[bill1234]

To make this match interesting, I'm gonna put the match at heavyweight. Both were some of the hardest punchers ever at lightheavyweight, and both fought against very good fighters at heavyweight. I think the main difference is Foster had the misfortune of going up again great fighters of the 70's in their prime, where as Spinks fought good fighters from the 80's who were past their prime or shot as a fighter.

Bob Foster was 1 of 2 people to ever cut Ali, but went on to be knocked out. Joe Frazier knocked him out as well.

Michael Spinks's main claim to fame was when he beat Larry Holmes for the heavyweight title in September of 1985. He then won a very controversial rematch. He ended up being stripped of the title for fighting non deserving people such as a completely shot fighter in Gerry Cooney, and an unknown person. He ended his career when he was knocked out in 91 seconds by Mike Tyson.

So, who wins this match up at heavyweight? Who went up in size better?

 

[BoxingManiac]

I would have to say that Bob Foster would eat his grandmother. Bobby all the way, my friend. That Lethal Left kills the guy.

 

[Obama]

Bob Foster lost to former A level but at the time over-the-hill fighter in Zora Folley. He also lost to the B level Ernie Terrell. He lost to both of these figthers in his prime. Spinks and Holmes were both past their prime when they fought, not to mention a past-his-prime Holmes > Ernie Terrell any day of the week.

 

[ColinMarcus]

I don't know about this one. Anyone smart would put his money on Foster so I'll put mine on Spinks.

 

[bill1234]

Bob Foster lost to former A level but at the time over-the-hill fighter in Zora Folley. He also lost to the B level Ernie Terrell. He lost to both of these figthers in his prime. Spinks and Holmes were both past their prime when they fought, not to mention a past-his-prime Holmes > Ernie Terrell any day of the week.

I think Spinks was in his prime when he fought Holmes. Michael was 28 and was still dominating the lightheavies. He clearly wasn't as good as heavy, his power went from a 9/10 to a 6/10 (for the weightclass). But he was just as fast.

 

[Obama]

I think Spinks was in his prime when he fought Holmes. Michael was 28 and was still dominating the lightheavies. He clearly wasn't as good as heavy, his power went from a 9/10 to a 6/10 (for the weightclass). But he was just as fast.

Can't say he was still dominating them because he never went back down to Light Heavy. His transition to past his prime came abruptly to me, simply didn't look as sharp.

 

[bill1234]

Can't say he was still dominating them because he never went back down to Light Heavy. His transition to past his prime came abruptly to me, simply didn't look as sharp.

I don't think he looked as sharp for a few reasons, 1: he was fighting a top 5 heavyweight in Larry Holmes, even though Larry was only about 60-70% of what he was in his prime. 2: because the punches weren't doing as much, which would have to do with the move up. He carried the same power, it just didn't have the same effects. And 3: He moved up in wait, few people look as sharp as they did in a lower weight.

 

[Obama]

I don't think he looked as sharp for a few reasons, 1: he was fighting a top 5 heavyweight in Larry Holmes, even though Larry was only about 60-70% of what he was in his prime. 2: because the punches weren't doing as much, which would have to do with the move up. He carried the same power, it just didn't have the same effects. And 3: He moved up in wait, few people look as sharp as they did in a lower weight.

Good points, but those are generally indications that a fighter shouldn't move up in weight. The fighters who retain their gifts like Tommy Hearns, or Oscar De La Hoya, or Manny Pacquiao are the ones who move up naturally.

 

[bill1234]

Michael should have stayed at lightheavy and continued his reign there, I think a fight between him and Holyfield around '87 would have been good if he didn't slip very much.