Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Any one else think bob foster had a very weak title reign?

Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Any one else think bob foster had a very weak title reign?

    He mostly beat up on contenders and didnt beat one! great fighter, besides **** tiger who he won the title off

    #2
    He beat everyone there was. I guess he could have beaten up more blown up great fighters but they weren't willing to face him, so he had to move up against the likes of Ali and Frazier to challenge himself.

    Comment


      #3
      Originally posted by TheGreatA View Post
      He beat everyone there was. I guess he could have beaten up more blown up great fighters but they weren't willing to face him, so he had to move up against the likes of Ali and Frazier to challenge himself.
      Yes i agree its was not bob's fault, but its a weak resume of title defences

      Comment


        #4
        Originally posted by Joey Giardello View Post
        Yes i agree its was not bob's fault, but its a weak resume of title defences
        I wouldn't say it's weak. He beat top 5 rated opposition. Maybe his opponents weren't the most memorable, but they were all good fighters who were for the most part dominated by Foster.

        Comment


          #5
          Is this because lots of people said he would have beaten Carlos Monzon if he had moved up? You feel the need to show that he had a weak LHW run and wasn't as good as people make him out to be?

          I'm not bagging you, I'm being quite serious. You put up that thread only the other day asking about them fighting and he (Foster) won it by a little bit, so is this why or were you just thinking about Bob Foster's reign over tea and cookies this morning?

          Anyway, yes and no. It wasn't the best LHW title run ever, bit it wasn't weak. It didn't have the Napoles and Griffith names, but they were only names by that stage anyway so it was no different than them having no name.

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by BennyST View Post
            Is this because lots of people said he would have beaten Carlos Monzon if he had moved up? You feel the need to show that he had a weak LHW run and wasn't as good as people make him out to be?

            I'm not bagging you, I'm being quite serious. You put up that thread only the other day asking about them fighting and he (Foster) won it by a little bit, so is this why or were you just thinking about Bob Foster's reign over tea and cookies this morning?

            Anyway, yes and no. It wasn't the best LHW title run ever, bit it wasn't weak. It didn't have the Napoles and Griffith names, but they were only names by that stage anyway so it was no different than them having no name.
            It had nothing to do with monzon, was just looking at foster's record and i thought it looked a bit weak. Also the first time monzon fought emile griffith he was far from over the hill! and when he fought napoles, jose was welterweight champion and some considerd him the best fighter in the sport at that time. Also forget about napoles and griffith, foster hasnt got names as good as the likes of nino and brisco

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by Joey Giardello View Post
              It had nothing to do with monzon, was just looking at foster's record and i thought it looked a bit weak. Also the first time monzon fought emile griffith he was far from over the hill! and when he fought napoles, jose was welterweight champion and some considerd him the best fighter in the sport at that time. Also forget about napoles and griffith, foster hasnt got names as good as the likes of nino and brisco
              Tiger was better than both.

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by Joey Giardello View Post
                It had nothing to do with monzon, was just looking at foster's record and i thought it looked a bit weak. Also the first time monzon fought emile griffith he was far from over the hill! and when he fought napoles, jose was welterweight champion and some considerd him the best fighter in the sport at that time. Also forget about napoles and griffith, foster hasnt got names as good as the likes of nino and brisco
                if Carlos Monzon was to have fought Bob Fosters opponents Monzon would have at least 10 defeats on his record..

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by sonnyboyx2 View Post
                  if Carlos Monzon was to have fought Bob Fosters opponents Monzon would have at least 10 defeats on his record..
                  Monzon would of beat all them fighters foster beat only not in such a devastating way!

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by TheGreatA View Post
                    Tiger was better than both.
                    tiger was not a title defence i ment he has not got better names than nino and brisco when he was defending his title

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X
                    TOP