First off try to find yourself a good trainer, and one that will care about you even as hard as that may would be to do today, and secondly, forget all this stuff about lifting weights.lancepimpdurmom said:
First off try to find yourself a good trainer, and one that will care about you even as hard as that may would be to do today, and secondly, forget all this stuff about lifting weights.lancepimpdurmom said:I need a good weightlifting routine (for boxing ofcourse)
i'm 6'7" 188 lbs..so i can get to about 200 for my weight class and want to bulk up to a more power hitter and not just a quick hitter..thanks for the help!
Go to your local weight gym and find a certified trainer that can teach you compound movements that develop athletic ability and over-all body strength.lancepimpdurmom said:I need a good weightlifting routine (for bnoxing ofcourse)
i'm 6'7" 188 lbs..so i can get to about 200 for my weight class and want to bulk up to a more power hitter and not just a quick hitter..thanks for the help!
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.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.
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.Captainobvious99 said:Evander Holyfields Training and lifting routine used before his fight with Buster Douglas in 1990.
TRAINING STRATEGY FOR EVANDER HOLYFIELD
Same here, I certaintly dont take anything here personal.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.
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: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.
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?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.
HUH?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.
You cant really compare the two. At all.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?
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
I not an advocate of "Pumping Iron" or of "Lifting weights" or of however else you would chose to express it. (smiling)Captianobvious99 said:When I talk about a workout routine, don't confuse that with the traditional view of it being "pumping iron".
I'm not opposed to using a medicine ball. I did it too, but that's not lifting weights.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.
Somethings can be opinions and somethings can be facts.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.
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.Captianobvious99 said:I don't recommend getting "musclebound" either.
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.
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: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.
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.JCC said:I'm not opposed to using a medicine ball. I did it too, but that's not lifting weights.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
I know this post is old but I accidently stumbled on this through a google search, therefore this rubbish could still be misleading others.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.
You sure revived an old post dude..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.