Are push ups more effective than Bench pressing? This guy in my 8th period (Sophmore) does around 400 push ups a day, and he barely started benching since he joined football. He says he uses 200lbs to warm up. So, which is more effective? Benching or push ups?

push ups....

push ups - bench builds too much bulk

do 200 pushps a day will only build anaerobic endurance the bench press wil increase strength but its main focus is te pecs whic are not used that much while punching

Both, variety is the key

And the winner is....... SOUTHPAW16!!!!

Both are good - both hit the pecs, delts and triceps directly. I prefer bench press with dumbbells as it helps equalise the strength of both left and right shoulders (with barbell bench press or any barbell movement your stronger arm will do more work then the weaker arm) and you also use stabliiser muscles to control the movement of the dumbbells.

Generally weights will generate more intensity and make you stronger in a shorter period of time. You don't need to be pressing really heavy weights - just do 70%-80% of your maximum and the strength benefits will help you in boxing.

Push ups are great as you can do them anywhere, and you can do variations - eg feet up on a chair (hits the delts more), hands closer together (hits triceps more), etc. They are also great as a warm up before weights, although I wouldn't do hundreds in a workout (did them in my teens and gave me no benefit).

yeah, most definately. i do a few sets of push-ups daily, and after i use the bench-press on workout day, i finish with a set of push-ups.

pushups...works the core and stabalizes more of the body...

plus theres different variations of them so pushups can be used for max strength as well.

push ups - bench builds too much bulk

I hate seeing answeres like this one. BENCH PRESSES WHEN EXECUTED IN A MANNER THAT IS SPORT SPECIFIC DO NOT BUILD TOO MUCH BULK!
no weight lifting does. Now if you train to build bulk and have a diet to support that training yes you build mass. Are there that many people in this sport so clueless about how there body works. Just because you have a weight in your hand your going to become Weider like? If thats the case why don't the NBA players "who do use weights bench press included" have too much bulk? Or how about track and field athletes? Wrestlers do bench presses, why are they so well built for combative athletics? Even power lifters dont get too big, why?

Both exersizes are benificial in there own way. Use them both would be my advice. Lower reps higher weight for strength, and power. Do not isolate the pectoral muscles with a lot of exersizes and do not train to failure. You will not gain too much mass. The Bench press is an esential compound exersize to boost upper body strength not so much to sculpt your chest it takes other body building techniques to do that.

One thing you need to keep in mind is if you train for max strength, you need to counter that training with some endurance and flexibility training in order to keep a balance between the three.

I appologize, my answer was ignorant.
The way I was forced by my football coach in the past caused me to gain ALOT of bulk; in doing this it has caused me to become biased about the argument.

I would say if you are going to use the weights, be VERY explosive up -- it will teach your muscles to react quicker; same with push ups.

And from what I have always heard, lighter weight - more reps.

I appologize, my answer was ignorant.
The way I was forced by my football coach in the past caused me to gain ALOT of bulk; in doing this it has caused me to become biased about the argument.

I would say if you are going to use the weights, be VERY explosive up -- it will teach your muscles to react quicker; same with push ups.

And from what I have always heard, lighter weight - more reps.

**** what you heard, they were wrong.

Lighter weight, more reps is for endurance only, why do bench at all when pushups can do that for you?

Here's how the two should complement each other:

Pushups for more reps, for endurance.

Bench press, heavy weight, low reps, low volume of work (eliminates the "bulk" problem, and means less time spent in the gym, and less time spent on recovery). This will target STRENGTH. With the added strength, you have a better foundation for developing power.

bodyweight exercises can work well for max strength as well

Push ups work out more than just those muscles right (some muscles in the back?)? Because right now I'm sore, the sides of my pecs are only sore though. I haven't been sore like that in months. So does that mean if I can do 2 more push ups than last time that my bench has increased?

People who advocate weightlifting claim it is more efficient at increasing strength the old fashioned boxing training. Whether this is true or not is a non-issue as far as boxing training is concerned. Boxers don't need to be strong, they need the ability to apply whatever strength they possess. Experience over the past 30 years has proven conclusively that if indeed boxers have increased their strength by weightlifting it has not improved their performance in any measurable way. Old fashioned boxing training will adequately condition the body for boxing, Jack Dempsey and Joe Louis proved that. Any additional strength training is largely a waste of time. We know that because modern boxers who train with weights don't perform any better than Jack Dempsey or Joe Louis.

People who advocate weightlifting claim it is more efficient at increasing strength the old fashioned boxing training. Whether this is true or not is a non-issue as far as boxing training is concerned. Boxers don't need to be strong, they need the ability to apply whatever strength they possess. Experience over the past 30 years has proven conclusively that if indeed boxers have increased their strength by weightlifting it has not improved their performance in any measurable way. Old fashioned boxing training will adequately condition the body for boxing, Jack Dempsey and Joe Louis proved that. Any additional strength training is largely a waste of time. We know that because modern boxers who train with weights don't perform any better than Jack Dempsey or Joe Louis.

Potatoes

Do you know the difference between 'weightlifting' and 'weight training'? Weighlifting is an Olympic sport consisting of two disciplines: the snatch and the clean and jerk. People who train for these exercises are lifting ****ing heavy weights because the sport requires just one rep to be successful. Have you seen how big their legs are and how strong they are pound for pound?
No boxer should be doing weightlifting to that extent.

Weight training is exactly that - training to make the body stronger through weights - how heavy the weights you train with is up to you. Sensible weight training will strengthen the ligaments, tendons, muscles and bones and if extensive stretching is done then the person won't lose any flexibility.

Weights can also provide muscle ENDURANCE which is important in a long fight. Look at ahtletes, gymnasts, martial artists....all do weights but they don't lose performance do they? So why are they using weights?

I think that weight TRAINING is beneficial and someone who does weight training will have an advantage over someone who doesn't.

bodyweight exercises can work well for max strength as well

True, but regular pushups don't work for max strength at all, so your point is meaningless to the bench vs. pushups discussion. :)

Boxers don't need to be strong, they need the ability to apply whatever strength they possess.

I think this little quote is enough to prove your ignorance. If a boxer isn't strong, he has no strength to apply. With no strength to apply, the other guy will walk right through you.
Conversely, if he IS strong, he has more strength to apply. If you can't see the logic in that, clearly it's because you DON'T WANT TO.

And yes, of course you still need to be able to apply the strength for it to work, but having strength (and working on it) doesn't magically evaporate the ability to box, like you seem to think. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

What you're doing is overemphasizing ONE of the attributes a boxer needs, and then claiming another attribute isn't needed. It's BS though.

Clearly any halfway intelligent person will realize that a boxer needs a blend of the followibng attributes:

Endurance
Strength
Speed
Ability

If you take one of those away completely, you will NOT be able to box, period.

The more you have of each, the more complete you will be.

True, but regular pushups don't work for max strength at all, so your point is meaningless to the bench vs. pushups discussion. :)

regular pushups, of course not...but a variance of them....one armed pushups with feet and legs elevated...im pretty sure not a lot of people can do 10+ reps with those

Potatoes

Do you know the difference between 'weightlifting' and 'weight training'? Weighlifting is an Olympic sport consisting of two disciplines: the snatch and the clean and jerk. People who train for these exercises are lifting ****ing heavy weights because the sport requires just one rep to be successful. Have you seen how big their legs are and how strong they are pound for pound?
No boxer should be doing weightlifting to that extent.

Weight training is exactly that - training to make the body stronger through weights - how heavy the weights you train with is up to you. Sensible weight training will strengthen the ligaments, tendons, muscles and bones and if extensive stretching is done then the person won't lose any flexibility.

Weights can also provide muscle ENDURANCE which is important in a long fight. Look at ahtletes, gymnasts, martial artists....all do weights but they don't lose performance do they? So why are they using weights?

I think that weight TRAINING is beneficial and someone who does weight training will have an advantage over someone who doesn't.




Yes, I have noticed you people like to play games with samantics. Weightlifting.....weight training......who gives a ****? Boxers started weight training in the 1970's and there is no proof it did them any good! After 30 years of doing whatever with weights something beneficial should have happened, if it was going to. Show us the proof of more knockouts, faster hands, higher punch rate over more rounds? Wake up sonny there is no proof! If you had the proof you would show it to us.

Ok, lets play the game a little further. You are now going to ask me to prove it has not been of any benefit. Of course that is logical impossibility, but then who give a **** about logic?

Are push ups more effective than Bench pressing? This guy in my 8th period (Sophmore) does around 400 push ups a day, and he barely started benching since he joined football. He says he uses 200lbs to warm up. So, which is more effective? Benching or push ups?

You have 8 periods?

I think this little quote is enough to prove your ignorance. If a boxer isn't strong, he has no strength to apply. With no strength to apply, the other guy will walk right through you.
Conversely, if he IS strong, he has more strength to apply. If you can't see the logic in that, clearly it's because you DON'T WANT TO.

And yes, of course you still need to be able to apply the strength for it to work, but having strength (and working on it) doesn't magically evaporate the ability to box, like you seem to think. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

What you're doing is overemphasizing ONE of the attributes a boxer needs, and then claiming another attribute isn't needed. It's BS though.

Clearly any halfway intelligent person will realize that a boxer needs a blend of the followibng attributes:

Endurance
Strength
Speed
Ability

If you take one of those away completely, you will NOT be able to box, period.

The more you have of each, the more complete you will be.




How the hell did boxers ever survive before the weightlifting fad began?

How the hell did boxers ever survive before the weightlifting fad began?

Is that all you have to say to that? I just gave you a thorough answer, that should make sense, even to you, and that's all you have to say?

Just answer this: Does a boxer not need strength? It takes strength to even stand up!

Well, I'll be more polite than you are, and actually address what you said:

First of all, I'd hesitate with the fad tag if I were you. :P

Second, to put into perspective, boxers have always worked on their strength in one way or another. But like all the other training components, things evolve. Boxers a hundred years ago were much more crude, technically too, than today. Just take a look at Jack Dempsey. The guy never threw a straight punch in his life, and I bet he never paracticed throwing one either. That has all changed, no one could ever become heavyweight champion with Dempsey's style of boxing today. And this is in spite of the lack of talent in the heavies today!

I'm not saying you HAVE to lift weights to be a good boxer, but if you take a good boxer and puts him on a proper training program to increase his strength, and then work on converting that to power, you'll have the same boxer, with more strength and power than he had without it. It really is THAT simple, I can't believe you can't understand that. I think you don't WANT to admit it.

Yes, I have noticed you people like to play games with samantics. Weightlifting.....weight training......who gives a ****? Boxers started weight training in the 1970's and there is no proof it did them any good! After 30 years of doing whatever with weights something beneficial should have happened, if it was going to. Show us the proof of more knockouts, faster hands, higher punch rate over more rounds? Wake up sonny there is no proof! If you had the proof you would show it to us.

Ok, lets play the game a little further. You are now going to ask me to prove it has not been of any benefit. Of course that is logical impossibility, but then who give a **** about logic?

You are like Punchdrunk said, truly ignorant Potatoes. Weight training and weightlifting are as different as shadow boxing and actual boxing, but you don't give a **** because you don't have an open mind and you're also stuck in the past.

Weights won't make a boxer have faster hands (how the **** could they???), a higher punch rate or have more knockouts. Weights will make a boxer stronger, in better physical condition and with more muscle endurance. All things being equal a stronger fighter will beat a weaker fighter.

The proof is that boxers (and martial artists, thai boxers, etc) all use some sort of weights and resistance training to help them.

And if it has no benefit then why the **** are they doing it??

You have 8 periods?

1-8th Period.

You are like Punchdrunk said, truly ignorant Potatoes. Weight training and weightlifting are as different as shadow boxing and actual boxing, but you don't give a **** because you don't have an open mind and you're also stuck in the past.

Weights won't make a boxer have faster hands (how the **** could they???), a higher punch rate or have more knockouts. Weights will make a boxer stronger, in better physical condition and with more muscle endurance. All things being equal a stronger fighter will beat a weaker fighter.

The proof is that boxers (and martial artists, thai boxers, etc) all use some sort of weights and resistance training to help them.

And if it has no benefit then why the **** are they doing it??





Why did Rocky Marciano force his weight down to 183, and even lower at times? He would often gain 30 pounds or more between fights and that is despite running 5 or 10 miles a day. We all tend to reflect the times in which we live. In those days it was commonly believed that more mass equalled less speed and less power. The ease at which Jack Dempsey and Joe Louis dispatched much larger opponents would lend some credence to that view.

In today's world increased muscle strength is equated with better performance. It is justified by the experience of Olympic athletes some of whom can clearly document performance enhancement through weight training. But what works for sprinters does not necessarily work for boxers. The training theorists in this forum talk about all the things that could happen in theory. They claim that punching power and hand speed is increased by weight training, but there have been no controlled studies done to prove this. If hand speed and punching power is increased there would have to be more knockouts unless weight training increases the resistance to concussion. So far they haven't made that ridiculous claim, but stay tuned, sooner or later they are going to start saying that too.

Why did Rocky Marciano force his weight down to 183, and even lower at times? He would often gain 30 pounds or more between fights and that is despite running 5 or 10 miles a day. We all tend to reflect the times in which we live. In those days it was commonly believed that more mass equalled less speed and less power. The ease at which Jack Dempsey and Joe Louis dispatched much larger opponents would lend some credence to that view.

In today's world increased muscle strength is equated with better performance. It is justified by the experience of Olympic athletes some of whom can clearly document performance enhancement through weight training. But what works for sprinters does not necessarily work for boxers. The training theorists in this forum talk about all the things that could happen in theory. They claim that punching power and hand speed is increased by weight training, but there have been no controlled studies done to prove this. If hand speed and punching power is increased there would have to be more knockouts unless weight training increases the resistance to concussion. So far they haven't made that ridiculous claim, but stay tuned, sooner or later they are going to start saying that too.

At last you are putting forward a reasonable argument without resorting to BS claims

I cannot see how weights could improve hand speed, but it should certainly improve punching power because the punch is generated from the legs, hips and shoulders so it stands to reason that if you make these stronger then the punch should be stronger too, shouldnt it?

You don't have to carry excess mass and bulk to be stronger and you shouldn't be doing tons of weights. Just a few basic core, compound exercises that work multiple bodyparts will promote strength and muscle condition and muscle endurance.

There are great benefits of weight training but the right exercises have to be selected so that they will aid performance, not hinder it. Keep an open mind to these arguments Potatoes, or at least do some research regarding weight training, slow/fast twitch muscle fibres, osteoporosis, etc and you'll see that it's not the devil you think it is.

Are push ups more effective than Bench pressing? This guy in my 8th period (Sophmore) does around 400 push ups a day, and he barely started benching since he joined football. He says he uses 200lbs to warm up. So, which is more effective? Benching or push ups?

use both if you cant choose one of them.

Why did Rocky Marciano force his weight down to 183, and even lower at times? He would often gain 30 pounds or more between fights and that is despite running 5 or 10 miles a day. We all tend to reflect the times in which we live. In those days it was commonly believed that more mass equalled less speed and less power. The ease at which Jack Dempsey and Joe Louis dispatched much larger opponents would lend some credence to that view.

In today's world increased muscle strength is equated with better performance. It is justified by the experience of Olympic athletes some of whom can clearly document performance enhancement through weight training. But what works for sprinters does not necessarily work for boxers. The training theorists in this forum talk about all the things that could happen in theory. They claim that punching power and hand speed is increased by weight training, but there have been no controlled studies done to prove this. If hand speed and punching power is increased there would have to be more knockouts unless weight training increases the resistance to concussion. So far they haven't made that ridiculous claim, but stay tuned, sooner or later they are going to start saying that too.

marciano used to get so light to improve his endurance he had the best stamina of any boxer

heavyweight nowadays dont bother this results in them taking breaks and losing the aggression after a few rounds.
the reason current heavyweights are slower then boxers of 20+ years has been falsly blamed on weightlifting, i believe the real reason is that they don't bother making weight before a fight and go in flabby.


you say there are no studies to prove that weightlifting does increase punching power; are you aware of any studies that disprove it?

marciano used to get so light to improve his endurance he had the best stamina of any boxer

heavyweight nowadays dont bother this results in them taking breaks and losing the aggression after a few rounds.
the reason current heavyweights are slower then boxers of 20+ years has been falsly blamed on weightlifting, i believe the real reason is that they don't bother making weight before a fight and go in flabby.


Good point!

At last you are putting forward a reasonable argument without resorting to BS claims

I cannot see how weights could improve hand speed, but it should certainly improve punching power because the punch is generated from the legs, hips and shoulders so it stands to reason that if you make these stronger then the punch should be stronger too, shouldnt it?

You don't have to carry excess mass and bulk to be stronger and you shouldn't be doing tons of weights. Just a few basic core, compound exercises that work multiple bodyparts will promote strength and muscle condition and muscle endurance.

There are great benefits of weight training but the right exercises have to be selected so that they will aid performance, not hinder it. Keep an open mind to these arguments Potatoes, or at least do some research regarding weight training, slow/fast twitch muscle fibres, osteoporosis, etc and you'll see that it's not the devil you think it is.




You will be lucky to find one boxing club in a thousand where the level of sophistication in training corresponds to anything you might find in an Olympic training program at a university. Sport science has come a long way, but boxing clubs are still back in the middle ages. The reality is boxers shouldn't be pumping iron. There isn't one boxer in a hundred-thousand that knows how to properly train with weights, and that is assuming weight training is of any benefit to boxers. All they are doing is pumping themselves up then dehydrating to make weight. I don't see any sense behind that whatsoever.

Tony Zale once said: "Boxing is the only sport that never went to college."

weight training sucks...end of discussion


:D

weight training sucks...end of discussion


:D

I would have to agree.

discussion ends

weight training sucks...end of discussion


:D

you told me!

Are push ups more effective than Bench pressing? This guy in my 8th period (Sophmore) does around 400 push ups a day, and he barely started benching since he joined football. He says he uses 200lbs to warm up. So, which is more effective? Benching or push ups?

There's no such thing as "better". Cycle both of them into your training regimen. You might do push-ups for several weeks, then switch to bench presses once your body has adapted to bodyweight exercises.

Remember, to be a complete fighter you need to have a complete program. Do both to combat boredom in training. :boxing:

How the hell did boxers ever survive before the weightlifting fad began?

The more I view your replies on the subject the more respect I lose completely for you and your opinion. You lose your credibility daily. Your argumenst have lost there battle years ago when infact the development of athletes evolved past your ideal training regemine.
First of all you are quick to use the term Fad, as if we have been doing it for the last couple of months rather than decades. As if someday science and the athletes represented by. are going to just one day decide hey guys this isn't working. HMMM
Say you were correct " just for arguments sake" why are your breed dying? Why do people who swear by "old time" training routines drop off the scene comletely? They are sooo good. Why don't you see them any more?
I guess to you we should all go out and put on some combat boots run the 5-6 miles throw some tires and chop some trees and call it a day?

They got by before modern training. Then Modern training eliminated them from the picture. Get it? Athletes need to progress. Need to improve and push themselves to be competitave. To drop what has "and it has time and time again" been proven to be successful would be ludicris. And a giant leap backward. This sport is in need of progress. Not an old and fictitious way of training its athletes. It amuses me the best evidence you have in support of your argument lies in outdated material. To influence young minds to diminish the quality of there training makes you a negative voice in the sport. You should be punished accordingly.

The more I view your replies on the subject the more respect I lose completely for you and your opinion. You lose your credibility daily. Your argumenst have lost there battle years ago when infact the development of athletes evolved past your ideal training regemine.
First of all you are quick to use the term Fad, as if we have been doing it for the last couple of months rather than decades. As if someday science and the athletes represented by. are going to just one day decide hey guys this isn't working. HMMM
Say you were correct " just for arguments sake" why are your breed dying? Why do people who swear by "old time" training routines drop off the scene comletely? They are sooo good. Why don't you see them any more?
I guess to you we should all go out and put on some combat boots run the 5-6 miles throw some tires and chop some trees and call it a day?

They got by before modern training. Then Modern training eliminated them from the picture. Get it? Athletes need to progress. Need to improve and push themselves to be competitave. To drop what has "and it has time and time again" been proven to be successful would be ludicris. And a giant leap backward. This sport is in need of progress. Not an old and fictitious way of training its athletes. It amuses me the best evidence you have in support of your argument lies in outdated material. To influence young minds to diminish the quality of there training makes you a negative voice in the sport. You should be punished accordingly.





That pic in your signature is a prime example of how wonderful modern boxing training has become. :ugh:

That pic in your signature is a prime example of how wonderful modern boxing training has become. :ugh:

OK thats your best argument? A pic I saw as funny? Potatoes you are rediculus, totaly misinformed, outdated and obsolete. I am now starting to believe a weightlifter sodomized you as a child or stole your girl friend. You are getting more and more ignorant as you go. Its amazing for me to see this phenomenon. The bottom line is "and this is intended for those inspiring to box, or just improve what they already do' Your strength, speed, Endurance and flexability are components which MUST be suplemented in tangent with one another if you desire to be a competitave combative athlete! Should you train every thing else and leave out your strength training you will not be succesfull against today's (modern) athlete. Your skills training will not help you. Fore you WILL face an apponent with similiar skills in which case the faster, stronger, better conditioned athlete will prevail. This is the bottom line. The training methods of yesteryear plague a wonderful sport. Boxing is slowly realizing the error And these views and opinions are fading into time which is where they belong. How can we improve every aspect of the other sports requiring similiar traits and go wrong with Boxing?

I agree with kingdosia

Pushups are better.

No matter how good an exercise is, the time will come when your body will become adapted to it. Once your body adapts, it will become less responsive and you have to try another exercise to give the body a new stimulus. ;)

No matter how good an exercise is, the time will come when your body will become adapted to it. Once your body adapts, it will become less responsive and you have to try another exercise to give the body a new stimulus. ;)

OR vary the set/rep/weight/difficulty.

or just do pushups and let this thread die...