Which is more important for training? Cardio or weightlifting? and how often should i train each per week? at the moment i do alot more lifting because I find it more satistfying.

A combination of both is important. If you want to gain weight weightlift, if you want to lose weight cardio. Cardio also increases stamina.

I'd say something like 60% cardio to 40% weight lifting. The cardio will give you the physique you're after and help you gain stamina!

Good bodys are built in the kitchen, not the gym.

I'd say something like 60% cardio to 40% weight lifting. The cardio will give you the physique you're after and help you gain stamina!

Good bodys are built in the kitchen, not the gym.
i agree, i think cardio is slightly more important than weightlifting

For boxing, I would personally say cardio. I think weight class is also important in considering the relative importance of each: for lower weight classes, it seems to me like cardio is much more of the dominant factor; in heavyweight divisions, it seems to me like more of the focus is on strength, so weightlifting, or, simply strength training, is more important.

For boxing, cardio

Lifting weights is a supplement to boxing. Many people can become successful boxers without weights (although they could be even better with), and no one becomes successfull without cardio, so there it is.

Edit: Thankfully it is not a question of either or. Both is the smart solution.

I wouldn't worry a whole lot about building muscle mass for boxing. Unless you can do 100 push ups, chin ups, etc. Those exercises will build strength, as well as the sledge/axe on wood or an old tire and heavy bag. In boxing stamina is much more important, you have throw hundreds of punches. You should be concentrating on muscular endurance not strength or power. And, power isn't a by product of muscle size or strength, but the ability to co-ordinate all the muscle groups into a single point. Meaning, it comes from your legs back, chest, arms and shoulders all at once.

Hope that makes sense.

I wouldn't worry a whole lot about building muscle mass for boxing. Unless you can do 100 push ups, chin ups, etc. Those exercises will build strength, as well as the sledge/axe on wood or an old tire and heavy bag. In boxing stamina is much more important, you have throw hundreds of punches. You should be concentrating on muscular endurance not strength or power. And, power isn't a by product of muscle size or strength, but the ability to co-ordinate all the muscle groups into a single point. Meaning, it comes from your legs back, chest, arms and shoulders all at once.

Hope that makes sense.

What doesn't make sense is that you automatically equate "lifting weights" with "building muscle mass" as if they were the same thing. In boxing, weights should be used for strength gains. Neural adaptations!

Cardio with resistance training is awesome. Don't weightlift too much you will be ****ed for boxing.

Cardio with resistance training is awesome. Don't weightlift too much you will be ****ed for boxing.

Too much or the wrong type of cardio will **** you as well. I fail to see the point in emphasizing that fact about weights, when it applies to all training.

What doesn't make sense is that you automatically equate "lifting weights" with "building muscle mass" as if they were the same thing. In boxing, weights should be used for strength gains. Neural adaptations!

And, all that can be accomplished with out any heavy weightlifting.
You are correct weightlifting and building mass are not the same. However, regular weightlifting will add muscle mass. My point was that in boxing it is the co-ordination of the muscles that increase one's power, and body weight exercises are sufficient for strength (if not better) then weights. Unless one can pound out 100s of each.

Too much or the wrong type of cardio will **** you as well. I fail to see the point in emphasizing that fact about weights, when it applies to all training.

If one fighter only trained using cardio and another only weightlifts outside of training. Who will the better fighter? The fitter one wins. Not the heavy unfit weightlifter thats the truth.

If one fighter only trained using cardio and another only weightlifts outside of training. Who will the better fighter? The fitter one wins. Not the heavy unfit weightlifter thats the truth.

If you read the thread, you'll see I already said that. That's not really what you were saying though.

And, all that can be accomplished with out any heavy weightlifting.
You are correct weightlifting and building mass are not the same. However, regular weightlifting will add muscle mass. My point was that in boxing it is the co-ordination of the muscles that increase one's power, and body weight exercises are sufficient for strength (if not better) then weights. Unless one can pound out 100s of each.

Wrong. There is no such thing as "regular weightlifting." There are all different methodologies, and basically only one, bodybuilding, adds muscle mass.

While your point is not totally wrong, it is oversimplified to point of misunderstanding how the whole process works. Yes co-ordination of muscles (we call it technique) is the major factor when it comes to increasing power. however, there is also the physical factor! Increased physical capacity should always go along with increased technique. This is where the strength increase comes in, and no, you cannot simply claim that BW exercises are sufficient for strength, and no, they're not better than weights. There is no magical line separating BW and weights. Resistance is resistance! Pushups do not increase strength, for instance. Well if you can do only 3, then yeah, getting to 6 will increase your strength, but beyond that, 10 - 20- 30 - 100 you don't increase strength, you increase muscle endurance. At that point you need higher resistance to increase strength, and that is where the weights come in.

If one fighter only trained using cardio and another only weightlifts outside of training. Who will the better fighter? The fitter one wins. Not the heavy unfit weightlifter thats the truth.

Suppose the answer to that one is the duration of the fight? The fitness applies more the longer the fight continues as everyone as an inherent level of fitness by default, as equally everyone as an inherent level of strength. If the stronger guy tags the fitter guy early on that changes things? If he doesn't the fitter guy gets more likely to pick off or wear down the stronger one - horses for courses. What you really want is to be fit and strong as others have said on this thread, there really isn't a second best for boxers!

Training in both cases should enhance what you've got and develop what you haven't got already, that's kind of the point. The real question is what form that training takes and that really depends on what you're trying to achieve. In boxing that's to beat the other guy (as quickly as you can) and as such requires a combination of speed, power and endurance. Not one at the expense of the other because you cannot be 100% sure how a fight will go and what the other guy will do! So you cover all of the bases

Conditioning is the combination of all of the above and there are different ways to go about it and different strokes for different folks definitely apply - but as we're all humans, the fundamentals apply tous all. I don't think it's so much the path you follow that counts, but rather where you end up and quite often the harder the route the better the results.

The notion of running miles to get stamina for boxing or just applying the tried and trusted fitness routines, rounds/pads, sit-ups etc seem old school to me personally. I think that there are much more relevant and efficient total body workouts that incorporate plyometrics, H.I.I.T, strength/resistance and cardio combinations, which combined with boxing work itself will condition someone much more effectively. You always need the foundation of fitness plus practice at the sport that you choose to undertake in the right proportion to succeed. But I think it's easy to apply what's widely recognised as best practice, just because it's always been that way. Things move one and training progression is no different.

There's a really interesting article on the training that Evander Holyfield used to follow for his conditioning (http://www.sportsci.org/news/news9709/hatfield.html) which highlights a different and non-conventional approach that worked well for him.

I think that the main thing is to be happy to challenge the norm and be prepared to try a new approach. Certainly doing the same thing all the time will get you so far, but possibly no further.

Bottom line: you could be super fit and a crap boxer. I don't think that you can be a super boxer without being super fit.