Can you name some fights where the guy with less speed, power and chin won?

What?

 

It's weird because I'd say yes but that bomb of an uppercut Buster landed was one of the sweetest uppercuts you will see. Immaculately timed with such ferocity.

 

Holyfield-tyson

 

Sanders vs wald pussy? Or was his beard definitely more sturdy

 

I think what you mean to say is that Oscar was the better boxer. This I agree with. De la Hoya had a better ability to stick and move than Shane also, more fluid overall in terms of pure boxing. But Shane had faster hands and quicker movements. Most of Shane's movements were meaningless and done only to show how athletic he was but he was quick and quicker than oscar no doubt.

 

Chins were about equal I'd say.

 

Yeah close to equal but I'd say Tyson took a better single shot....conversely he couldn't adjust his style when he was hurt so he'd just keep taking shots and was consequently more susceptible to being stopped; if there's a difference between chin and durability Tyson was better in the former department holy the latter, imo

 

I agree with this.

 

word

I remember you made a similar observation with regard to Smokin' Joe... Chin was decent, but he was durable as fuck

 

Even though I agreed with Hut in principle, durable is the wrong word to use of Frazier but I get what you're trying to say. Durable IS about the ability to take a punch. A really hard punch...I don't think Frazier would be able to take too many of those. I think Tyson would have wiped him out very early...Lennox could have as well. What Frazier could do is take a sustained amount of punishment without wearing out. You had to beat him with power, you couldn't break his will and you couldn't rely on his chin eventually cracking. If you can't hurt Frazier in the first few rounds you're never stopping him.

Tyson on the other hand could shrug off the biggest punches. His chin was RIDICULOUS! But beat him over and over and over again with a sustained amount of punishment and you break his will and crack that chin.

 

Mosley could throw punches faster in combination than DLH but punch for punch speed was even and DLH had much faster feet.

 

And taking a sustained amount of punishment without wearing out is the definition of durability isn't it?

 

Upon second thought, you're quite correct. I take it back.

 

usually the loser had great natural attributes but were too mentally weak to adapt (Tyson against douglas & holyfield) and/or lazy (lewis against Rahman, Tyson in those embarrassing losses to danny williams etc. in later years)

 

Can't you read? Mosley was quicker but Oscar was faster!

 

Aye...it's almost like frazier was something else again tho. Holy had great survival instincts and was generally able to ride storms..... Tyson could take monster single shots but couldn't adapt and could be worn down....and frazier could be cracked but could seemingly take almost infinite punishment below a certain threshhold. Maybe we could call it the difference between resiliency, chin and durability!

 

Only real puncher Frazier fought though was Foreman. Quarry and Bonavena were strong but they weren't punchers. And the only two fights I can recall of Frazier where he sustained heavy punishment and kept coming back were the first and 3rd Ali fights and in both those fights shit was personal. So we don't have too much data to suggest that Frazier was " something else again tho"; some real life Wolverine .

Make no mistake, Evander Holyfield was tougher than Frazier. More than enough data to support that assertion against true punchers and in wars of attrition. Evander rules supreme in that category along with Ali.

 

I didnt mean 'something else' as in 'wow this guy is something else!!'. Just that the attribute we normally, erm, attribute (::) too him is a bit different to what holy displayed. Might be a bit of a conceptual/idealised distinction but still...for the sake of talking let's call them different. And talking is all we seem to do around here!

 

wow. that's something else.