean Paccal here. We are talking about Bob Foster. And in closing Bob Foster would make Hopkins go into 100 percent defense mode and Hopkins would do everything to survive, not win. If you thought Hopkins was inactive against Jermaine Taylor, this would be on another level.

Ziggy Stardust
05-14-2011, 01:16 PM
This is an irritating myth I see a lot here. When people assume that big win equals prime. Judging by this logic, Ali was in his prime when he beat Foreman and Frazier. Duran was in his prime when he beat Moore and Barkley,Leonard was in his prime when he beat Hagler. I can go on forever with examples.

The Bottom line is Hopkins is not in his prime at 175 and never has been. He's less active at that weight, he's not knocking anybody out, and his stamina has diminished. We are not talking about Tarver, Pavlik or Jean Paccal here. We are talking about Bob Foster. And in closing Bob Foster would make Hopkins go into 100 percent defense mode and Hopkins would do everything to survive, not win. If you thought Hopkins was inactive against Jermaine Taylor, this would be on another level.

A-fvcking-men

Ziggy Stardust
05-14-2011, 01:20 PM
The question is, who are Tarver, Pavlik or Winky in the pantheon of great light heavyweights? Hell, who is Calzaghe?

Of course you have to remember Trojanman would favor all four of those guys to school some crude, no-talent old dude like Foster.....Didn't you know that no one before the year 2000 knew anything about fighting and they were all geneticly inferior? :hahahaha9:
Poet

Ziggy Stardust
05-14-2011, 01:22 PM
The Terrell-Foster fight was contested from long rage for the vast majority of the fight. When they are on the inside Terrell was using his size to lean on Foster and wear the smaller guy down. Hopkins wouldn't have that luxury.

^^^^^ This right here.....Not to mention Terrell was a full-blown Heavyweight with one of the longest reaches in the history of boxing.

Poet

JAB5239
05-14-2011, 03:21 PM
Watch the fight again the last 3 rounds Terrell is staying close with little resistance from Foster. No reason a far more clever B-Hop couldn't do the same and B-Hop wouldn't lean he would land punches like he always does on the inside.

How many times do i have to say it? Hopkins wasn't past his prime at 175 until maybe the Roy Jones fight. B-Hop had a slightly off night against Calzaghe and still won the fight.

Oh and lol Calzaghe is the worst fighter out of Winky Tarver and Pavlik.

Terrell is leaning on him more than doing any kind of offensive damage on the inside. This was a matter of size (which Hop wouldn't have) and wearing down Foster.

And Bhop didn't have an "off night" against Calzaghe, he was showing his age against a fresher, better fighter. You're kidding yourself again if you don't thin Joe was the best fighter out of those named. :lol1:

Cardinalfang
05-14-2011, 06:38 PM
Cant see many lh's beating foster tbh he was a killer in his prime. Maybe moore and maybe langford or tunney but prob not. The only guy I'd be confident of beating foster prime to prime would be ezzard charles.