When Did Boxing Become Just about Workrate

**Fox McCloud** · 10-02-2008, 05:49 PM

Originally posted by 215Chaingang

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?

**MANGLER** · 10-02-2008, 05:54 PM

Originally posted by DWiens421

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 ****load 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.

**Fox McCloud** · 10-02-2008, 05:56 PM

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.

**El Dominicano** · 10-02-2008, 05:57 PM

To answer the thread starterz question. It was when B-Hop got old...pretty much during the B-Hop vs JT fight.

**215Chaingang** · 10-02-2008, 06:09 PM

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

**sekondnature** · 10-02-2008, 06:14 PM

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.

**sekondnature** · 10-02-2008, 06:15 PM

sorry meant straight right.

**Ryn0** · 10-02-2008, 06:18 PM

Originally posted by sekondnature

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.

**warp1432** · 10-02-2008, 06:28 PM

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 ****. 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.

When Did Boxing Become Just about Workrate