Originally Posted by Absolutely!
This is durability we're talking about, not toughness (more of a mental trait, and something applicable at any level of the game).
And if you're talking about most durable heavyweights ever, then you can't make allowances for past eras that were deficient in certain physical traits that are commonly found in the most durable fighters.
Big men can (on average) take more of a beating than smaller men. Big men can also (on average) deliver harder punches as well. A big man routinely taking punches from other big men known to be hard punchers is considerably more durable in my books than a big man routinely taking punches from smaller men, or a smaller man taking punches from other smaller men. Other factors come into play, of course, but that's the benchmark.
So yes, it absolutely matters.
And how many of those smaller fighters destroyed other smaller opponents while being forced to bludgeon away at their larger foes? Haye had a phenomenal KO percentage at Cruiserweight, but could hardly dent Valuev. Dempsey knocked guys his own size clean out with one or two punches. He had to continually batter Willard to the canvas until Willard retired on his stool. Proves my point I think.
Err and what point was that? Unless you've taken punches from someone who is 6'6 and 240lbs you can't be considered durable? My point was Tony Galento is one of the most durable Heavyweights ever. A man with no defence, who fought in the upper ranks of the division for a number of years, facing the biggest punchers of the era all of whom were over 200 lbs and having 116 proffesional fights and walked away with only being decked once cannot do so with being one of the most durable heavyweights ever.
Lorenzo Pack 210lbs
Joe Louis 200lbs
Lou Nova 207lbs
Max Baer 221lbs
Buddy Baer 240lbs
Ironically Joe Louis, despite being the smallest, was the only one not only to deck Galento but to legitimatley stop him, the first, last and only one to do so. Kind of goes against your point huh?