Longevity is about Style or the Individual?

[Tony Trick-Pony]

I've thought for a while that the style for longevity has to be one of great defense obviously and that the boxer style is the one best suited for a long career. Bernard Hopkins clearly has demonstrated that a boxer style can have great longevity and so did Floyd Mayweather. 19 years and 28 years respectively, assuming they bother stay retired.

However, Roberto Duran fought for 35 years, being more of a swarmer and brawler. George Foreman fought until around 50(with a ten year absence, granted) with more a slugging, bruising style.

And as far as top level, Duran fought mainly below the top level in his later years although I could see him facing bigger challenges if they were available. Foreman did beat Moorer and then fought Briggs at the end. So what do you guys think? Are boxers essentially better in the long run or is it really about the individual fighter? I say the latter.

[Redd Foxx]

Genetics.
Physical wear and tear in training (joints, ligaments).
Damage taken.
Whether the style is conducive to it.
Competition faced in later years.

I think there's a lot that goes into it but, as with most things health related, your genetics come into play heavily. Some people's bodies fade, whether or not they are athletes.
Wear and tear in the gym is something people usually overlook. They forget how badly these guys grind on a daily basis. If your knees go, you are a sitting duck.

Damage taken in fights gets the most credit but it's obvious that fighters are all affected differently in this regard. Some fall off after a single KO. Guys like Salido go to war for years, get knocked down a lot, and are able to go into their mid-late 30's being competitive.

[juggernaut666]

Whoever gets hit the least usually . Which is style ,long range fighters tend to have longer high level careers . Foreman rarely took successive punishment bc opposition ran around him , Holyfield fight was the most he ever got hit ,he also had a great chin and outweighed Holyfield by about 50 pounds or so . Thers not to many Foreman or Durans ,style is a big advantage bc you have more control over execution if you can score from a distance . Training is also different the inside aggressive fighter also uses more energy which adds up particularly in sparring where you are probably eating more punches there too

[pacmanis1]

I'd say its more about individual and mentality. I'd argue that Floyd and Bhop lasted so long because of their dedication rather than style. Look at Salido. That guy has taken more damage in one fight than Floyd has in his entire career but no one would call him damaged goods and he's still a danger to anyone he fights.

[yngwie]

Jake LaMotta is 95 years old, Wilfred Benitez was shot at 24.

[pacmanis1]

Jake LaMotta is 95 years old, Wilfred Benitez was shot at 24.

Jake LaMotta defies logic and should be studied for science.

[Tony Trick-Pony]

Jake LaMotta defies logic and should be studied for science.

LaMotta is a true genetic freak. A Mack truck could run over his head and he might need an aspirin, although I doubt it.

[Mexican_Puppet]

Rivals faced and genetic.

For example, guys like Narvaez had a very sweet career and that is the reason why he is too old and he is active yet.

[HandsofIron]

I've thought for a while that the style for longevity has to be one of great defense obviously and that the boxer style is the one best suited for a long career. Bernard Hopkins clearly has demonstrated that a boxer style can have great longevity and so did Floyd Mayweather. 19 years and 28 years respectively, assuming they bother stay retired.

However, Roberto Duran fought for 35 years, being more of a swarmer and brawler. George Foreman fought until around 50(with a ten year absence, granted) with more a slugging, bruising style.

And as far as top level, Duran fought mainly below the top level in his later years although I could see him facing bigger challenges if they were available. Foreman did beat Moorer and then fought Briggs at the end. So what do you guys think? Are boxers essentially better in the long run or is it really about the individual fighter? I say the latter.

I'd say the latter.

And Duran actually fought some top level guys and future greats in the making near the end of his career. (Ex. Hector Camacho, SRL thought Camacho got an early X-mas gift against Duran in their first fight)

[Tony Trick-Pony]

[QUOTE=HandsofIron;17331802]I'd say the latter.

And Duran actually fought some top level guys and future greats in the making near the end of his career. (Ex. Hector Camacho, SRL thought Camacho got an early X-mas gift against Duran in their first fight)[/QUOTE]

Yes, the "Hands of Stone" fought some good ones even in his forties and fifties. I think he would always fight anybody. His fight with William Joppy at 48 years old proves that. And Leonard is absolutely correct. Even the commentators who weren't exactly pro-Duran were shocked that the judges gave Camacho that fight. Duran of course, also rarely got hit clean. Even the Hearns knockout was quick. So he never really took a beating. Even the No Mas fight was close and he didn't get hit with much of substance.