Boxing  

Forum Home Boxing Forum European British Classic Aussie MMA Training
Go Back   Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > Classic Boxing Forum


Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 07-08-2013, 07:34 AM   #1
janitor
P4P King
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 21,044
vCash: 1000
Default Are the most durable heavyweights through history large heavyweights?

I feel that I have to throw this into the debate on size/durability. I donít think that the most durable heavyweights throughout history, have typically been large heavyweights for their eras.

Oliver McCall was the most durable heavyweight of the 90s

Randal Cobb was the most durable heavyweight of the 80s.

George Chuvalo was the most durable heavyweight of the 60s.

Paulino Uzcdun in the most durable heavyweight of the 30s.

I am not seeing any common theme of the fighter with the best chin, being a large fighter by the standards of their era.
janitor is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 07-08-2013, 10:47 AM   #2
Ipay4leavingNot
Gatekeeper
ESB Full Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 477
vCash: 500
Default Re: Are the most durable heavyweights through history large heavyweights?

Generally speaking small guys take alot of punishment. If you are a 6'0 boxer fighting as a heavyweight it will be tough, unless you have alot of power like Liston. You see there are just a few fighters who can give a big tough booming puncher guy a real fight for his life. I think big punchers are more durable. ali was a big guy but lack durability because he fought too often, got hit alot by frazier. A boom boom bam puncher would never take those kinds of hit. They get worn down over a few rounds or caught with one bad punch. It is the bob and weave and the movers who get worn down over rounds and end up in wheel chairs when someone finally catches them, as far as heavyweights go. I have to think Liston was more durable he fought well past 40.

George Chuvalo likely had a thicker skull than most people, and had a very thick neck and did 30 minutes of neck exercises a day which included rolling on his neck upside down, and all other kinds of weird exercises, we use to think he was crazy, but he claimed that he was training to take a punch (a novel idea at the time because most of us are taught don't get hit to begin with) I use to do road work with him when I lived in Toronto, we'd run through high park together, that guy use to chew a mouthful of bubble gum for 30 minutes a day.

I seen Chuvalo go toe to toe with the hardest punchers in sparing, they buckled his legs but NO ONE ever dropped him, not once, not that I saw. I saw him take the best hits of a guy who I saw drop holmes in the 80s with a bodyshot. He buckled Chuvalo's knees but never could drop him. I think that guy hit harder than Foreman or Shavers.

I have no clue what Oliver McCall secret is.
Ipay4leavingNot is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2013, 10:57 AM   #3
Seamus
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Lisboa, Portugal
Posts: 12,122
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Are the most durable heavyweights through history large heavyweights?

Quote:
Originally Posted by janitor View Post
I feel that I have to throw this into the debate on size/durability. I donít think that the most durable heavyweights throughout history, have typically been large heavyweights for their eras.

Oliver McCall was the most durable heavyweight of the 90s

Randal Cobb was the most durable heavyweight of the 80s.

George Chuvalo was the most durable heavyweight of the 60s.

Paulino Uzcdun in the most durable heavyweight of the 30s.

I am not seeing any common theme of the fighter with the best chin, being a large fighter by the standards of their era.
All big dudes for their eras. I would add Willard, too.

And maybe it is this watching Price gas and flail this weekend, but it seems the overly tall, overly gigantic sort are more prone to stamina issues which makes them not so durable.
Seamus is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2013, 11:22 AM   #4
nostir a
Journeyman
ESB Jr Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 174
vCash: 665
Default Re: Are the most durable heavyweights through history large heavyweights?

what do yous guys think of neck thickness making a better chin?
nostir a is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2013, 11:26 AM   #5
Seamus
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Lisboa, Portugal
Posts: 12,122
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Are the most durable heavyweights through history large heavyweights?

Quote:
Originally Posted by nostir a View Post
what do yous guys think of neck thickness making a better chin?
I think a lot of it is vision and a sixth sense anticipation thing. Like LaMotta (or I have heard Chuvalo talk about this)... when a fighter can anticipate the punches and take them without surprise... It's not just a thick cranium or neck, it's a base level intuition of how the punches are coming your way.
Seamus is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2013, 11:40 AM   #6
burt bienstock
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 7,750
vCash: 500
Default Re: Are the most durable heavyweights through history large heavyweights?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus View Post
I think a lot of it is vision and a sixth sense anticipation thing. Like LaMotta (or I have heard Chuvalo talk about this)... when a fighter can anticipate the punches and take them without surprise... It's not just a thick cranium or neck, it's a base level intuition of how the punches are coming your way.
So very true S. I have seen no-necks get flattened, whilst pencil-necked fighters take the shots...
burt bienstock is online now  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2013, 11:46 AM   #7
IntentionalButt
Nash Equilibrium Debunker
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Boston
Posts: 120,006
vCash: 10000
Default Re: Are the most durable heavyweights through history large heavyweights?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ipay4leavingNot View Post
I seen Chuvalo go toe to toe with the hardest punchers in sparing, they buckled his legs but NO ONE ever dropped him, not once, not that I saw. I saw him take the best hits of a guy who I saw drop holmes in the 80s with a bodyshot. He buckled Chuvalo's knees but never could drop him. I think that guy hit harder than Foreman or Shavers.
Name?
IntentionalButt is online now  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2013, 01:05 PM   #8
janitor
P4P King
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 21,044
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Are the most durable heavyweights through history large heavyweights?

[quote]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus View Post
All big dudes for their eras.
I would say that they were medium sized for their respective eras, though any of them would have looked imposing if you met them in the flesh.

Quote:
I would add Willard, too.
That could stand I guess.

Quote:
And maybe it is this watching Price gas and flail this weekend, but it seems the overly tall, overly gigantic sort are more prone to stamina issues which makes them not so durable.
That may be a factor in some cases.

You see my general point though.
janitor is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2013, 01:23 PM   #9
dinovelvet
Up Top To The Head
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 9,557
vCash: 86
Default Re: Are the most durable heavyweights through history large heavyweights?

The most succesful SH of all time could not contend with a battle of attrition whenever it faced him.
Imagine Wlad fighting off the ropes. Impossible.
dinovelvet is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2013, 01:33 PM   #10
Hookie
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Chambersburg, PA
Posts: 2,459
vCash: 500
Default Re: Are the most durable heavyweights through history large heavyweights?

No.
Hookie is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2013, 01:45 PM   #11
Hookie
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Chambersburg, PA
Posts: 2,459
vCash: 500
Default Re: Are the most durable heavyweights through history large heavyweights?

Holyfield came up from CW when the limit at CW was 190 Lbs. He wasn't down until after age 30... vs. Riddick Bowe at Bowe's very best. Bowe had a 2 1/2 -3" height advantage (depending on the source), a 4 1/2" reach advantage, and a 30 Lb. weight advantage. Did you all see this knockdown? Not a very good knockdown. Bowe landed a shot to the back of Holyfield's head (in the head and neck area at the base of his skull). Holyfield almost went down and used the ropes for support. Now, using the ropes to hold yourself up after getting hit is a knockdown... but what if you get hit in the back of the head?

The knockdown vs. Cooper was clean... again he used the ropes to keep from going all the way down.

Point? Holyfield was very durable and not a huge HW.
Hookie is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2013, 01:45 PM   #12
Seamus
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Lisboa, Portugal
Posts: 12,122
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Are the most durable heavyweights through history large heavyweights?

[quote=janitor;15552528]
Quote:

I would say that they were medium sized for their respective eras, though any of them would have looked imposing if you met them in the flesh.
McCall was 6-2, 230. That was reflective of the emerging trend of super heavies. That is bigger than Liston, bigger than Foreman from the 70's. McCall was a monster in person, too. Atomic Bull was an apt name.

Tex Cobb was 6-3, 230 in the late 70's which was, at that time, giant. He was a former footballer, tough as nails and routinely outweighed his opponents by 25 pounds.

Chuvalo was 6-0 and between 210 and 220. That was larger than average for the 1960's. He outweighed his opponents more often than not. Large, not huge, for his era.

Uzcudun was 5-10, 200 or more. Average or a little above for the class in his era.

Willard was a damn giant for his era, no need to recount his dimensions.

I would also add Tua, who weight-wise and build, not height, was huge.

So, I would say, given this small sample, that the most durable heavies tend to be above-average to very big for their era, not necessarily in height but in build and frame. Chuvalo, McCall and Uzcudun were big on the scale for their eras but far bigger in person. But again, the cost of adding size is the vulnerability of reduced stamina. Tua could chug all day, dishing out punishment; Jimmy Thunder not so much.
Seamus is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2013, 02:14 PM   #13
Hookie
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Chambersburg, PA
Posts: 2,459
vCash: 500
Default Re: Are the most durable heavyweights through history large heavyweights?

Oliver McCall, Vitali Klitschko, a prime David Tua... almost impossible to drop.

Marion Wilson... remained upright vs. some very big punchers while blocking their best punches with his face.

Ray Mercer... part flash knockdown, part just went down to avoid more punishment vs. Holyfield... got dropped and stopped a few times when he was washed up, but at his best he was very hard to drop.

Marciano was down just twice in 49 fights. Once vs. Moore (who scored more KOs than anyone) and once vs. Walcott (a very good puncher). Both times he was up right away and went on to stop his opponent.

James Toney was once a very good MW. At HW he took punches from Holyfield, Rahman x2, Peter x2, and others and remained upright.
Hookie is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2013, 02:20 PM   #14
Mendoza
Dominating a decade
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 14,102
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Are the most durable heavyweights through history large heavyweights?

Durability in boxing can be misunderstood. If you are talking the ability to absorb punishment, then yes, I think the larger more compactly built fighters tend to be more durable. However stamina/ cardio plays a big role in taking and recovering from shots, and not everyone has a great will to win/heart.
Mendoza is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2013, 02:31 PM   #15
Hookie
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Chambersburg, PA
Posts: 2,459
vCash: 500
Default Re: Are the most durable heavyweights through history large heavyweights?

G. Tunney, R. Marciano, R. Bowe, N. Valuev, S. Ibragimov, J. Toney... are the only HW Champs who never lost by stoppage. Yeah, Toney was stripped of the title and his only HW Title won was changed to a NC... but I'm gonna give him a break here.
Hookie is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Reply

Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > Classic Boxing Forum

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump





All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:25 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Boxing News 24 Forum 2013