Harold Johnson vs Bob Foster 175lbs primes

[IronDanHamza]

I feel like Foster is a level up from Johnson just for the reasons I wrote about earlier, and you listed at the start of your second paragraph. Its just how well I good I believe him to be. That being written, a level up isnt that big of a difference, they are both in that 7-12 range at Lt Heavy for me all time (based on peak ability, nothing else).

Based on what though? I must have missed it. I'm just not understanding how you're coming to the conclusion that Foster was a level up from Johnson. In what way? It can't be resume and it cant be skills. So in what way? Punching power? Sure. What else?

Both Foster and Johnson fought Doug Jones in 1962, their only common opponent. Foster (Pre prime) was stopped by Doug Jones whereas Johnson (past prime) comfortably beat Doug Jones. Doesn't mean he's better, but it's a metric.

Johnson beat Ezzard Charles, Archie Moore, Bert Lytell, Jimmy Bivins and a list of other top level fighters. In comparison to Foster who beat who on that kind of level? **** Tiger, one of my favourite fighters but very undersized for a LHW and was a career Middleweight. Still an exceptional win, especially the fashion it was done over one of the ATG chins but pales in comparison.

I don't think Foster is a level up from Johnson at all. I think the argument for that would be easier to make the other way more than anything. If that was going to be the debate.

[DeeMoney]

Based on what though? I must have missed it. I'm just not understanding how you're coming to the conclusion that Foster was a level up from Johnson. In what way? It can't be resume and it cant be skills. So in what way? Punching power? Sure. What else?

Both Foster and Johnson fought Doug Jones in 1962, their only common opponent. Foster (Pre prime) was stopped by Doug Jones whereas Johnson (past prime) comfortably beat Doug Jones. Doesn't mean he's better, but it's a metric.

Johnson beat Ezzard Charles, Archie Moore, Bert Lytell, Jimmy Bivins and a list of other top level fighters. In comparison to Foster who beat who on that kind of level? **** Tiger, one of my favourite fighters but very undersized for a LHW and was a career Middleweight. Still an exceptional win, especially the fashion it was done over one of the ATG chins but pales in comparison.

I don't think Foster is a level up from Johnson at all. I think the argument for that would be easier to make the other way more than anything. If that was going to be the debate.

I rank Foster better than Johnson because I believe that in their respective primes Foster would do better, head to head, against most random samplings of contender level and above (good to atg) fighters at his best weight class. In essence, I believe in his prime he was a better in ring fighter.

I rank him as such because he had greater knockout power, was significantly bigger, stronger, had a greater ability to land effective power punches, had the best jab at the weight class, and was able to land that jab with greater force and ease than Johnson. I recognize Johnson had advantages in other aspects, but I don't feel they over come Foster's advantages.

Regarding Johnson's resume, when fighters dont have a standardized schedule within the sport and across eras, then its specious to bring them up without context. Johnson did beat Moore, he also lost to him 80% of the time. I imagine if Foster had the same opportunities of fights he could win 20% of the time against Moore too. I know its unpopular to write, but there are a number of pre modern era fighters who get a win against a better fighter in a series, and then multiple losses. We point to the win as a sign of their greatness, but ignore the losses. There should be somewhat of a movement to "zero-sum" in these cases.

[IronDanHamza]

I rank Foster better than Johnson because I believe that in their respective primes Foster would do better, head to head, against most random samplings of contender level and above (good to atg) fighters at his best weight class. In essence, I believe in his prime he was a better in ring fighter.

I rank him as such because he had greater knockout power, was significantly bigger, stronger, had a greater ability to land effective power punches, had the best jab at the weight class, and was able to land that jab with greater force and ease than Johnson. I recognize Johnson had advantages in other aspects, but I don't feel they over come Foster's advantages.

Regarding Johnson's resume, when fighters dont have a standardized schedule within the sport and across eras, then its specious to bring them up without context. Johnson did beat Moore, he also lost to him 80% of the time. I imagine if Foster had the same opportunities of fights he could win 20% of the time against Moore too. I know it’s junpopular to write, but there are a number of pre modern era fighters who get a win against a better fighter in a series, and then multiple losses. We point to the win as a sign of their greatness, but ignore the losses. There should be somewhat of a movement to "zero-sum" in these cases.

So just to be clear you’re deeming Foster a level up from Johnson because of punching power and size? I think that’s a totally insane thing to say but you are entitled to your opinion.

Do you deem Foster a level above Ezzard Charles for the same reason? Or Gene Tunney?

There’s one thing thinking Foster is better, or would win, I wouldn’t much argue with that from a H2H aspect (not resume because that isn’t arguable) but there’s another thing putting Foster on another level to Johnson. That is just very wild to me it doesn’t make any sense.

I think your observation of Foster having a better jab than Johnson is crazy. I don’t know what you’ve seen to base that on. I’d say if we are talking the jab, Johnson’s is certainly superior.

In regards to your comments on resumes. Foster has loss’s to far inferior fighters to Archie Moore, and zero wins anywhere close to the level of Archie Moore. So I don’t think that is an argument. As I said they have one common opponent, that they fought in the same year and Foster lost to him by KO whereas Johnson beat the same man comfortably.

I think it’s safe to say Foster would struggle to get through Johnson’s LHW resume without a loss or two. Whereas would Johnson get through Foster’s LHW undefeated? I think very likely.

Foster is awesome, I’m not knocking him. I loved watching Foster fight he was violence personified, with the skill to make it happen. There is just no way he’s a level up for Harold Johnson.

[DeeMoney]

So just to be clear you’re deeming Foster a level up from Johnson because of punching power and size? I think that’s a totally insane thing to say but you are entitled to your opinion.

Do you deem Foster a level above Ezzard Charles for the same reason? Or Gene Tunney?

There’s one thing thinking Foster is better, or would win, I wouldn’t much argue with that from a H2H aspect (not resume because that isn’t arguable) but there’s another thing putting Foster on another level to Johnson. That is just very wild to me it doesn’t make any sense.

I think your observation of Foster having a better jab than Johnson is crazy. I don’t know what you’ve seen to base that on. I’d say if we are talking the jab, Johnson’s is certainly superior.

In regards to your comments on resumes. Foster has loss’s to far inferior fighters to Archie Moore, and zero wins anywhere close to the level of Archie Moore. So I don’t think that is an argument. As I said they have one common opponent, that they fought in the same year and Foster lost to him by KO whereas Johnson beat the same man comfortably.

I think it’s safe to say Foster would struggle to get through Johnson’s LHW resume without a loss or two. Whereas would Johnson get through Foster’s LHW undefeated? I think very likely.

Foster is awesome, I’m not knocking him. I loved watching Foster fight he was violence personified, with the skill to make it happen. There is just no way he’s a level up for Harold Johnson.

But my levels are based on H2H, and how I feel they would fare H2H against a large group of similar fighters based on how I perceive them to be in the ring- essentially if the two fighters were given the exact same group of fights in their primes (a large group of diverse and high quality fighters) who would do better in the ring.
IRL, Johnson has better wins than Foster, but he also had an opportunity to have better wins than Foster. Thats why I don't use just resume to deem who I feel is better. I feel Foster is better than Johnson, and I listed the main factors that I feel make him better (power, size, jab, etc) but it isn't an either or comparison, where one fighter gets a point for being better on a specific aspect and then we move on. There is a gradient to it. Essentially I am writing that I think Foster was a slightly better overall fighter in the ring than Johnson (all things considered) and the main factors were his strength, size, power, and jab.

So even though Foster is bigger and stronger than Tunney and Ez I would favor them to do better against a similar resume than he or Johnson. In Ezzards case, I view his prime version to have such a deadly arsenal of punches (more so than anyone other than maybe SRR) that it overcomes the power difference more so than Johnson's relative speed advantage. Now there are many other small differences here, but I am just hitting on the major ones, I doubt you want to read how I think Ez has a slight advantage in his ability top land punches, or relative equal chin to Johnson. But when taking all factors into account I think Ez is better than all of those mentioned.

Ditto with Tunney, (in regards to Foster and Johnson) though I often under rate him, I think his defense and smarts may be unparalleled at the Lt Heavyweight ranks and this would give him the advantage to do better against a similar resume than either Johnson or Foster.

Like I initially wrote, I have them close. Neck and neck. But I have Foster slightly ahead of Johnson in this regards. I get you agree, and am absolutely open to your ideas on Johnson being better- but hey thats why we have these forums. I don't think it insane for someone to hold that belief.

Ad for the Moore example, I think that had Foster been given five fights with Moore he could have gotten at least one, which is what Johnson did.

[QueensburyRules]

That's an observation. I could be here all day if you want me to breakdown Harold Johnson's fights. This is a guy who soundly outboxed Ezzard Charles, another one of the most skilled fighters ever. Had long spells across 5 fights outboxing Archie Moore, another one of the greatest fighters ever.

He is far more skilled, than Foster. Just talking skills alone. The list of fighters in history above Johnson in that regard is short. Let alone Bob Foster who yes is definitely a fighter who doesn't lack skills but he's no where close to the level of Harold Johnson talking just solely skill wise. I don't think there are many who would argue otherwise.

It doesn't mean he would win the fight, or even a better fighter as I've just said. Gun to my head I'd probably lean on Foster.

- - Yet IBRO ranks Bob well above Johnson as I would.

Foster put a big Scare into Ali when he sliced him open Jerry Quarry style.

Light-Heavyweight Results 1. Ezzard Charles (586) 2. Archie Moore (538) 3. Gene Tunney (495) 4. Sam Langford (468) 5. Bob Foster (451) 6. Mike Spinks (434) 7. Tommy Loughran (403) 8. Billy Conn (371) 9. Harry Greb (325) 10. Roy Jones Jr. (258) 11. Bob Fitzsimmons (232) 12. Harold Johnson (206) 13. Maxie Rosenbloom (205)

[IronDanHamza]

But my levels are based on H2H, and how I feel they would fare H2H against a large group of similar fighters based on how I perceive them to be in the ring- essentially if the two fighters were given the exact same group of fights in their primes (a large group of diverse and high quality fighters) who would do better in the ring.
IRL, Johnson has better wins than Foster, but he also had an opportunity to have better wins than Foster. Thats why I don't use just resume to deem who I feel is better. I feel Foster is better than Johnson, and I listed the main factors that I feel make him better (power, size, jab, etc) but it isn't an either or comparison, where one fighter gets a point for being better on a specific aspect and then we move on. There is a gradient to it. Essentially I am writing that I think Foster was a slightly better overall fighter in the ring than Johnson (all things considered) and the main factors were his strength, size, power, and jab.

I understand the position you are taking but I don't think it makes sense. Especially in regards to the term used; "level above". Your explanation isn't justifying that stance.

You're talking about H2H, and citing power, size and jab. First and foremost, I'm not understanding your idea of Foster having a better jab than Johnson. What do you base that on?

Which leaves power and size, which yes Foster certainly has over Johnson but he has that over essentially every other LHW that's lived. So how is that justifiable reasoning to consider someone a level above them? It frankly doesn't.

So even though Foster is bigger and stronger than Tunney and Ez I would favor them to do better against a similar resume than he or Johnson. In Ezzards case, I view his prime version to have such a deadly arsenal of punches (more so than anyone other than maybe SRR) that it overcomes the power difference more so than Johnson's relative speed advantage. Now there are many other small differences here, but I am just hitting on the major ones, I doubt you want to read how I think Ez has a slight advantage in his ability top land punches, or relative equal chin to Johnson. But when taking all factors into account I think Ez is better than all of those mentioned.

Well, Johnson beat Charles comfortably So there's that.

Foster has no wins remotely close to that level.

Ditto with Tunney, (in regards to Foster and Johnson) though I often under rate him, I think his defense and smarts may be unparalleled at the Lt Heavyweight ranks and this would give him the advantage to do better against a similar resume than either Johnson or Foster.

Ok but Foster has a massive advantage over Tunney in size and power though, right? More so than he does over even Johnson.

So, why is he not a level above Tunney?

Like I initially wrote, I have them close. Neck and neck. But I have Foster slightly ahead of Johnson in this regards. I get you agree, and am absolutely open to your ideas on Johnson being better- but hey thats why we have these forums. I don't think it insane for someone to hold that belief.

If they're neck and neck, which I think is a more than fair and justifiable position, surely one of them can't be a level above the other? Those two positions can't exist at the same time?

Ad for the Moore example, I think that had Foster been given five fights with Moore he could have gotten at least one, which is what Johnson did.

Would he? I don't know if he would. Maybe, maybe not.

Johnson had 4 close fights with Moore, you could argue for him to be 4-0 in the first 4. (Maybe 3-1 would be more fair as one of them was less close).

The 5th one, he was winning well, but was stopped late.

Would Foster have that kind of success against Moore? I don't know if he would. He hasn't beaten anyone anywhere close to that level to say with confidence. Johsnon actually did it.

Also all this H2H talk and we keep glossing over and ignoring the fact that they both fought the same opponent, in the same year and Foster was stopped and Johnson won comfortably.

[JAB5239]

I understand the position you are taking but I don't think it makes sense. Especially in regards to the term used; "level above". Your explanation isn't justifying that stance.

You're talking about H2H, and citing power, size and jab. First and foremost, I'm not understanding your idea of Foster having a better jab than Johnson. What do you base that on?

Which leaves power and size, which yes Foster certainly has over Johnson but he has that over essentially every other LHW that's lived. So how is that justifiable reasoning to consider someone a level above them? It frankly doesn't.





Well, Johnson beat Charles comfortably So there's that.

Foster has no wins remotely close to that level.



Ok but Foster has a massive advantage over Tunney in size and power though, right? More so than he does over even Johnson.

So, why is he not a level above Tunney?



If they're neck and neck, which I think is a more than fair and justifiable position, surely one of them can't be a level above the other? Those two positions can't exist at the same time?



Would he? I don't know if he would. Maybe, maybe not.

Johnson had 4 close fights with Moore, you could argue for him to be 4-0 in the first 4. (Maybe 3-1 would be more fair as one of them was less close).

The 5th one, he was winning well, but was stopped late.

Would Foster have that kind of success against Moore? I don't know if he would. He hasn't beaten anyone anywhere close to that level to say with confidence. Johsnon actually did it.

Also all this H2H talk and we keep glossing over and ignoring the fact that they both fought the same opponent, in the same year and Foster was stopped and Johnson won comfortably.

What's the difference between a level above and a country mile?

[IronDanHamza]

What's the difference between a level above and a country mile?

There isn't.

Do you have a point you'd like to get to?

[DeeMoney]

I understand the position you are taking but I don't think it makes sense. Especially in regards to the term used; "level above". Your explanation isn't justifying that stance.

You're talking about H2H, and citing power, size and jab. First and foremost, I'm not understanding your idea of Foster having a better jab than Johnson. What do you base that on?

Which leaves power and size, which yes Foster certainly has over Johnson but he has that over essentially every other LHW that's lived. So how is that justifiable reasoning to consider someone a level above them? It frankly doesn't.





Well, Johnson beat Charles comfortably So there's that.

Foster has no wins remotely close to that level.



Ok but Foster has a massive advantage over Tunney in size and power though, right? More so than he does over even Johnson.

So, why is he not a level above Tunney?



If they're neck and neck, which I think is a more than fair and justifiable position, surely one of them can't be a level above the other? Those two positions can't exist at the same time?



Would he? I don't know if he would. Maybe, maybe not.

Johnson had 4 close fights with Moore, you could argue for him to be 4-0 in the first 4. (Maybe 3-1 would be more fair as one of them was less close).

The 5th one, he was winning well, but was stopped late.

Would Foster have that kind of success against Moore? I don't know if he would. He hasn't beaten anyone anywhere close to that level to say with confidence. Johsnon actually did it.

Also all this H2H talk and we keep glossing over and ignoring the fact that they both fought the same opponent, in the same year and Foster was stopped and Johnson won comfortably.

First off, I think my use of the phrase "level above" seems to be a major sticking point for you, and may have led to some semantics differences here (sorry if it did). All I meant by it was being ranked higher than him, which I still do rank Foster higher than Johnson. But I think the term "level up" has caused you to take this to mean that I have him significantly higher than Johnson, which I do not.

As for your Tunney question, yes Johnson does have the same advantages of strength and size over Tunney as he does over Johnson, but I don't rank him higher. But thats because I believe Tunney was a better overall boxer than Johnson, so those advantages Foster has are mitigated by Tunney's abilities. Abilities which I don't think Johnson has on the same level as Tunney. Once again, this stems from the idea that not all advantages are equally employed. its not just a tally mark measuring system. So yes, I still hold that Tunney is better than Foster, despite Foster having power advantages over him, while Foster is better than Johnson, with the most notable advantage he has over him being his punching ability. I don't think this is an overly complex belief pattern, I imagine we could use this logic for other fighters.

I still hold that I believe given five chances to beat Archie Moore, Foster wouldve won at least one of them, truth is I don't think any light heavy would have whitewashed Foster in five straight fights. Though I hold that true for most all top level fighters in their best weight class.

As for the Doug Jones fight, c'mon, we are evaluating fighters in their prime. Foster had not even been a pro for two years when we got the fight as a last minute substitute. He was so green his next fight was against an opponent making his pro debut. Its why we try to evaluate full fighters in their primes and with a significant sample size. You know that and are smarter than that, and are just using the Jones fight as bad faith argument. Its akin to claiming Jake Paul was better than Mike Tyson because he beat him head to head when he was old.

[IronDanHamza]

First off, I think my use of the phrase "level above" seems to be a major sticking point for you, and may have led to some semantics differences here (sorry if it did). All I meant by it was being ranked higher than him, which I still do rank Foster higher than Johnson. But I think the term "level up" has caused you to take this to mean that I have him significantly higher than Johnson, which I do not.

That's literally my problem The term "level above".

If I've misunderstood you then my bad. I thought you said Foster was a level above Johnson as a fighter. That was my only contention.

As for your Tunney question, yes Johnson does have the same advantages of strength and size over Tunney as he does over Johnson, but I don't rank him higher. But thats because I believe Tunney was a better overall boxer than Johnson, so those advantages Foster has are mitigated by Tunney's abilities. Abilities which I don't think Johnson has on the same level as Tunney. Once again, this stems from the idea that not all advantages are equally employed. its not just a tally mark measuring system. So yes, I still hold that Tunney is better than Foster, despite Foster having power advantages over him, while Foster is better than Johnson, with the most notable advantage he has over him being his punching ability. I don't think this is an overly complex belief pattern, I imagine we could use this logic for other fighters.

Agree Tunney is better than Johnson but solely skill wise I wouldn't say there's much between them though. I'd rank Tunney above him though.

I just think the logic kind of doesn't stand but again I've misunderstood your positon, because I wouldn't argue saying Foster is better than Johnson. My issue was saying he's a level above him.

I still hold that I believe given five chances to beat Archie Moore, Foster wouldve won at least one of them, truth is I don't think any light heavy would have whitewashed Foster in five straight fights. Though I hold that true for most all top level fighters in their best weight class.

Don't disagree.

But Foster didn't beat anyone on Moore's level. That's something that I think needs to be considered in this conversation.

But I wouldn't argue the idea of Foster winning at least 1 out of 5 vs Moore.

As for the Doug Jones fight, c'mon, we are evaluating fighters in their prime. Foster had not even been a pro for two years when we got the fight as a last minute substitute. He was so green his next fight was against an opponent making his pro debut. Its why we try to evaluate full fighters in their primes and with a significant sample size. You know that and are smarter than that, and are just using the Jones fight as bad faith argument. Its akin to claiming Jake Paul was better than Mike Tyson because he beat him head to head when he was old.

No, again, I don't disagree. I did state that Foster was pre prime when he lost to Jones. Johnson however was past his prime. So neither of them were the best versions of themselves.

I don't hold much stock in it. But, it did happen. It's something to consider at least to some degree.