This is a 2 Horse Race; Spinks & Foster... & Though Foster was More Fluid & NATURALLY Talented than Spinks, REED Thinks Spinks would Win, Head to Head...Foster COASTED in Most of his Lightheavy Bouts, Whereas Spinks had to Weather Adversity Here & There, @ 175... Plus, Spinks Fared MUCH Better @ Heavyweight, which Can't B Totally Excluded from this Argument... Spinks & Foster BOTH Beat Saad Muhammad & Galindez...Saad Muhammad Beats Galindez...Spinks Beats Foster... 1.Spinks 2.Foster 3.Saad 4.Galindez REED:hammert:
Saad and Galindez were terrific fighters and would give good challenges to Spinks and Foster, but you guys are right, they will not win Spinks has a wonderful resume and his comp was excellent. Foster's comp, with the exception of Tiger (whom he scored one of the 4 or 5 most impressive KOs in history over) and Pierre Fourie (who was a good boxer and came up just short against Galindez as well) and maybe Mike Quarry (who was decent), was pretty goddamn awful. On the plus side, he treated them the way a great fighter should treat such comp. To me, that's a pick-em. I just have a real hard time picking against Foster at 175. He was a tremendously bad motherfucker. I wouldn't put a dime on anyone over him head-to-head at the weight, even though I'd probably rank 3 or 4 guys ahead of him all-time.
Spinks could not beat Bob, no way and no how. I saw Michael get beaten up and whipped by a club fighter named Eddie Davis in what was perhaps the worst decision of the 80's decade. Davis won 8 or 9 rounds of that fight and beat Michael pillar to post.
