[quote]Jarvan wrote:
I don’t think it’s insulting at all. I think you might be taking it personally only because it doesn’t jive with your personal agenda. [/quote]
No, it wasn’t that he said it didn’t work - to each his own. It was that he said it was “dumb, unquestioning tradition.” As if those of us in the combat sports are just fuckin morons who follow what our coaches say and don’t think about our training every second that we’re doing it.
THAT is what pissed me off.
Roadwork, done correctly, should be just about mandatory for combat athletes.
“Roadwork” gets a bad rap from slow jogging, which is not roadwork.
I favor a fast mile run, hill sprints and longer Fartlek runs.
Unless there is a real compelling reason (heavyweight w/ bad knees) , do roadwork.
I’m late to this party (as usual), but I will say this:
I don’t consider running to be training for your legs, I consider it to be training for your heart and lungs.
Yes, doing drill work and whatever on the mat is gonna train your endurance in that particular sport, but nothing trains the heart and lungs, in a general sense, quite like RUNNING does. If I don’t run for a while, I do notice a different on the mat.
Running is the training I do for my sport, when in that instance in time I can’t practice my sport.
Side note, the guy that wrote this article: The Jogging Delusion
…is a fucking moron.
See guys, this is what I’m saying.
Any of us who have ever stepped in the ring or on the mat KNOWS that roadwork is important. I don’t think any of us would continue to do it just because our coach said we should if we didn’t believe that it truly helped us - after all, it’s far too miserable to suffer through.
That being said, it seems like having meatheads and writers bash running as “ineffective” is the en vogue thing to do to make them feel superior… but fuck me if any of them ever wanna get in the ring with one of us weak, womanly dudes who puts in the miles.
To play devils advocate, don’t you feel there are better ways of getting into fighting shape rather than jogging?
I know that when I had my last fight, my coach had me run 400m sprints and then do pad work. He would give me 30 seconds rests, and then repeat. Again, again, again… It was brutal. Those runs had me in the best shape of my life. I thought “are we training for a race?”, but sure enough, he knew what he was doing. This was in addition to heavy sparring, mitt work, bag work, strength training, and drills/technique practice.
Got me in the best shape in my life.
[quote]legendaryblaze wrote:
I’m late to this party (as usual), but I will say this:
I don’t consider running to be training for your legs, I consider it to be training for your heart and lungs.
Yes, doing drill work and whatever on the mat is gonna train your endurance in that particular sport, but nothing trains the heart and lungs, in a general sense, quite like RUNNING does. If I don’t run for a while, I do notice a different on the mat.
Running is the training I do for my sport, when in that instance in time I can’t practice my sport.
[/quote]
I think this is a well made point.
I will also lean heavily on the wisdom of kmcnyc that “long slow distance” roadwork is also the best of the “lower” impact conditioning. He has great stories of being absolutely battered from training and drained from cutting weight and that roadwork, even at a “jog” was still both useful and possible. Even if HIT would be “better” in a lot of ways it might fail the most important test “Can I do this without being using up all of my energy? Because I need some of that for skill work.”
One thing Charles Staley is not is a moron. I don’t argee that boxers/combat athletes shouldn’t do traditional roadwork, but Staley has the credentials to give an opinion.
At the end of the article he sort of gives a mea culpa that a lot of his more inflammatory condemnation was hyperbolic. Now granted, for people reading the article who self ID as fighters and who feel like he was calling them personally, their coaches, and all those that preceded them idiots that reads a bit like saying “Hey, I was just talking.” after hurling insults. Still, the man is well educated and intelligent.
Regards,
Robert A
[quote]Jarvan wrote:
To play devils advocate, don’t you feel there are better ways of getting into fighting shape rather than jogging?
[/quote]
I don’t think anyone is arguing that jogging is the “way to get into fighting shape”. I am damn sure Irish wouldn’t be saying that.
What a lot of folks are saying is that slower/sustained roadwork is an important part of getting into fighting shape. Anaerobic work is damn important, but a lot of the bag, pad, and drill work is highly anaerobic. If you check Irish’s log he frequently does drills where he hits as fast as possible for bursts, then rests, then repeats. Almost like he was training at a high intensity, for intervals (See what I did there?)
I think valid comparisons could be made between hitting a heavy bag and “shock” or “plyometric” training. This is done for rounds, of combinations. Pad work could be lighter, or if the holder is really slapping into the punches in an almost “overspeed” type of way. Boxing has a lot of high intensity, interval work built into the “classic” training. Add being beat up and roadwork, or skipping rope, might be the most doable “extra” work for wind.
Some trainers have also made assertions about the importance of maintaining an aerobic base in addition to working harder, sport specific conditioning. So jog for GPP and do the higher effort/intensity work with sport specific drills, sparring, etc. Basically, they are doing both the sustained cardio and the HIIT work. They just don’t always do sprints.
Regards,
Robert A
The biggest discrepancy is that a lot of you guys are equating, sprinting and uphill runs to jogging…
Staley is specifically referring to the inefficacy of jogging pertaining to performance in sports that don’t involve actual running (which I don’t fully agree with)
Anyone who’s followed Staley long enough knows he big proponent of performance and ground work. With that said, he’s someone who’s been in the field, as a coach, for three decades who’s trained hundreds, if not thousands of amateur and professional athletes. You don’t have to agree with anything he says, but simply degrading his knowledge based upon incorrect assumptions is, well, ignorant.
The problem is that people talk about things and come up with conclusions when it’s clear they have no clue. The reason why “everyone” is pushing sprinting is because they “look” at sprinters vs distance runners. What does looks have to do with anything? The question is not how one looks but how one performs.
People want to get in shape cardio wise so instead of looking at how sprinters look how about looking at what their cardio is like? On top of it no one seems to know, based on what they post, what sprinters actually do in training. For one thing they take very long rests between sprints which isn’t quite conducive to building cardio fitness and also makes workouts long.
They also put a lot of time into training. They aren’t running a few 40 meter sprints twice a week. And let’s not forget genetics. Elite distance runners looked like anorexics even before they started running and those sprinters were born with those fast twitch fibers and probably “looked” like sprinters when they were 10 years old.
I’ll tell you the reason why sprinting, at least how it is pushed on non-competitive athletes, is all the rage: it’s easier. You don’t have to be in shape to sprint 40 meters and sprinting 40 meters won’t get you in shape.
[quote]Jarvan wrote:
The biggest discrepancy is that a lot of you guys are equating, sprinting and uphill runs to jogging…
Staley is specifically referring to the inefficacy of jogging pertaining to performance in sports that don’t involve actual running (which I don’t fully agree with)
Anyone who’s followed Staley long enough knows he big proponent of performance and ground work. With that said, he’s someone who’s been in the field, as a coach, for three decades who’s trained hundreds, if not thousands of amateur and professional athletes. You don’t have to agree with anything he says, but simply degrading his knowledge based upon incorrect assumptions is, well, ignorant.
[/quote]
I would expect someone with such experience and knowledge to not present his opinion in a manner fitting a 12 year old boy who has just walked out of watching a rambo movie or some shit.
His “opinion” was poorly presented, poorly argued and not supported what so ever. For that, in my books, he is a retard.
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
The problem is that people talk about things and come up with conclusions when it’s clear they have no clue. The reason why “everyone” is pushing sprinting is because they “look” at sprinters vs distance runners. What does looks have to do with anything? The question is not how one looks but how one performs.
People want to get in shape cardio wise so instead of looking at how sprinters look how about looking at what their cardio is like? On top of it no one seems to know, based on what they post, what sprinters actually do in training. For one thing they take very long rests between sprints which isn’t quite conducive to building cardio fitness and also makes workouts long.
They also put a lot of time into training. They aren’t running a few 40 meter sprints twice a week. And let’s not forget genetics. Elite distance runners looked like anorexics even before they started running and those sprinters were born with those fast twitch fibers and probably “looked” like sprinters when they were 10 years old.
I’ll tell you the reason why sprinting, at least how it is pushed on non-competitive athletes, is all the rage: it’s easier. You don’t have to be in shape to sprint 40 meters and sprinting 40 meters won’t get you in shape. [/quote]
There’s a lot of truth in this. Especially in the last part… of course you want to sprint instead, it’s way fucking easier than running two miles.
[quote]Robert A wrote:
[quote]Jarvan wrote:
To play devils advocate, don’t you feel there are better ways of getting into fighting shape rather than jogging?
[/quote]
I don’t think anyone is arguing that jogging is the “way to get into fighting shape”. I am damn sure Irish wouldn’t be saying that.
What a lot of folks are saying is that slower/sustained roadwork is an important part of getting into fighting shape. Anaerobic work is damn important, but a lot of the bag, pad, and drill work is highly anaerobic. If you check Irish’s log he frequently does drills where he hits as fast as possible for bursts, then rests, then repeats. Almost like he was training at a high intensity, for intervals (See what I did there?)
I think valid comparisons could be made between hitting a heavy bag and “shock” or “plyometric” training. This is done for rounds, of combinations. Pad work could be lighter, or if the holder is really slapping into the punches in an almost “overspeed” type of way. Boxing has a lot of high intensity, interval work built into the “classic” training. Add being beat up and roadwork, or skipping rope, might be the most doable “extra” work for wind.
Some trainers have also made assertions about the importance of maintaining an aerobic base in addition to working harder, sport specific conditioning. So jog for GPP and do the higher effort/intensity work with sport specific drills, sparring, etc. Basically, they are doing both the sustained cardio and the HIIT work. They just don’t always do sprints.
Regards,
Robert A[/quote]
This. Exactly this.
There’s so much anaerobic activity in boxing already that doing shit like sled pulls and barbell complexes everyday for conditioning is pretty much just going to ensure that you’re going to be too sore to actually box. And your fighting WILL suffer as a result.
An aerobic base is necessary to spar 10 rounds. You need lungs. You build them by running. People who say otherwise are assholes who have never stepped in the ring.
If running is bad for fat loss and weightlifting is good for fat loss then Staley needs to explain why an elite marathoner is skinny as shit while there are plenty of elite powerlifters and weightlifters who are fat.
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
If running is bad for fat loss and weightlifting is good for fat loss then Staley needs to explain why an elite marathoner is skinny as shit while there are plenty of elite powerlifters and weightlifters who are fat. [/quote]
Most of the people backing this opinion will claim running will make you lose fat and muscle.
[quote]Will207 wrote:
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
If running is bad for fat loss and weightlifting is good for fat loss then Staley needs to explain why an elite marathoner is skinny as shit while there are plenty of elite powerlifters and weightlifters who are fat. [/quote]
Most of the people backing this opinion will claim running will make you lose fat and muscle. [/quote]
And weightlifting will have you gain fat and muscle. Seems they both suck.
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
The problem is that people talk about things and come up with conclusions when it’s clear they have no clue. The reason why “everyone” is pushing sprinting is because they “look” at sprinters vs distance runners. What does looks have to do with anything? The question is not how one looks but how one performs.
People want to get in shape cardio wise so instead of looking at how sprinters look how about looking at what their cardio is like? On top of it no one seems to know, based on what they post, what sprinters actually do in training. For one thing they take very long rests between sprints which isn’t quite conducive to building cardio fitness and also makes workouts long.
They also put a lot of time into training. They aren’t running a few 40 meter sprints twice a week. And let’s not forget genetics. Elite distance runners looked like anorexics even before they started running and those sprinters were born with those fast twitch fibers and probably “looked” like sprinters when they were 10 years old.
I’ll tell you the reason why sprinting, at least how it is pushed on non-competitive athletes, is all the rage: it’s easier. You don’t have to be in shape to sprint 40 meters and sprinting 40 meters won’t get you in shape. [/quote]
You don’t have to be in shape to bench press, squat or deadlift either.
My idea of sprinting is running, balls to the wall, with maximal effort. Performing any exercise balls to the wall would be challenging, granted you are honestly using 100% of your capacity. So with that said, if you believe a person who isn’t in shape can easily sprint, 40 meters as you say, without effort (easy you called it), I’d like to know what kind of evolved species of human beings you have grown up around.
I personally feel jogging, steady state running, does have a place in conditioning, but if you think sprinting is easy… well I could only assume you haven’t really trained before.
You also make some crazy muthafuckin assumptions here. Elite runners look like anorexics before they even start running? That’s a new one. And ah yes, let’s not forget genetics indeed. Elite marathoners were born with fast twitch fibers you say? We’re all born with fast and slow twitch fibers, and it’s actually the slow twitch fibers that have a propensity for endurance performance. And the ‘sprinting is not conducive to cardio fitness’ statement… Hmmm… Just curious, dafuq are you smoking kid?
I don’t believe sprinting is easy but to me a sprint would be 100, 200 even 400 meters. Max effort for 6 or 7 seconds over 40 meters does not require a great deal of fitness and I doubt it is what someone who is trying to improve their cardio is looking for. A boxing round is 3 minutes, not less than 10 seconds. Tell the average person to run 40 meters as fast as they can run and they will be able to do it. Tell them to run 400 meters as fast as they can run and they won’t finish. Tell them to run at 80% of their top speed and they still won’t finish.
I also suggest you actually read what I wrote since your responses seem to be to some other post out there. Training sprints the way sprinters train them, you know, to get faster (not leaner, not more fit) requires long rest periods which is not the best thing for conditioning. Now, 200 meter and 400 meter sprinters will include endurance work but that would look like “jogging.”
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
I don’t believe sprinting is easy but to me a sprint would be 100, 200 even 400 meters. Max effort for 6 or 7 seconds over 40 meters does not require a great deal of fitness and I doubt it is what someone who is trying to improve their cardio is looking for. A boxing round is 3 minutes, not less than 10 seconds. Tell the average person to run 40 meters as fast as they can run and they will be able to do it. Tell them to run 400 meters as fast as they can run and they won’t finish. Tell them to run at 80% of their top speed and they still won’t finish.
I also suggest you actually read what I wrote since your responses seem to be to some other post out there. Training sprints the way sprinters train them, you know, to get faster (not leaner, not more fit) requires long rest periods which is not the best thing for conditioning. Now, 200 meter and 400 meter sprinters will include endurance work but that would look like “jogging.”
[/quote]
Even Charlie Francis had his sprinters do tempo work, which is a sprinting form of aerobic work for recovery in between speed sessions.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
[quote]Robert A wrote:
[quote]Jarvan wrote:
To play devils advocate, don’t you feel there are better ways of getting into fighting shape rather than jogging?
[/quote]
I don’t think anyone is arguing that jogging is the “way to get into fighting shape”. I am damn sure Irish wouldn’t be saying that.
What a lot of folks are saying is that slower/sustained roadwork is an important part of getting into fighting shape. Anaerobic work is damn important, but a lot of the bag, pad, and drill work is highly anaerobic. If you check Irish’s log he frequently does drills where he hits as fast as possible for bursts, then rests, then repeats. Almost like he was training at a high intensity, for intervals (See what I did there?)
I think valid comparisons could be made between hitting a heavy bag and “shock” or “plyometric” training. This is done for rounds, of combinations. Pad work could be lighter, or if the holder is really slapping into the punches in an almost “overspeed” type of way. Boxing has a lot of high intensity, interval work built into the “classic” training. Add being beat up and roadwork, or skipping rope, might be the most doable “extra” work for wind.
Some trainers have also made assertions about the importance of maintaining an aerobic base in addition to working harder, sport specific conditioning. So jog for GPP and do the higher effort/intensity work with sport specific drills, sparring, etc. Basically, they are doing both the sustained cardio and the HIIT work. They just don’t always do sprints.
Regards,
Robert A[/quote]
This. Exactly this.
There’s so much anaerobic activity in boxing already that doing shit like sled pulls and barbell complexes everyday for conditioning is pretty much just going to ensure that you’re going to be too sore to actually box. And your fighting WILL suffer as a result.
An aerobic base is necessary to spar 10 rounds. You need lungs. You build them by running. People who say otherwise are assholes who have never stepped in the ring. [/quote]
Irish,
Glad I got it right.
I didn’t want to speak for you, but the “jogging is ultimate” straw man is so out of line with your positions that if someone swore they heard you say it my answer would be “No he didn’t, you heard wrong.” Though in fairness I think Jarvan is sort of playing Devil’s advocate here.
For anyone looking for simplification,
If you cannot perform the activity in it’s entirety with a plastic bag taped over your head, there is likely an aerobic component.
Pro Tip: If you are going to test this out at home you should consider getting a web cam up. 'Cause there might be some money in it for you. I’m not going to judge.
Regards,
Robert A