weight lifting routine!

Jetcar said:

If I can take liberty with JCC's advice, I think he's refering to traditional weight lifting programs many people use to "bulk up". Those programs can have a detrimental effect on performance, especially for boxers or martial artists.

If you follow a focused program of weight lifting excercises that develop overall strength and dynamism, you'll bulk up safely without compromising flexibility and speed.

Click to expand...

No, I meant just what I said, forget about training with weights. Its only been in more recent years that some boxers have started lifting weights.

Notice that boxers today don't have boxers bodies any more and ask yourself why?

Are there better fighters today than there use to be?

Take the heavyweights for example, I don't see not Joe Louis out there today? I don't see no Jack Dempsey, Rocky Marciano, or Muhummed Ali out there today or that could even compare with those guys.

None of those guys trained with weights.

Notice also that in many of the pro fights today there is little exciting action but plenty of attempts at dancing and clinching and mediocre performances and ask yourself why?

Its a good thing they no longer fight 15 rounds in title fights any more, for most of those guys out there today couldn't go 15 rounds even with five air tanks on their backs. Especially that would be so as for the heavyweights?
They aren't built for it, they just aren't in good enough shape and they lack training discipline.

Why do you think on an average their weight will vary 20-40 pounds in between fights today amoung the heavyweights when it use to be on the average 6-8 pounds between fights?

Its the way the train today and also due to a lack of training discipline.

If somebody wants to use light hands weights very, very light hand weights shadow boxing that's okay. But other than that forget about training with weights.

Its only been in more recent years that boxers ever training with weights. Do we have better boxers today than we use to have? We do not!

As for your mention of flexiblity?

Weight training does not increase flexibility --- it actually reduces flexiblity.

Also weight training generally only works with the muscles that have no asthetic value. It does not address the strength of ligaments and tendons.

In fact, I can rememberv a time when trainers would take you off the heavyweight bag for a while if they saw you were starting to become too musclebound.

If you got musclebound your going to be slow and also your muscles will lose oxygen faster and when they happens in the ring in a fact your toast and you'll tire and your going to get your butt whooped.

Captainobvious99 said:

Evander Holyfields Training and lifting routine used before his fight with Buster Douglas in 1990.

TRAINING STRATEGY FOR EVANDER HOLYFIELD

Click to expand...

Hey, Capt. First off I want you to know that I think your a good guy, so please never take any thing I say in posts personal on various subject matters relating to our sport of boxing.

Secondly, I don't make any apologies for the fact that I'm an older guy and that I'm from the old school. For the old school if a fan knows much about the sport and its history is going to know the old school produced the greatest fighters among the heavyweights such as Joe Louis, Ezzard Charles, Joe Walcott, Rocky Marciano, Muhummed Ali, Joe Fraizer, George Foreman, Larry Holmes and many other great heavyweight champions that could also be named.

Also in the lighter weight divisions great champions such as Billy Conn, Gus Lesnevich, Archie Moore, D-ick Tiger, Bob Foster, Sugar Ray Robinson, Tony Zale, Carmen Basilio, Carlos Monzon, Marvin Hagler, Sugar Ray Leonard, Henry Armstrong, Wille Pep, Sandy Saddler, Roberto Dunan, Alexis Arguello just to mention a few and the list of greats that come from out of the old school is a very long list.

Now if you compare that with the more modern and the more contemporary boxing scene what you got are an ungainly bunch of misfits with barely recognizable names such as Johnny Ruiz, Lamon Brewster, Danny Williams, Vitali Klitscho, Chris Byrd, and a lot of other anonyous, inferior, and ponderous competitors in looking back on the boxing scene of more recent years. None of which would have stood a chance against the legends whom it could be rightly said were the genuine article.
.


EVANDER HOLYFIELD

Holyfield when under the wing of the great and legendary fight trainer Lou Duva, was at his best as a performer and champion.

But Holyfield isn't under the influence of Duva any more and Holyfield is now in his early forties and he's an old guy for a fighter now, however. In being the boxing scene is in such a disaray today, with so many mediocre fighters. I believe its possible that Holyfield could win the title in a weak heavyweight division.

Of course, we got no one heavyweight division today as it had once been before. The last time I counted there are eight such divisions now no one heavyweight division, and boxing organizations each got their own version of a so-called world champion.

I've seen enough of Holyfield now as for his performance since his recent comeback in which he has since had two fights with two medicore fighters in which the fans had booed him in his last fight for reasons of his poor perfomnance, and I would say he's a great guy but he's over the hill as a fighter.

By the way, as far as I know Holyfield's boxing license which was suspended by the New York State Athletic Commission some two years ago for reasons of his performance being so poor there in his last fight in New York is still under suspendion.

I kind of got the impression that you may enjoy grazing at Holyfield's physique. Yes, he does have a good physique but like so many other boxers today he doesn't have a boxers body, and there can be no question that does affect a fighters performance, and hinders his performance as a fighter. Boxing isn't a body building contest.

As for what you posted and relating to the link you posted and the fact that some guy named Frederick Hatfield, PhD, FISSA ... who has no boxing experience at all, and isn't an ex-fighter, had convinced Holyfield that as a boxer he should be lifting weights and had got a former student of his named Lee Harvey a bodybuilder to monitored Holyfield's training with weights gives legitmacy to lifting weights it doesn't according to my way of thinking.

You can't be, I mean REALLY be a trainer for a fighter if you haven't ever been a fighter, if you don't have the experience in having been a fighter for you have to have that to really be able to rightly train a fighter. You must have that or you can't train a fighter.

What you shared just shows how messed up things are today in the sport when you got some preeming bodybuilder who spends all their time which they all tend to do going around posing and sneaking peeks at themselves in mirrors for reasons they are so obcessed with their physiques and bodies and how they may look.

.

BOXING IS NOT A BODYBUILDING CONTEST

Actually, what you pointed out by the link you posted is in part why boxers don't have boxers bodies today, and how that has affected their performance in the ring.

Finally, I want to further say this that when you watch a fight your experience tells you what is good and what is medicore. Depends on how far back your experience goes.

.

EXPERIENCE

If your experience in boxing doesn't go too far back and to be able remember and to know the way it was in the sport when it was so much different than it is today. You may well see that which is mediocre as a great performance because you have been educated to a different form of entertianment as a fan than someone whose experience goes much farer back in the sport.

JCC said:

Hey, Capt. First off I want you to know that I think your a good guy, so please never take any thing I say in posts personal on various subject matters relating to our sport of boxing.

Click to expand...

Same here, I certaintly dont take anything here personal.
A healthy debate is always fun, and some times even enlightening. Ill be the first to admit that I dont know it all, and I dont pretend to.:thumbsup:

JCC said:

Secondly, I don't make any apologies for the fact that I'm an older guy and that I'm from the old school. For the old school if a fan knows much about the sport and its history is going to know the old school produced the greatest fighters among the heavyweights such as Joe Louis, Ezzard Charles, Joe Walcott, Rocky Marciano, Muhummed Ali, Joe Fraizer, George Foreman, Larry Holmes and many other great heavyweight champions that could also be named.

Also in the lighter weight divisions great champions such as Billy Conn, Gus Lesnevich, Archie Moore, D-ick Tiger, Bob Foster, Sugar Ray Robinson, Tony Zale, Carmen Basilio, Carlos Monzon, Marvin Hagler, Sugar Ray Leonard, Henry Armstrong, Wille Pep, Sandy Saddler, Roberto Dunan, Alexis Arguello just to mention a few and the list of greats that come from out of the old school is a very long list.

Now if you compare that with the more modern and the more contemporary boxing scene what you got are an ungainly bunch of misfits with barely recognizable names such as Johnny Ruiz, Lamon Brewster, Danny Williams, Vitali Klitscho, Chris Byrd, and a lot of other anonyous, inferior, and ponderous competitors in looking back on the boxing scene of more recent years. None of which would have stood a chance against the legends whom it could be rightly said were the genuine article.

Click to expand...

I dont disagree one bit with that. I was really thinking more along the lines of DeLa Hoya, Mosley, Wright, Jones Jr., Hopkins, Trinidad, etc. as the fighters of recent years who have really fought well, and left their mark on boxing history. The heavyweights of this era are not really a good comparison to the older guys, I agree.

JCC said:

I kind of got the impression that you may enjoy grazing at Holyfield's physique. Yes, he does have a good physique but like so many other boxers today he doesn't have a boxers body, and there can be no question that does affect a fighters performance, and hinders his performance as a fighter. Boxing isn't a body building contest.

As for what you posted and relating to the link you posted and the fact that some guy named Frederick Hatfield, PhD, FISSA ... who has no boxing experience at all, and isn't an ex-fighter, had convinced Holyfield that as a boxer he should be lifting weights and had got a former student of his named Lee Harvey a bodybuilder to monitored Holyfield's training with weights gives legitmacy to lifting weights it doesn't according to my way of thinking.

You can't be, I mean REALLY be a trainer for a fighter if you haven't ever been a fighter, if you don't have the experience in having been a fighter for you have to have that to really be able to rightly train a fighter. You must have that or you can't train a fighter.

Click to expand...

Plyometric training, weight training and the like are not a substitute for conventional boxing training. Learning the trade, and having a sound boxing mind are far more important than having a "boxers body". Agreed?

Okay, well first off I was just using Holyfield as an example of a pro boxer who has had good results in incorporating a well suited weight training regimen into his traditional workout. Im not a big fan of Holyfield and I dont find myself drawn to watch any of his fights at this point because I feel his best fighting years are well behind him now. Heres the point:
The training he did helped him to increase his stamina and add a few pounds of muscle, leading into his world title fight with Buster Douglas (which by the way, he won).

The "trainer" you read about was strictly a conditioning coach, and had nothing to do with the fight skill preparation training of Holyfield, which was done seperately. I dont know if the article explained that, but I should note that.
Using this workout was not a substitute for training, it was supplemental. We all know that a boxer in great shape doesnt mean anything without the skills required in the ring. Honing the fundamental skills of boxing is by far the most important aspect a young boxer should be focused on. Holyfield had honed his skills, but needed to increase his stamina. This specific workout regimin aided him in doing just that. There was statistical evidence showing that his endurance levels had increased as a result of his training methods.
With all due respect, what I think your not grasping is the idea that there are more efficient ways to achieve certain physical goals, which can in turn, help you along your path of becoming a more complete boxer. It has nothing to do with skill or appearance, it has everything to do with body performance.

You hear on many of the big fight broadcasts of today how fighter "A" hired so and so as his conditioning coach for the fight. They have specific goals for which there is either a more effective method, or a faster method of obtaining their said goal aside from pummeling the heavy bag and doing road work. Some need to put on a couple of pounds of muscle for a higher weight class, some need to help increase their endurance and stamina, etc.

Just because it was done that way in the past, doesnt automatically mean its the BEST way to do it. Yes, it works, but that doesnt mean it is the most effective way.

JCC said:

Boxing is fighting isn't a bodybuilding contest

Actually, what you pointed out by the link you posted is in part why boxers don't have boxers bodies today, and how that has affected their performance in the ring.

Click to expand...

HUH?
Actually the article showed how Holyfield's stamina levels were depleted well before the end of each round. After his new training regimen was established, before his world title fight against Douglas, he came into the fight in far better shape and captured the title. The article showed statistical measured evidence of how the training program affected his aerobic and anaerobic energy levels from the start to the finish of the program. That was the point of me posting it. To show you that making a broad assumption about boxers lifting weights being a terrible idea, is just not the case. There are times and situations where there are many benefits when done properly. Im just trying to help people think outside the box.



Once again I will say that learning the fundamentals of boxing and putting them into practice are key. Preparing the mind is just as important as preparing the body. Without the proper skills, the conditioning means nothing.

Hey, Capt. I read this 1997 article again by the physical culturist Frederick C. Hatfield, Ph.D, FISSA that appeared in Sports Science News ... who isn't of course a fighter or ex-fighter and has no boxing experience but is a physical culturist and physical fitness trainer.

I saw in the article that Hatfield was promoting his services of course, he naturally and obviously would like to sell his services to other big name fighters.

I saw the article as being a form of advertizing and he'd like to make some money. Nothing wrong with that of course. That is, a guy wanting to make some money.

The health and physical fitness industry has come to be a big business and money making racket today, and there's a lot of B.S., a lot of hype and over ratings.

I'm not so much interested in commenting on the article of mention itself. I'm more interested on commenting on this thing of lifting weights or training with weights in general, and you'll see all the more as to why I'm not an advocate of lifting weights, and most especially not for boxers in my next post as I come to have more time to take with this.

First off I want to say that weight lifting and use of resistence exercise machines are the most common form of resistence training today.

What is resistence training?

This includes any form of movement in exercising where resistence is put against a muscle, and the muscle is required to push or pull against against the resistence.

As earlier mentioned the most common form of resistence training today is weight lifting and use of resistence exercise machines, and the reason that it is its because its been so widely marketed and promoted by manufacturers of exercise equipment and by physical fitness and muscle magazines for many years.

As a result we got today a whole generation of people who exercise that have been brain-washed into believing that to be physically fit and to have a good physique that they should be lifting weights and using resistence exercise machines.

While I will agree that weight training can increase the size and strength of muscles, reshaping your body and make you look great. But also I want to let you know why I am not an advocate of weight lifting or use of resistence exercise machines.

First off, that in all is an unnatural form of excercise. Chimpanzees, as an example, are eight times stronger than a man, yet do not lift weights. Well, think about how do chimpanzees exercise?

Now I'm going to begin to share with you the reasons that I'm not an advocate of lifting weights and use of resistence exercises machines, also why I'm especially not an advocate of such things for fighters.

One reason that I'm not is because lifting weights and use of resistence exercise machines generally, only works and strengthens the muscles of the body that are seen and does not address the majority of muscles that have no aesthenic value.

Now this can create an imbalance, where some muscles are strong and abnormally large, and other muscles, that is, ligaments and tendons are weak and disportionate in size.

Another reason that I'm not an advocate of lifting weights and use of resistence exercise machines is because it will not increase flexible --- it actually reduces flexibily, and that will also hinder the flow of energy through your body.

There are other forms of resistence exercises however that will address the majority of muscles of the body that are seen as well as other muscles that have no aesthenic value as well as to work and to also strengthen ligaments and tendons such as isometics and other forms of resistance exercises that isn't lifting weights and use of resistence exercises machines which I will not take time to go into in this post for it would make my post too long a read.

For example, I could take just a simple gym towel and show you how to grip it to exercise in using it in working muscles against another muscles which is a form of resistence exercise that will both increase the size and strength of your muscles that are seen as well as other muscles, ligaments and tendons that lifting weights and use of resistence exercises machines generally doesn't address in exercising.

Now by this form of resistence exercise you aren't going to have to be overly concerned about becoming slow and musclebound and having a less flexible body and that's disfunctional or not as functional if your an athlete for example a fighter or boxer.

For example, I knew of a guy that was an outstanding athlete. First he was as an amatuer wrestler and a national champion and later he took up boxing and he was one of those kind of persons that was really multi-talented and won the nationals in his weight class as an amatuer boxer too.

Now this was many years ago, and this guy did not lift weights or use resistence exercise machines. He had a good physique what I would call an athletic build and physique, however. He wa not musclebound. I mean he didn't have a body that looked like he could have won any muscle beach bodybuilding building contest or any thing like that.

But just to give you an idea of just how strong this guy was in some ways that he was very strong he could take a steel pair of plyers in his hand and he had such a grip that he could break a pair of steel plyers. This strength he had was due to the way he trained without lifting weights and use of resistence exercise machines. This strength he had in his hands was due much to the unusual strength of his muscles unseen and strength of his ligaments and tendons.

But if you were to just look at this guy, you would never guess this guy was as strong as he was.

You know looks are deceiving as for how tough a person is you can't go by how a person looks to know how tough a persons is. I can remember years ago in the late 1960's and I was an open-class middleweight fighter at the time and I had won a lot of trophies and stuff as an amatuer boxer and I got an old guy as a sparring partner one evening at the gym one day and he looks like nothing and didn't look like he could do much and he really gave me a royal butt-kick, and that's when my real education started that you can't know how tough a person is just by how they look for looks are deceiving.

As I've mentioned before in posts for guys my age you know like to talk about the old days you know. My experience as an amateur boxer going back to the early 1960s. At age 9, I took up amateur boxing at the gym at boys club that had boxing, and I began right there and having a lot of kid fights. In those days and through my day in boxing up to the early 1970s when I was there and even many years before I was there boxers did not lift weights or use resistence exercise machines. It just simply was not done.

Now as for how I know how good training is, is by what it produces? Are boxers in the amatuer ranks and professional ranks today better and more well-conditioned fighters today than when I was there in the 1960s and 1970s when I was there or even in all the many years even before I was there who trained bascially just the same ways I did and did not lift weights or use resistence exercise machines? So you tell me? If you know much at all you know as well as I do they are not as good a fighters and as well-conditioned as fighter were in the sport in those days, and not any where near as tough in body and in mind either, and not as talented and skilled either.

There some more I would like to say about it but for now I'll stop here and just like you think about all this I said for a while and then you can tell me if you think I'm wrong when I say forget lifting weights especially if your a fighter it can ruin a fighter.

Some say, its okay to lift weights if your very careful about it. I say, if you really know how to properly train why lift weights at all? You didn't need it.

Some say, if you properly train with weights its okay. I say, and most especially if your a fighter the way to properly train with weights is to not lift weights. You don't need to lift weights if you really know how to train as a fighter.

Again, how I know how good the training is, is by what it produces?

Its a good thing that in the sport today we don't have 15 round title fights any more because most pros today, and most especially a heavyweight today would not be able to go that many rounds even if they had five air tanks on their back. Because they aren't in good enough shape. They don't have the stamina. Fighters of today aren't in as good a shape as fighters use to be in past era's in boxing.

JCC said:

First off, that in all is an unnatural form of excercise. Chimpanzees, as an example, are eight times stronger than a man, yet do not lift weights. Well, think about how do chimpanzees exercise?

Click to expand...

You cant really compare the two. At all.

JCC said:

One reason that I'm not is because lifting weights and use of resistence exercise machines generally, only works and strengthens the muscles of the body that are seen and does not address the majority of muscles that have no aesthenic value.

Now this can create an imbalance, where some muscles are strong and abnormally large, and other muscles, that is, ligaments and tendons are weak and disportionate in size.

Click to expand...

Once agin, this falls under the "know what your doing" section. If the boxer has proper training advice/supervision, that is not an issue. Id also like to say that the muscles most used in boxing are the Legs, Lats and then the chest&shoulders. All of which are arguable aesthetically appealing muscles, so im not sure where your going with that.
When I talk about a workout routine, dont confuse that with the traditional view of it being "pumping iron". I spoke before about plyometric training, and one of the best plyometric training tools we have now, is one that has been around for years, The medicine ball. In fact, you'd be hard pressed to come across a boxer who has never handled one of them. There are many simple, yet effective training tools and methods that boxers today have incorporated and had good success with that you may or may not know about. That doesnt mean that they dont work.

JCC said:

Its a good thing that in the sport today we don't have 15 round title fights any more because most pros today, and most especially a heavyweight today would not be able to go that many rounds even if they had five air tanks on their back. Because they aren't in good enough shape. They don't have the stamina. Fighters of today aren't in as good a shape as fighters use to be in past era's in boxing.

Click to expand...

Fighters in the heavyweight division of the past may have been more skilled, but that doesnt mean they were in better shape. Who can say for sure? Certainly not me since I didnt live through that era, but thats just a matter of opinion anyways, so i'll just leave that one alone.

I dont recommend getting "musclebound" either. There are, however, lifting and training methods that CAN benefit a boxer aside from the bag work. Telling a guy that lifting weights as a boxer is bad, is not giving them all the info. Thats all im trying to say.

Captainobvious99 said:

I'd also like to say that the muscles most used in boxing are the Legs, Lats and then the chest & shoulders. All of which are arguable aesthetically appealing muscles, so I'm not sure where your going with that.

Click to expand...

What I was saying is that weight lifting or use of resistence machines can increase the size and strength of muscles, reshaping your body and can make you look great, however. It generally only works with the muscles that are seen that have no aesthentic value, and that can create unbalance. By that I mean lifting weights and use of resistence exercises machines generally does not address the strength of ligaments and tendons, and that can create an inbalance, where some muscles are strong and abnormally large, and other muscles. By that I mean ligaments and tendons, ligaments and tendons are weak and disproportionate in size.

Captianobvious99 said:

When I talk about a workout routine, don't confuse that with the traditional view of it being "pumping iron".

Click to expand...

I not an advocate of "Pumping Iron" or of "Lifting weights" or of however else you would chose to express it. (smiling)

Captianobvious99 said:

I spoke before about plyometric training, and one of the best plyometric training tools we have now, is one that has been around for years, The medicine ball. In fact, you'd be hard pressed to come across a boxer who has never handled one of them. There are many simple, yet effective training tools and methods that boxers today have incorporated and had good success with that you may or may not know about. That doesnt mean that they dont work.

Click to expand...

I'm not opposed to using a medicine ball. I did it too, but that's not lifting weights.

Captianobvious99 said:

Fighters in the heavyweight division of the past may have been more skilled, but that doesn't mean they were in better shape. Who can say for sure? Certainly not me since I didnt live through that era, but that's just a matter of opinion anyways, so i'll just leave that one alone.

Click to expand...

Somethings can be opinions and somethings can be facts.

But facts are more than mere opinions.

Never in past era's were there are much clinching as there is seem in pro fights today.

As for comparison of fighters of past era's with fighters of today, more than only merely an opinion its a fact that never has there been so much little exciting action in pro fights as seen today, but plenty of dancing and clinching and mediocre performers, that few fans even have interest in the sport any more today. I don't see that as any mere opinion but a fact.

Why so much more clinching is pro fights today?

Is that a sign of well-conditionong?

Hardly! But just the opposite is true.

A clinch is for fighters who are either tired or hurt. The fighter who has the stamina to go the distance and hasn't been staggered has no need for clinches.

Clinches have always been seen in boxing, but no where near as much as is seen today in pro fights.

The reasons we are seeing so much more clinching in pro fights today, is because they aren't in as good of shape as fighters of past era's.

Captianobvious99 said:

I don't recommend getting "musclebound" either.

Click to expand...

Back when I was boxing I can remember trainers would even pull guys off punching the heavy bags for a while if they thought they were starting to get too musclebound from working out on the heavy bags much too.

In other words, even this kind of musclebound unrelated to lifting weights is not even not good for a fighter much less the kind of musclebound a fighter could become from lifting weights.

Do we have better fight trainers today than we had in my day in the 1960s and 1970s? Or even before my day, say the 1950s?

If you think the fighter trainers today are better than back in those past era's why all this clinching and so little exciting action in pro fights today?

Its not in this case for reasons the fighters are less skilled than in past era's, however. I think that's true too. But as for this that I'm now I talking about the problem obviously is that they aren't as well-conditioned, and mostly this is why we are seeing so much clinching in pro fights today. They're tired, they tire more easily for reasons they aren't in as good a shape as fighters of past era's.

Captianobvious99 said:

There are, however, lifting and training methods that CAN benefit a boxer aside from the bag work. Telling a guy that lifting weights as a boxer is bad, is not giving them all the info. Thats all im trying to say.

Click to expand...

Well, quite obviously I disagree. (smiling)

In my day there and even all the many years before I was even there, no fight trainer would lead a fighter to lift weights. In fact, they would all tell you that lifting weights and boxing doesn't mix and that lifting weights would ruin a fighter.

In fact, I believe it has ruined fighters today, and I believe it can be seen in being there are so many mediocre performances in pro fights today.

Boxers today don't have boxers bodies any more. Boxers today aren't built to go as long a rounds as they use to go. Its obviously harder for them today. They don't have the stamina. They get tried more easily. They aren't built for it.

In fact, it would not surprise me if eventually they were to cut the three minute rounds in pro fights to two minutes to improve performances, and the excuse they'll use will be to cut down on ring injuries not the real reason to improve mediocre performances.

The reason boxers don't have a boxers body any more is because they don't train in all the same ways any more.

JCC said:

What I was saying is that weight lifting or use of resistence machines can increase the size and strength of muscles, reshaping your body and can make you look great, however. It generally only works with the muscles that are seen that have no aesthentic value, and that can create unbalance. By that I mean lifting weights and use of resistence exercises machines generally does not address the strength of ligaments and tendons, and that can create an inbalance, where some muscles are strong and abnormally large, and other muscles. By that I mean ligaments and tendons, ligaments and tendons are weak and disproportionate in size.

Click to expand...

So youre saying that punching bags strengthens tendons and ligaments, and that lifting weights doesn't, is that correct ? Id love to see some EVIDENCE of that statement.

JCC said:

I'm not opposed to using a medicine ball. I did it too, but that's not lifting weights.

Click to expand...

A medicine ball is a WEIGHTED plyometric training tool. So, actually, it is lifting weights, just not the kind you envision when you think about "pumping iron" like I stated before. The problem is that your not understanding what im explaining to you, not that you may or may not agree with it.
Which could be that im not the best at getting out what im trying to say, so I apologize.

JCC said:

A clinch is for fighters who are either tired or hurt. The fighter who has the stamina to go the distance and hasn't been staggered has no need for clinches.

Clinches have always been seen in boxing, but no where near as much as is seen today in pro fights.

The reasons we are seeing so much more clinching in pro fights today, is because they aren't in as good of shape as fighters of past era's.

Click to expand...

Clinches are used so much today not only because of fatigue (which was the case in the "old days" as well as today), but also because some boxers arent learning how to fight in close without clinching. They get a pot shot coming in and then dont know what to do other than hold. I see it just as much as you do, but that DOESNT ALWAYS MEAN THAT THE BOXER IS TIRED. Ive heard this discussed by many boxing analysts, and this is exactly what they say as well.
Of course you'll have some guys who are tired and out of shape clinching, but you also see alot more clinching because of poor training, and the "play it safe" instead of the punching your way out mindset. Guys dont know what to do once they get in too close, and so they just grab to prevent themselves from being hit. Which sucks. Fighters are moving to the pro ranks with much shorter amatuer careers under their belts these days, and its showing. They are just not well enough prepared in many cases.

JCC said:

Its not in this case for reasons the fighters are less skilled than in past era's, however. I think that's true too. But as for this that I'm now I talking about the problem obviously is that they aren't as well-conditioned, and mostly this is why we are seeing so much clinching in pro fights today. They're tired, they tire more easily for reasons they aren't in as good a shape as fighters of past era's.

Click to expand...

Yes there is more clinching but I dont think that its a result of much more poorly conditioned fighters than those of yesteryear, as you would suggest.



You keep going on about a "boxers body". There are all shapes and sizes of bodies within each weightclass today. Some very muscular and some solid, some even flabby. People's bodies and muscles react differently to different kinds of resistence. What works for some doesnt always work the same for others. A guy who is flabby could actually be in better shape then the guy with the solid body, and visa versa. So it doesnt matter WHAT the body looks like. As I said before, there have been many advances in our knowledge of the body and how it reacts to different training methods in the last 50 years. Whether you choose to acknowledge that fact or not, it still remains a fact. Just because traditional workouts WORK, doesnt mean that they are the most effective way to condition everyone's body for fighting. Telling people that lifting weights is BAD for a fighter is not giving them all the information!
Just because a typewriter worked great 40 years ago, doesnt mean that using a computer is bad. Weve learned more since then and have come up with more efficient ways to achieve a specific goal, much the same as we have done with exercise science.

This is all Im trying to get across here:
While I believe that the tried and true methods of fight training have remained pretty much a constant, there are additional ways of "strengthening and conditioning" outside of pugilistic skill training that can be very effective when used in conjunction with a traditional workout.

Ill stop ranting for now, and just wish you and your family a merry Christmas.

Hey, Capt ... I can see your still learning.

Generally, only trainers today that have never been boxers, and generally only boxers that lack experience are advocates of lifting weights.

For example, fight trainers today such as Emanuel Steward, Ray Arel and Floyd Mayweather Sr., do not prescribe lifting weights for boxers.

Weight trained boxers generally are exhausted after a couple of rounds. They tend to tire much faster than boxers who do not train with weights.

Also I would like to further note that lifting weights and having big muscles is not what generates punching power.

What generates punching power isn't lifting weights and having big muscles. What generates punching power is leverage, speed, and timing.

Rocky Marciano did not lift weights, Muhummad Ali, did not lift weights. There is a book out there today on how the great champions in boxing trained. Maybe you should get a copy of it and read it. None of the great boxing champions lifted weights.

I wish a happy holiday to you also and to all.

Captainobvious99 said:

So youre saying that punching bags strengthens tendons and ligaments, and that lifting weights doesn't, is that correct? Id love to see some EVIDENCE of that statement.

Click to expand...

Weight training can increase the the size of strength of muscles, reshaping your body and make you look great. However, weight training generally only works with the muscles that are seen and does not address the majority of muscles that have no aesthetic value.

Chimpanzees, as an example, are eight times stronger than a man. How do chimpanzees exercise, they do not lift weights.

Weight training generally does not address the strength of ligaments and tendons. Weight training can create an inbalance, where some muscles are strong and abnormally large, and other muscles are weak and disaproportionate in size.

However, there are other forms of resistence exercises that does not involve training with weights that do address the majority of muscles and will strengthen the muscles of including muscles that are seen that have an aesthetic value as well as to also strengthen the muscles that aren't seen that have no aesthetic value and will also strengthen ligaments and tendons which weight training generally will not do.

For example, doing hard calisthenics or more intense calisthenics and isometic types of resistance exercises do address the majority of muscles which weight training generally will not do for a person.

Captianobvious99 said:

A medicine ball is a WEIGHTED plyometric training tool. So, actually, it is lifting weights, just not the kind you envision when you think about "pumping iron" like I stated before. The problem is that your not understanding what im explaining to you, not that you may or may not agree with it. Which could be that I'm not the best at getting out what im trying to say, so I apologize.

Click to expand...

No, I understand what your saying, and it just that your of the opinion that lifting weights can help boxers perform better apparently. Its just that I know the exact opposite of that to be true.

For example, I heard someone once point out that fact that during the HBO boardcast of the Delahoya-Vargas fight (2002), that fight trainer Emanuel Steward stated that weight lifting had caused Vargas to tire much more quickly.

Steward's right, it will cause a fighter to tire more quickly.

By the way, there are people who think weight lifting and having big muscles is what generates punching power.

I had mentioned this in my last post but I think its worth mentioning again, that its leverage, speed, and timing that generates punching power, not lifting weights and having big muscles, that isn't what generates punching power.

Fight trainers that are ex-fighters and are really good fighter trainers all know this.

For example, the fight trainer Emanuel Steward who was Lennox Lewis' trainer would never let Lewis lift weights, he's also now Wladimir Klitschko's trainer, and he's got Klitschko on the same training routine as he had Lewis on without weight training.

By the way, at one time Klitschko did train with weights, but since he's stopped training with weights his performance has much improved as a fighter.

All Klitschko's training now is old school, and he's a by far better fighter now since he's switched, and has now gotten completely away the so-called modern training techniques.

Captianobvious99 said:

Clinches are used so much today not only because of fatigue (which was the case in the "old days" as well as today), but also because some boxers aren't learning how to fight in close without clinching.

They get a pot shot coming in and then don't know what to do other than hold.

I see it just as much as you do, but that DOESNT ALWAYS MEAN THAT THE BOXER IS TIRED.

I've heard this discussed by many boxing analysts, and this is exactly what they say as well.

Of course you'll have some guys who are tired and out of shape clinching, but you also see alot more clinching because of poor training, and the "play it safe" instead of the punching your way out mindset.

Guys don't know what to do once they get in too close, and so they just grab to prevent themselves from being hit. Which sucks. Fighters are moving to the pro ranks with much shorter amatuer careers under their belts these days, and its showing. They are just not well enough prepared in many cases.


Yes there is more clinching but I dont think that its a result of much more poorly conditioned fighters than those of yesteryear, as you would suggest.

Click to expand...

Well, as for what you over all said that may be. But was for fighters being less well-conditioned today than they were in pass era's, it obvious that that aren't as well-conditioned today. Just taking for the heavyweights for example, today in active rounds they throw by far less throws in an active rounds on an average than heavyweights of past era's. That's a sign they are not as well-conditioned as fighters of past era's.


Also their weight today, between fights on the average will vary 20-40 pounds where as it use to be only 6-8 pounds which is a sign of a lack of training discipline.

Captianobvious99 said:

You keep going on about a "boxers body".

There are all shapes and sizes of bodies within each weightclass today.

Some very muscular and some solid, some even flabby.

People's bodies and muscles react differently to different kinds of resistence.

What works for some doesn't always work the same for others.

A guy who is flabby could actually be in better shape then the guy with the solid body, and visa versa.

So it doesn't matter WHAT the body looks like.

As I said before, there have been many advances in our knowledge of the body and how it reacts to different training methods in the last 50 years.

Whether you choose to acknowledge that fact or not, it still remains a fact.

Just because traditional workouts WORK, doesnt mean that they are the most effective way to condition everyone's body for fighting.

Telling people that lifting weights is BAD for a fighter is not giving them all the information!

Just because a typewriter worked great 40 years ago, doesn't mean that using a computer is bad.

We've learned more since then and have come up with more efficient ways to achieve a specific goal, much the same as we have done with exercise science.

This is all Im trying to get across here:

While I believe that the tried and true methods of fight training have remained pretty much a constant, there are additional ways of "strengthening and conditioning" outside of pugilistic skill training that can be very effective when used in conjunction with a traditional workout.

Click to expand...

First I want to thank you for taking of your time to share you thoughts about all this for it has allowed me an opportunity to point out things that are wrong as for the ways that a lot of fighters are being trained today.

How I know how good the training is, it produces?

I made a general statement that boxers don't have boxers bodies today, and the reason for it is because boxers aren't all training in all the same ways they had use to. By the way, George Foreman, I've heard him say this too.

Heavyweights for example, it has always been hard for them to go long rounds, and that's always been true. Because they aren't built for it like fighters in the lighter weight divisions are.

But never has it been as hard for heavyweights to go long rounds as today, only because they have less stamina than the heavyweights of past era's, and in part its because some or even many are lifting weights and they are not training in all the same ways that fighters that were more well-conditioned did in past era's, too much of the training has changed and how I know how good the training is by what it produces?

Do we have better fighters today, and more well-conditioned fighters than we did is past era's? Hardly! Just the opposite is true.

If fact, the over all performances are so poor today that few fans even have interest in boxing any more. If a person really knows much about the sport of boxing at all they are going to know that's true.

As for this training with weights thing for boxers!

I find that generally the only trainers, perhaps with some exceptions, are mostly trainers that have never boxed and don't have any boxing experience, and have never been fighters, and the wanna be's (to be good fighters) who had never succeeded in doing so, are mostly the only people who advocate lifting weights for boxers.

JCC said:

Weight training can increase the the size of strength of muscles, reshaping your body and make you look great. However, weight training generally only works with the muscles that are seen and does not address the majority of muscles that have no aesthetic value.

Chimpanzees, as an example, are eight times stronger than a man. How do chimpanzees exercise, they do not lift weights.

Weight training generally does not address the strength of ligaments and tendons. Weight training can create an inbalance, where some muscles are strong and abnormally large, and other muscles are weak and disaproportionate in size.

However, there are other forms of resistence exercises that does not involve training with weights that do address the majority of muscles and will strengthen the muscles of including muscles that are seen that have an aesthetic value as well as to also strengthen the muscles that aren't seen that have no aesthetic value and will also strengthen ligaments and tendons which weight training generally will not do.

For example, doing hard calisthenics or more intense calisthenics and isometic types of resistance exercises do address the majority of muscles which weight training generally will not do for a person.





No, I understand what your saying, and it just that your of the opinion that lifting weights can help boxers perform better apparently. Its just that I know the exact opposite of that to be true.

For example, I heard someone once point out that fact that during the HBO boardcast of the Delahoya-Vargas fight (2002), that fight trainer Emanuel Steward stated that weight lifting had caused Vargas to tire much more quickly.

Steward's right, it will cause a fighter to tire more quickly.

By the way, there are people who think weight lifting and having big muscles is what generates punching power.

I had mentioned this in my last post but I think its worth mentioning again, that its leverage, speed, and timing that generates punching power, not lifting weights and having big muscles, that isn't what generates punching power.

Fight trainers that are ex-fighters and are really good fighter trainers all know this.

For example, the fight trainer Emanuel Steward who was Lennox Lewis' trainer would never let Lewis lift weights, he's also now Wladimir Klitschko's trainer, and he's got Klitschko on the same training routine as he had Lewis on without weight training.

By the way, at one time Klitschko did train with weights, but since he's stopped training with weights his performance has much improved as a fighter.

All Klitschko's training now is old school, and he's a by far better fighter now since he's switched, and has now gotten completely away the so-called modern training techniques.




Well, as for what you over all said that may be. But was for fighters being less well-conditioned today than they were in pass era's, it obvious that that aren't as well-conditioned today. Just taking for the heavyweights for example, today in active rounds they throw by far less throws in an active rounds on an average than heavyweights of past era's. That's a sign they are not as well-conditioned as fighters of past era's.


Also their weight today, between fights on the average will vary 20-40 pounds where as it use to be only 6-8 pounds which is a sign of a lack of training discipline.




First I want to thank you for taking of your time to share you thoughts about all this for it has allowed me an opportunity to point out things that are wrong as for the ways that a lot of fighters are being trained today.

How I know how good the training is, it produces?

I made a general statement that boxers don't have boxers bodies today, and the reason for it is because boxers aren't all training in all the same ways they had use to. By the way, George Foreman, I've heard him say this too.

Heavyweights for example, it has always been hard for them to go long rounds, and that's always been true. Because they aren't built for it like fighters in the lighter weight divisions are.

But never has it been as hard for heavyweights to go long rounds as today, only because they have less stamina than the heavyweights of past era's, and in part its because some or even many are lifting weights and they are not training in all the same ways that fighters that were more well-conditioned did in past era's, too much of the training has changed and how I know how good the training is by what it produces?

Do we have better fighters today, and more well-conditioned fighters than we did is past era's? Hardly! Just the opposite is true.

If fact, the over all performances are so poor today that few fans even have interest in boxing any more. If a person really knows much about the sport of boxing at all they are going to know that's true.

As for this training with weights thing for boxers!

I find that generally the only trainers, perhaps with some exceptions, are mostly trainers that have never boxed and don't have any boxing experience, and have never been fighters, and the wanna be's (to be good fighters) who had never succeeded in doing so, are mostly the only people who advocate lifting weights for boxers.

Click to expand...

I know this post is old but I accidently stumbled on this through a google search, therefore this rubbish could still be misleading others.

The distinction you have made between "lifting weights" and other methods of training is totally wrong. The medacine ball is just a type of resistence training. As is the 1 dimensional vision that you have of barbel/dumbell/machine training. As is hitting a heavy bag (yes that's right there is a reason why hitting a heavy bag builds significantly more strength than shadowboxing). As are body weight excersises - pressups, chinups, jumping squats, high jumps, box jumps.

ALL BOXERS USE RESITANCE TRAINING OF SORTS TO DEVELOP POWER AND SPEED.

You can lift weights in addition to traditional resistance training for benefitial results, you can do almost anything with weights to benefit almost any movement.

Lifting weights increases bone density aswel as increasing tendon strength.

Deadlifts and Squats use nearly every muscle in the body, including all those that cannot be "seen".

A chimpanzee is not a human, it is a different animal. The bone density of a chimpanzee is significantly higher. The nervous system of a chimpanzee allows it to use more of it's muscle potential because the bones can take it. A tiger in a zoo can weigh up to 400lbs and lays around doing nothing all day, it can still jump it's body weight higher than a man. Maybe boxers should lay about all day and do nothing. Hopefully you're seeing how dumb it is to compare humans to other animals which rely on power to survive, and not brains.

Yes larger muscles burn more energy, produce more lactic acid and tire more quickly. Yes that may be why clinching is more common. Boxers discovered that sacrificing a little endurance for more strength and weight (to a degree) is winning more fights. Change happens for a reason, not because it is bad. There is a balance to be found.