Heavyweight with the highest workrate

Yes, but it is as great to watch as the Cuevas-Ranzany fight is also to watch. gotta love those left:hathookers

 

Possibly backwards.

 

No, nobody's attributing or accounting work-rate is bobbing and weaving and ducking and moving. It's just clobbering punches one and after another. Obviously the former takes exertion and is a working rate - to me anyway work-rate is the punches being thrown. Marciano exceeds Frazier in this regard. Definitely. And yes, I think Marciano clearly exceeds Frazier in this. I dare question how many fights you've actually seen if Marciano if you take Frazier over him on this one.

 

:happy

 

martin rogan

 

For modern heavyweights Alexander Povetkin has a hell of a work rate as well.

 

When did punch-stat count even come into existence?

Honestly, Marciano fought 15 rounds once and even then I doubt Frazier threw more punches than Marciano did against Charlies than Joe had in Manilla. In fact, I don't doubt that Frazier and Ali threw more punches, but Marciano threw more than Frazier I'd say. Charles was on the receiving end of a lot of punishment, but I don't think he winged nearly as many punches as Frazier's dance partner did in Ali.

So, this is some nice presumptuous logic from you McGrain.

 

Consistently over 15 rounds, I'd lean towards Marciano with respect to the never ending argument about quantity of stamina between Rocky and Joe Frazier.

However, I'd say nobody, not even Marciano is busier or has a higher work-rate than Frazier from the middle rounds to the near ends of the fight. Marciano was never known as slow starter, but in general, shorter, pressure fighters are slower starters because swarmers usually need a round or two to find the range within punches.

Again, I'm not really saying Marciano has a higher workrate than Frazier and vice-versa, but I can believe that Marciano in the early rounds is a busier puncher than Frazier, with Joe exceeding Marciano in punch volume as the fight approaches the middle rounds.

No disrespect to Pete the Prince, but I still believe Frazier's pace and pressure and how quickly he attacked his opponent was faster than Marciano, after the opening rounds. By this rationale alone, and watching Frazier corner his opponents and work the body, his punch output and workrate are greater than Marciano. Marciano probably takes Frazier numbers wise from about round 13 to the end. Frazier does slow done a little, but not after demonstrating a wicked, furious middleweight pace through the middle rounds, which no heavyweight since has shown, not even Tyson.

 

It depends. I've never seen a heavyweight fight in the 15th round of a tough fight in the same way that Marciano did in the last round of Charles-Marciano I. He could have hit the 100 mark in that round had there been a little less clinching on Ezzard's part.

I think Frazier put in more net "work" than Marciano (counting head-movement and foot-movement and how much he put into each punch, rather than just punch-counts) while Marciano, later on in his career, was very good at pacing himself for a swarmer. Hence why he was so difficult to handle in the second half of fights.

Of the super-heavyweights, Lewis and Vitali are the most impressive. Vitali throws a lot of punches for a big man, but I think Lewis put more into his punches. Again, it's the same issue: do you pick the boxer who throws more punches or the boxer who puts in more physical exertion? Either way, Vitali, Lewis and (to a lesser degree) Wlad are freaks of nature and this is often forgotten when people talk about "modern superheavyweights". They are no more typical of this era than Ali, Foreman and Frazier were typical of theirs'.

 

In other words, backtracking. We go from a blanket statement like this

to perhaps he did, perhaps he didn't.

Way to completely undercut. As if my post consist of just opinion with zero logic, and your opinionated jargon is filled with logic. Nice work there. Except not quite. As we can see, I have plenty of logic which just out-worked your presumptuousness. :good

If you'll go back to an original post so will I. I stated that there could be a mix-up in what defines workrate. If you count constant speed/pressure and bobbing & weaving than Frazier gets the nod. I agree his workrate was more dyanmic and just more if that's the case. You jumped down a classic poster for slightly exaggerating, though the point still remains that if we're going by work-rate by punches (Which Bummy seemed to imply) thrown then Rocky is clearly superior than Frazier. And this is just observational truth. Arguing otherwise, just makes you look foolish. We can argue or try defining criteria, but don't try saying that a 75 post prime Frazier out-worked a prime Marciano because of a punch stat record that was recorded between two all time greats. Punch stats, probably weren't even recorded nor counted in the 50's to dispel your presumption. You just talking about how we can count them also doesn't dispel the fact that this record came into existence after punch-stats became stats officially. If so, then who holds the record for a HW in punches thrown?

Don't try objecting a poster than backing off and shying away when the retort faces your direction.

By the way. "If we can just count them up." Why don't you count it up, I'm sure a tedious time-waster like that will be fun for an avid boxing fan like you.

 

It all comes down to how we really define workrate. Frazier's was more dynamic, so I see the argument. McGrain, which I responded to was his implication that Frazier has thrown more punches due to being a record setter with Ali in Manilla. As if that makes Frazier probably having thrown much more punches, which is just an assumption that obviously he has backed down from.

Now, in terms of pace/pressure in bobbing and weaving and the speed of pressure a fighter combined with his punch output than I would lean toward Frazier. I guess it boils down to your work-rate. I don't neccessarily think Marciano was that much more busy early in the fights. Both weren't the fastest of starters, but even Joe got off and broke down Ellis in 5 and Foster in only 2 rounds. Marciano, on the other hand, was as sensational in round 15 as ever. That was his unending stamina. I have never seen Frazier throw over 100+ punches non-stop in rounds 10 and 15 like Marciano did against Charles. Frazier just slows down, and doesn't have that energy, snap, and power to keep throwing. So I won't agree with that middle to late senses. I could agree to overall if we combine the factors I mentioned earlier, but in terms of late stages of a fight I might learn toward Marciano because I feel his stamina is not marginally but noticeably superior. As a boxer historian said, "Marciano trained like a bare knuckled fighter. He could knock you out in the 20th round." Bummy even suggested that Marciano could've stopped FOTC Ali before the final bell. Now, maybe preposterous to some but I give him greater odds to do so then Frazier if they are at the same stages in the fight because Marciano never stopped and Frazier clearly was slowing down toward the end of his big fights, especially the ones against Ali even in his supposed "masterclass prime showing."

And you said he slowed down. By you can see furious middle weight pace toward his ending rounds against Moore and Cockell. Even Cockell being a poor performance, and Moore being a 32 year old Rocky. We can agree on workrate if we set the criteria straight, but I seriously doubt he had a "Higher punch-output." Marciano throw 100+ punches in round 15 against Charles and that wasn't just a fluke pour on to try KOing Charles. He did set a non-stop rate in early rounds when Charles was hurting.

 

Dude, stop backtracking. I just referred to a post that said "IF" the punch stat record for the Manila fight was correct then that would mean Frazier threw more punches than Marciano in a fight. Obviously that's presumptions, we went over that. I'm just re-iterating the fact that you're back-tracking and can't admit that. That's okay, I had trouble admitting I was wrong one time with the argument we had months back. So you want to go backwards on the punch stat record. As if Ali vs Frazier III breaks the record it means Frazier punched more times in a fight than Marciano? I don't get what you're doing here.

The undercutting was you telling me my post was just opinionated responses and yours were logical responses. As if your opinions are more logical.

No, I was telling you that I thought you were off with that section of the definition. Obviously the criteria was being worked out as I mentioned it in that exact post. Let's go back, here is what you said.

Originally Posted by McGrain

This content is protected

No.

I don't even say it's not Marciano, but "by Far"? Given that the punch stats don't appear to back this and that Frazier brings a generally faster pressure anyway (and there's more to workrate than punches thrown per round), it absolutley is not by far and it sounds to me like it's Frazier.

And my response

My understand of it to you, and Bummy's implication.

My thoughts, which counter-act your "punch-stat" as if Frazier has or does match Marciano in this category. Even off of 1 record setting fight as if that consistently proves it. Even though I still don't believe he does in Manilla. I'm talking from Bummy's point of view, which I pretty much agree with.

Fair enough, but it came down to different understand, basically.

I'm saying that we were working the kinks out on workrate, and that Bummy's POV came from a different understanding which would be from a perfectly fine opinion. I'm disagreeing with you on Frazier's punch out-put ever being more than Marciano's, even if that record is true of ALi vs Frazier III. I'm sure it could be, but you can't connect 1-2. But I'm the one looking foolish... backtracking, and not admitting and then changing my opinion to "If Frazier threw more punches in Manilla than he threw more punches than Marciano ever did in his career." OBVIOUSLY. How could anyone ever argue with this statement. It's a deduction of nothing other than 1+1 = 2. But that's not what you said, and we know that. You try being cagey and slippery with words. That's fine.

Yes, but it's still not wrong. Even taking in this Manilla fight. Marciano consistently had a higher output. He just did, he just threw more punches. The film shows this it doesn't lie. And you don't have to count it up to clearly notice it. Frazier to me was much more perhaps dynamic and deliberate, but Marciano in his title runs was just a "Non-stop punching machine," as Bert Sugar said. And Brian Kenny couldn't get over the "Work-rate!" by Marciano which he found "Astounding" when going over Marciano's title fights in Ringside: Marciano.

Nothing, you just seem to be the only one affected by simple debate. Maybe I come in a little hard but so do you.