I think perhaps we need to clarify for ourselves how weight training is defined. If it’s merely training with weights or if we can broaden the perspective into resistance training. Championship boxers have used both. Boxing commentator Al Bernstein co-authored a book with Ken Norton in which weight training was prescribed for beginning boxers in order to build their strength quickly but then to drop the weights as they became more involved in their fighting regimen. Al and Ken advocated the bench press, the barbell curl and the dumbell wrist curl all performed for 3 sets of 10. The wrist curl was the only lift they felt the boxer could continue with. When George Foreman was preparing for his title bout with Evander Holyfield in ‘92, both men used weights. Holyfield used a schedule designed by Lee Haney. Foreman prefered bench presses, dumbell curls, preacher curls, cable laterals for shoulders and wrist curls all in sets of about 15 reps. Foreman used weights to gain strength for his comeback and commented that he was a more powerful puncher than ever and that his forearms were bigger than his biceps when he had won the Olympics. Many boxers have traditionally chopped wood not only for conditioning but as therapy in breaking-up the monotony of training camp. Ray “Boom-Boom” Mancini used to swing a baseball bat like an axe at a tire suspended overhead. His trainer also had him do push-ups with a 90lb. sack of sand on his back and roll logs up a mountain. Medicine ball training has also been a much prefered albeit traditional method of resistance training for boxers. I believe someone commented previously that boxers have always know about so-called modern methods of training but it seems that they always come back to more traditional methods simply because they work. The bottom line is that results are what count and if that means no weights then a boxer is not going to use them. Its just as much mental as physical. “Marvelous” Haglers’ trainer, Goody Petronelli let Marvin eat pretty much what he wanted because it kept him happy. Being happier makes you healthier which can you make you stronger longer no matter what type of training reginem you ascribe to. Also, Hagler was considered the best conditioned man in boxing at the time and didn’t train with weights except for 10lb dumbells to loosen up. Petronelli felt that weight training took the snap out of your punches. It’s can be hard to argue with success.
I highly suggest everyone read this article.
[quote]dl- wrote:
I highly suggest everyone read this article.
www.higher-faster-sports.com/reactiveability.html[/quote]
I have never been to that particular website, but it’s fucking awesome. I’ve been reading the articles for the last hour.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Now, I’m no boxer, but I like reading about it…[/quote]
Ever read “The Fight” by Norman Mailer about the Rumble in the Jungle between Ali and Foreman? Good stuff.
[quote]
In any event, the idea that if only poor George had been trained by a forumite or Internet guru, he would really have been great, is presumptuous.
If you forumites or the Internet gurus have so many secretes about training fighters, where the fuck are the champion boxers you’ve trained? If you were so great, wouldn’t these champions have hired you? After all, it’s in their every interest to improve their punching power.
A lot of what I read here is sour grapes by people who have never trained a champion.[/quote]
Haha, good one. That shut everyone up.
[quote]Lifting Power wrote:
In any event, the idea that if only poor George had been trained by a forumite or Internet guru, he would really have been great, is presumptuous.
If you forumites or the Internet gurus have so many secretes about training fighters, where the fuck are the champion boxers you’ve trained? If you were so great, wouldn’t these champions have hired you? After all, it’s in their every interest to improve their punching power.
A lot of what I read here is sour grapes by people who have never trained a champion.
Haha, good one. That shut everyone up.
[/quote]
Actually, I see where he is going with his argument, but it falls short.
No one on here is saying that THEY have the secrets of training these fighters and to try and twist the argument along those lines is preposterous. Who here claimed that George would have been great with weight training or instruction from an “Internet guru”? It’s a complete straw man argument.
However, there is a lot to be said against the fact that just because fighters have always trained one way, that’s the way to do it. None of us have to be a boxing trainer to point out the flawed logic in the idea of weight training shortening muscles or reducing punching power somehow.
If there was a MMA guy who was training like a powerlifter, then that’s plain stupid. I’m sure he did do better with a plain MMA program than training that way… but does that mean that if we “Internet forumites” (which includes you by the way, genius) question whether a program can be better with proper weight training, it’s invalid? Just because we have not trained a MMA guy to win a title?
Baseball players were told for YEARS to avoid weight training because it would make them muscle bound, take away their bat speed and destroy their throwing arm. Yeah, that logic really worked out well in the end.
So, a lot of what I read from you is just a fairly vain attempt to stir up crap for the sake of doing so… oh wow, I’ve never seen you do THAT before.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
So I’m reading Joe Frazier’s new book last night at Barnes and Nobles, and in it he mentions quite a few times that he doesn’t think weightlifting should be done at all- just pushups, situps, and dips. He goes on to say that weightlifting for is bad for boxers because it shortens the muscles (don’t know where the fuck he got that from) and makes you bulky and slow.
Now, I’m no boxer, but I like reading about it, and it really dissapoints me that these guys reinforce these old myths, especially a guy that I like as much as I like Frazier.
Somewhere, a 13 year kid is picking up that book and reading it, then thinking that his muscles will get shorter, bulkier, and he’ll be somehow more unathletic if he weightlifts.
Never wonder where the sterotypes come from, I guess.
Just wanted to vent, fellas.[/quote]
I’ve been boxing for years and its sad to see that from a training point of view its a really backward sport. Fraziers view is in line with many coaches in boxing gyms i’ve been in. I hate to say it about a guy as good a Frazier was, but he’s ignorant as regards the issue of weight training.
Look at sprinters…they need to be fast and explosive(like a boxer does), albeit without the need for endurance, but they see the value of weight training.
One day boxing will too. Its happening, but slowly
[quote]dl- wrote:
I highly suggest everyone read this article.
www.higher-faster-sports.com/reactiveability.html[/quote]
From the website:
"However, whenever we intentionally inhibit these natural tendencies by an over-reliance on slow speed training and slow eccentric training (making the muscle lengthen and work as slow and hard as possible) we can inhibit our natural reflexive capacities and hinder our speed and movement precision. These methods cause more muscle fiber damage and are excellent for building muscle size, but, if over-relied on, they will damage your reactive function and this can be evidenced by watching a typical bodybuilder perform high speed athletic skills. Even though he may very well be strong his movement efficiency will tend to be compromised and he’ll function ---------- in a muscle bound manner!
One explanation for this might be that slow speed eccentric training typical in bodybuilding protocols causes a decrease in the amount of the high velocity contractual fast twitch muscle fiber (IIx) and causes a conversion towards a slower contracting subtype (IIA). Fortunately, the reverse phenomenon occurs with training that speeds up the velocity of the eccentric like plyometric training or performing weight training with an emphasis on “explosion” - Using these methods the high velocity fast twitch content of a muscle will actually increase. So, use strict bodybuilding protocols sparingly if at all. That is unless you want to turn yourself into a slow, ground-bound lug with reactive ability like a worn out set of shocks!"
Thoughts?
Joe’s approach obviously worked for him. I am sure that everyone here, myself included loves weightlifting, but there is more than one way to skin a cat.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
.[/quote]
I’d be surprised if Joe Frazier can write his own name let alone a book…
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
dl- wrote:
I highly suggest everyone read this article.
From the website:
"However, whenever we intentionally inhibit these natural tendencies by an over-reliance on slow speed training and slow eccentric training (making the muscle lengthen and work as slow and hard as possible) we can inhibit our natural reflexive capacities and hinder our speed and movement precision. These methods cause more muscle fiber damage and are excellent for building muscle size, but, if over-relied on, they will damage your reactive function and this can be evidenced by watching a typical bodybuilder perform high speed athletic skills. Even though he may very well be strong his movement efficiency will tend to be compromised and he’ll function ---------- in a muscle bound manner!
One explanation for this might be that slow speed eccentric training typical in bodybuilding protocols causes a decrease in the amount of the high velocity contractual fast twitch muscle fiber (IIx) and causes a conversion towards a slower contracting subtype (IIA). Fortunately, the reverse phenomenon occurs with training that speeds up the velocity of the eccentric like plyometric training or performing weight training with an emphasis on “explosion” - Using these methods the high velocity fast twitch content of a muscle will actually increase. So, use strict bodybuilding protocols sparingly if at all. That is unless you want to turn yourself into a slow, ground-bound lug with reactive ability like a worn out set of shocks!"
Thoughts?
[/quote]
I think it is generally true.
In order to maximize your athletic potential you should lift weights to get bigger and stronger but not neglect athletic/explosive movements.
If you have no need to get bigger or stronger lifting weights probably does not help very much.
It is a rare man than does not need to get bigger or stronger.
[quote]spaghetti wstrn wrote:
Joe’s approach obviously worked for him. I am sure that everyone here, myself included loves weightlifting, but there is more than one way to skin a cat.
[/quote]
Exactly. Some people do need to lift weights. Others don’t. Who knows… Lifting might have made Joe Frazier a worse boxer.
If your punches are weak, then of course you must lift weights. It’s worth a shot, at least. Worst case is you’ll still have weak punches.
But if you’re already throwing dynamite, why lift weights and risk injuring yourself, screwing up neural pathways, etc.?
Except for heavyweights, boxers fight in a weight class. And except for heavyweights, at their fighting weight they are very low bodyfat. So if they were to lift weights and put on muscle, how could they do that without moving up in weight.
All sports have an optimal amount of muscle. Experienced boxers already have their optimal amount. Sometimes some change in body composition is needed, but as a general rule just trying to pack on muscle would be a bad idea.
Would anybody suggest that Roger Federer would be a better tennis player if he were more muscular? Should Tiger Woods put on muscle so he can drive the ball further?
Its a little arrogant to say that Joe Frazier is old school and does not know what he is talking about. He was a TREMENDOUS fighter.
[quote]onewall wrote:
…Would anybody suggest that Roger Federer would be a better tennis player if he were more muscular? Should Tiger Woods put on muscle so he can drive the ball further?
…
[/quote]
I think these guys lift weights but not to bulk up.
[quote]onewall wrote:
Except for heavyweights, boxers fight in a weight class. And except for heavyweights, at their fighting weight they are very low bodyfat. So if they were to lift weights and put on muscle, how could they do that without moving up in weight.
All sports have an optimal amount of muscle. Experienced boxers already have their optimal amount. Sometimes some change in body composition is needed, but as a general rule just trying to pack on muscle would be a bad idea.
[/quote]
Powerlifters and olympic lifters compete in weight classes too. Since they already have an optimal amount of muscle, why should they keep lifting? Because there is more to lifting than hypertrophy. Educate yourself.
[quote]CaliforniaLaw wrote:
Exactly. Some people do need to lift weights. Others don’t. Who knows… Lifting might have made Joe Frazier a worse boxer.
If your punches are weak, then of course you must lift weights. It’s worth a shot, at least. Worst case is you’ll still have weak punches.
But if you’re already throwing dynamite, why lift weights and risk injuring yourself, screwing up neural pathways, etc.?[/quote]
I agree with this. Joe had absolutely no problems with punching power and the only person to outmuscle him in the ring was Foreman.
[quote]CaliforniaLaw wrote:
spaghetti wstrn wrote:
Joe’s approach obviously worked for him. I am sure that everyone here, myself included loves weightlifting, but there is more than one way to skin a cat.
Exactly. Some people do need to lift weights. Others don’t. Who knows… Lifting might have made Joe Frazier a worse boxer.
If your punches are weak, then of course you must lift weights. It’s worth a shot, at least. Worst case is you’ll still have weak punches.
But if you’re already throwing dynamite, why lift weights and risk injuring yourself, screwing up neural pathways, etc.?[/quote]
Dont forget, powerful punches come from mechanics as much as being strong. I’ve seen guys who can lift a lot of weight in the gym punch with punches that wouldn’t get them out of a paper bag. Likewise, i’ve seen 9 stone guys who are much physically weaker at lifting weights who really pack a punch.
However…if power= strength * speed then to be as powerful as possible, yes, weight training to get stronger should be good for boxers and other martial artists
[quote]elliotnewman1 wrote:
… Likewise, i’ve seen 9 stone guys who are much physically weaker at lifting weights who really pack a punch.
…
[/quote]
No wonder they pack a punch if they hit with 9 stones.
Hell, hitting somebody with just one rock is usually enough.
[quote]CaliforniaLaw wrote:
spaghetti wstrn wrote:
Joe’s approach obviously worked for him. I am sure that everyone here, myself included loves weightlifting, but there is more than one way to skin a cat.
Exactly. Some people do need to lift weights. Others don’t. Who knows… Lifting might have made Joe Frazier a worse boxer.
If your punches are weak, then of course you must lift weights. It’s worth a shot, at least. Worst case is you’ll still have weak punches.
But if you’re already throwing dynamite, why lift weights and risk injuring yourself, screwing up neural pathways, etc.?[/quote]
That’s not a bad point in that if you are already good or have punching power, it’s not going to be your major point of focus. Maybe you work on endurance.
But the lifting piece can have other benefits in terms of injury prevention, correcting imbalances, etc. I think we tend to think of the lifting piece as being something going for max weight when it may or may not be applicable to the athlete’s sport of choice.
Again, a boxer should not train like a powerlifter.
[quote]Kuz wrote:
CaliforniaLaw wrote:
spaghetti wstrn wrote:
Joe’s approach obviously worked for him. I am sure that everyone here, myself included loves weightlifting, but there is more than one way to skin a cat.
Exactly. Some people do need to lift weights. Others don’t. Who knows… Lifting might have made Joe Frazier a worse boxer.
If your punches are weak, then of course you must lift weights. It’s worth a shot, at least. Worst case is you’ll still have weak punches.
But if you’re already throwing dynamite, why lift weights and risk injuring yourself, screwing up neural pathways, etc.?
That’s not a bad point in that if you are already good or have punching power, it’s not going to be your major point of focus. Maybe you work on endurance.
But the lifting piece can have other benefits in terms of injury prevention, correcting imbalances, etc. I think we tend to think of the lifting piece as being something going for max weight when it may or may not be applicable to the athlete’s sport of choice.
Again, a boxer should not train like a powerlifter.[/quote]
I’m not sure what your point is. My point is this: Weightlifting is neither necessary nor desireable for EVERYONE. For some people, it would not help and might hurt them.
I’m sure everyone at this site would say that if only Joe Frazier had used such-and-such program, his punching power would have increased. But that’s nonsense. It’s like saying if only Arnold had used the [insert favorite author’s name] Method, he would really have made progress. LOL.
The dogma around here is worse than what I’ve seen in any church.