When Did Boxing Become Just about Workrate

the best bet is for agressive fighter to fight techincal fighter. i 'm sorry i don't like watching gatti fight all the time when he is always one punch away from death

But Im still right. Im kinda tired educating noobs like the stupid thread starter but for the sake of his own education Ill try to post something his brains can learn. Now... let's use common sense again.,, Question no. 1 Is boxing a sport? Question no. 2 Is PROFESSIONAL boxing a form of entertainment? Boxing is not about throwing 30 punches per round then running the whole round and clinching in between like what gayweather and Hopkins does. Its the very reason why boxing is losing fans. Whenever fakes try those stunts and stupid judges gives them credit... boxing's fanbase will simply be disgusted by it. In the 50's 60's and 70's fights that I have watched, mostly on Classic fights.... Volume punching is basically a part of every boxer's arsenal. SO before you try to justify what Hopkins does... take a look a great fighters before him... They're the ones who set the bar of boxing high. Not some gayweather or Hopkins clinching ala Ruiz and throwing 30 punches per round. damn dumbass you ever heard of jack johnson, willie pep, sweet pea

Almost every other post i read say something all fighter have to do is have a high workrate. i guess this must be the new age of boxing. it seems more people don't understand this sport. everybody want to see a t.v. friendly fighter (Gatti). i always learn it was to hit not get hit. What happen to defense, accuracy, and ring generalship. one other question is why is that when a fighter fight off the back foot he is running? it is what it is everybody looks at fights from there own perspective but i agree, to me the most important thing is who is the fighter landing the cleaner legal shots not a bunch of back of the head punches or someone who seems to be fighting more but barely landing

Gayweather isn't loved by Ali's generation. Duh! He's not even that known that much in America either. But then again... few cowards and ducks ever get to become famous anyway. i agree, FAMOUS DUCKS- http://wyattgwyon.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/donald-duck-3523d.jpg http://mschaut.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/daffy_duck.jpg NOT SO FAMOUS DUCK- http://www.exposay.com/celebrity-photos/floyd-mayweather-jr-mayweather-foundation-event-toys-for-tots-at-the-tabu-ultra-lounge-in-las-vegas-on-december-6-2007-0Qi7QS.jpg Ducks rarely become famous :nonono:

Another fckface noob pretending he knows something. Before you create a thread in the future make d fck sure you know what you're saying noob. Let's use common sense and make this as simple as possible. Question no. 1 When did SRR fight? Question no. 2 Is he or is he not a volume puncher? Question no. 3 Who told you volume punching is new? Prolly ur stupid folks. :thumbsdow:thumbsdow:thumbsdow:thumbsdow

Almost every other post i read say something all fighter have to do is have a high workrate. i guess this must be the new age of boxing. it seems more people don't understand this sport. everybody want to see a t.v. friendly fighter (Gatti). i always learn it was to hit not get hit. What happen to defense, accuracy, and ring generalship. one other question is why is that when a fighter fight off the back foot he is running? workrate, like ring generalship and other subjective criteria for judging fights (like "he doesn't have a mark on his face after the fight so he won") is only useful if the fight is a close fight.

Did I miss this fight? Yeah probably. Calzaghe looked akward, but he was landing shots on the inside and straight lefts ocassionally. Taylor won rounds (2-6) clearer, but that was just based on Bhop's inactivity. Rounds 1, 7-12 Taylor landed shit.

Almost every other post i read say something all fighter have to do is have a high workrate. i guess this must be the new age of boxing. it seems more people don't understand this sport. everybody want to see a t.v. friendly fighter (Gatti). i always learn it was to hit not get hit. What happen to defense, accuracy, and ring generalship. one other question is why is that when a fighter fight off the back foot he is running? When uneducated judges rated workrate equally with ring generalship, effective agressiveness and clean punching. I think workrate and pressuring is a party of ring generalship, and it can help determine close rounds. Thats about it.

this not have nothing to with hopkins and cal, just how volume punching changing the rules of boxing. it almost like anybody can box now. i can throw a 100 punches a round but it don't mean alot. i give you ex. from basketball if players shot the ball 45 times and only make 15-20 shot and end with about 30pts another players shoots 25 and makes 15-20 shots and ends with the same amount. who more effective There are actually very few boxers than can throw 100+ punches a round and keep it up consistantly are Williams, Calzaghe and Margarito. It takes a huge amount of physical conditioning to be able to throw that many punches. When you say anyone can box, you should be saying anyone extremly fit can box. Regardless there are fighters from the old times that rely on workrate like Greb.

this not have nothing to with hopkins and cal, just how volume punching changing the rules of boxing. it almost like anybody can box now. i can throw a 100 punches a round but it don't mean alot. i give you ex. from basketball if players shot the ball 45 times and only make 15-20 shot and end with about 30pts another players shoots 25 and makes 15-20 shots and ends with the same amount. who more effective

I think Calzaghe landed more then Taylor did (second fight) and yet they gave the fight to Taylor. Hopkins landed more against Taylor. I think it's pretty much agreed upon that without the KD that Bernard (for those who scored it for him) would have gotten a draw against Calzaghe. The second Taylor fight Hopkins negated anything Taylor did and Taylor wasn't landing shit. I mean in the first fight, Taylor atleast landed some stuff like body shots and jabs in the first one. Second one is definietly one of those fights where workrate > clean shots. I have a problem with that if the guy with the workrate isn't landing. For example, Taylor-Pavlik II the guy with the work rate was landing enough shots to win the round.

Well if this is a reference to Hopkins then I must say that the Calzaghe Hopkins judges definitely rewarded workrate. The thing is Hopkins negated any effort on Calzaghe's part to score effectively. Honetly, I think the best punch that Calzaghe landed of the whole fight was a straight left to Hop's forehead which did nothing. I watched the fight twice to see why they would have given the fight to him. Yeah B-Hop looked older and wasn't doing alot offensively but he was making Calzaghe look bad and he landed the harder cleaner punches. True but Hopkins maybe landed 5 clean punches to Calzaghe's say 12-15 "scrappy" punches and 1 or 2 of which would land cleanly. Once it got past the 4 rounds though Hopkins stopped landing clean shots and that's where Calzaghe's workrate actually yook over.

sorry meant straight right.

Well if this is a reference to Hopkins then I must say that the Calzaghe Hopkins judges definitely rewarded workrate. The thing is Hopkins negated any effort on Calzaghe's part to score effectively. Honetly, I think the best punch that Calzaghe landed of the whole fight was a straight left to Hop's forehead which did nothing. I watched the fight twice to see why they would have given the fight to him. Yeah B-Hop looked older and wasn't doing alot offensively but he was making Calzaghe look bad and he landed the harder cleaner punches.

i understand what ya'll say but alot volume punchers just be swing just to look like they are doing something when they are not. if i throw 100 punches and land 20 thats horrible. that's just wasting punches i don't care what people if you throw 100 they all do not have steam on them. i maybe one of the few that hate the compubox stat cause at time they seem to be way off at times. during the fight one the guys saying that was a great punch and replay show it didn't even land

Pavlik-Taylor II is a great example. For the first time in forever, Taylor was boxing really well... but he lost, because Pavlik landed more. It wasn't like Pavlik was picking his spots better and was landing at a higher percentage. He won because he was throwing so many more punches, and because of that, more got through, even though Taylor was being more accurate.

If it was in reference to someone like Pavlik against Hopkins, it actually makes some sense. The fact that Hopkins is so ****ing gunshy most of the time means that Pavlik's work rate will probably carry the day for him. Obviously a punch thrown is worthless unless it lands, but the more punches you throw, the more you are likely to land. Therefore, a huge workrate against an extremely limited workrate is probably going to end with the huge workrate winning unless the limited workrate can score the KO. You know what I mean? Good post. How many fights has the more effective puncher lost in simply cuz the other guy threw a shitload more? It shouldn't necessarily be that way but it is. Judges always take notice of a guy outworkin his man unless the guy wit lower output is landin really vicious shots that are doin a lotta damage. And yea, the more you throw the more you'll land. Law of averages. The whole thing about 'runners' is usually thrown out there to discredit technical boxers when they ain't excitin enough. I've always said movement is justified as long as there's some effective punchin done along wit it.

Almost every other post i read say something all fighter have to do is have a high workrate. i guess this must be the new age of boxing. it seems more people don't understand this sport. everybody want to see a t.v. friendly fighter (Gatti). i always learn it was to hit not get hit. What happen to defense, accuracy, and ring generalship. one other question is why is that when a fighter fight off the back foot he is running? If it was in reference to someone like Pavlik against Hopkins, it actually makes some sense. The fact that Hopkins is so ****ing gunshy most of the time means that Pavlik's work rate will probably carry the day for him. Obviously a punch thrown is worthless unless it lands, but the more punches you throw, the more you are likely to land. Therefore, a huge workrate against an extremely limited workrate is probably going to end with the huge workrate winning unless the limited workrate can score the KO. You know what I mean?