The paradox of weight and the development of boxing.

[billeau2]

I think weight is generally overrated as far as how much an advantage it is with one person weighing more than the other in the ring. Especially at the pro level and elite. It’s hard to quantify someone winning because they were just heavier. Nobody who was the heaviest had the hardest punch or best chin. I heard I think tessitore say HW weigh in’s are arbitrary as there’s no limit today. But I don’t think that’s the right word. I think measuring a fighter against his own weight precedent and performances is more important than the difference he weighs against his opponent. We love weight as it’s a tangible number to throw around. Gives us something to talk about. It’s not like anybody is going in the dunk tank or doing the tale of the tape these days. I’ve heard Tyson referred to as 5’10” a couple times tonight, though listed at 5’11.5”. We don’t even demand guys get on the scale pre ring walk yet how “big” an opponent is always an issue yet no one is willing to prove it. U can weigh in wearing shoes and shirts and sombreros now.

I think this issue of weight is a heavyweight issue. Heavyweights have options in this respect. My own feeling is that the lighter one can be for a fight probably the better. I have not seen any indication that weight helps a punch in boxing enough to sacrifice mobiity. I know that when I was lighter and fighting in Karate it was easier thats for sure...

It seems to me, and the point of this thread... that in times past guys trained to come in as light as possible. Hence it was a training decision and not that guys were lighter back then.

[PRINCEKOOL]

I think I may have a sort of solution for this impasse between the two camps involving the old timers and modern fighters... I will call this the weight paradox which is: While fighters were instructed, as a goal, to come into a fight, as light as possible, in the old days, fighters today are often bulking up, and training with different ideas about how to show up to a fight in great condition.

So, here we are going back and fourth about a figher's weight and what it would be, while ignoring the fact that fighters in one group were trying to lose weight, while fighters in the other group, are not concerned with such...The paradox being, both groups are trying to come in as able bodied as one can for a fight.

So what does it take to come over this impasse and establish some consensus? Well, for starters, how about thinking in these terms: Take a blank slate...no food ideology, no steriod ideology, and no faulty notions of evolution... Now take the two groups and reverse the training goals: So for the modern heavyweights, they must try to come in as light as possible for a match, while the other historical group, can come in with weight, and should concentrate on strength training, interval training, and other such methods utilized...

Now how much would this change, change the disparity in the average weight of a heavyweight? keeping in mind, that to this day, the average size of both, a heavyweight, and a champion heavyweight, has only changed on average, about maybe 25 pounds or so? Probably less.

This is a rhetorical question above, but what if, for example, Joe Louis was trained rolling a tire, doing Plymetrics, explosive strength training... and what if Tyson was trained on road work, calistenics, the type of things joe did...

Mike Tyson regime was very old school, he did not lift weights until past the year 2000 'He did roadwork and stationary bike exercises etc'

His calisthenic routine would consist of 2000 sit-ups, 500-800 dips, 500 press-ups, and then 10 minutes of wrestlers bridges/neck exercises.

Heavy bad work is technically a plyometric exercise 'In my personal opinion? The invasion of sports science in boxing, has kind of over complicated things. WASTE a lot of time in boxers training camps, all the unnecessary periodisation 'Is sometimes just a way of over complicating things etc'

When certain fighters call themselves old school 'In reality they are not, very few fighters in today's era could fight/function IF they went back in time' But fighters such as Mike Tyson, Floyd Mayweather & Bernard Hopkins could because? It was only really in the latter part of their careers did they start to implement all of these over complicated/intricate methods from sports science idols.

What is Anthony Joshua going to do in the 1970's without a protein shake? I am well rehearsed in sports science, but when it comes to boxing 'I just see a simple sport' in terms of conditioning. My knowledge and background is more translated to Olympic sports such as Track and Field athletics, Cycling, Swimming, maybe even power-lifting.

Note: You have alluded to the changing in culture within boxing over the decades, WE are living in the body building era. Heavyweight boxers had entirely different ideologies for the best part of last century, but that slowly began to change in the 90's.

'Power to weight ratio & Functional strength these are the attributes fighters NEED to think about when speaking about weight etc'

[The Old LefHook]

The distance between a man's eyes is one of the best indicators of size.

[billeau2]

Mike Tyson regime was very old school, he did not lift weights until past the year 2000 'He did roadwork and stationary bike exercises etc'

His calisthenic routine would consist of 2000 sit-ups, 500-800 dips, 500 press-ups, and then 10 minutes of wrestlers bridges/neck exercises.

Heavy bad work is technically a plyometric exercise 'In my personal opinion? The invasion of sports science in boxing, has kind of over complicated things. WASTE a lot of time in boxers training camps, all the unnecessary periodisation 'Is sometimes just a way of over complicating things etc'

When certain fighters call themselves old school 'In reality they are not, very few fighters in today's era could fight/function IF they went back in time' But fighters such as Mike Tyson, Floyd Mayweather & Bernard Hopkins could because? It was only really in the latter part of their careers did they start to implement all of these over complicated/intricate methods from sports science idols.

What is Anthony Joshua going to do in the 1970's without a protein shake? I am well rehearsed in sports science, but when it comes to boxing 'I just see a simple sport' in terms of conditioning. My knowledge and background is more translated to Olympic sports such as Track and Field athletics, Cycling, Swimming, maybe even power-lifting.

Note: You have alluded to the changing in culture within boxing over the decades, WE are living in the body building era. Heavyweight boxers had entirely different ideologies for the best part of last century, but that slowly began to change in the 90's.

'Power to weight ratio & Functional strength these are the attributes fighters NEED to think about when speaking about weight etc'

Great post. You use the terminology "over complicated." I believe this is a result of trying a "one size fits all" approach. Team sports in the early eighties needed a way to condition athletes and have time to scrimmage. Hence, circuit training caused a revolution in football. Suddenly athletes could exhaust every major muscle and have time to practice subtle plays, etc. But boxing never needed this technology to get better. I agree with your premise.

never the less the conditioning coaches, the new movement therapies, etc was on the menu. These advances were wonderful. I was a trainer back before and used Yoga systems and martial arts systems and I was looked on as being alternative. Today? Trainers know a lot more than we were taught about the body physiology.
Boxers doing what Tyson did, doing roadwork, sparring and bagwork, always got men in peak physical condition. I agree with you on this.

Functional Strength is something few people understand unfortunately. There is still a tendency to think a hard punch results from muscle development. In fact, a hard punch has to do with a chain of movements, including timing and accuracy.

[PRINCEKOOL]

Great post. You use the terminology "over complicated." I believe this is a result of trying a "one size fits all" approach. Team sports in the early eighties needed a way to condition athletes and have time to scrimmage. Hence, circuit training caused a revolution in football. Suddenly athletes could exhaust every major muscle and have time to practice subtle plays, etc. But boxing never needed this technology to get better. I agree with your premise.

never the less the conditioning coaches, the new movement therapies, etc was on the menu. These advances were wonderful. I was a trainer back before and used Yoga systems and martial arts systems and I was looked on as being alternative. Today? Trainers know a lot more than we were taught about the body physiology.
Boxers doing what Tyson did, doing roadwork, sparring and bagwork, always got men in peak physical condition. I agree with you on this.

Functional Strength is something few people understand unfortunately. There is still a tendency to think a hard punch results from muscle development. In fact, a hard punch has to do with a chain of movements, including timing and accuracy.

Probably is with sports science? It compartmentalizes things, THAT is what science does, THIS is great for sport such as track and field athletics, cycling & swimming but 'Sometimes it has not quite produced the same kind of improvements in BOXING as it has in those other sports 'And like you have pointed out 'It is probably because functional strength/power-weight ratio's are easier to measure in other sports such as i.e Olympic Weight lifting.

If you could measure boxing performances the same way you can measure, split times, reactions times, top-end, speed maintenance in 100 meter track/swimming race? And compare athletes from 70's/80's/90's with heavyweights from this era 'The Data may reveal that for some reason? Today's fighters are not miles ahead of past fighters in pure performance'

I also think there is a certain way you should train boxers, I really don't think the typical body building exercises translate that well over into boxing 'For one the bench press is pretty much the most pointless exercise that any athlete can do 'In sports that require you to ether throw or generate power from a punch' that is just my opinion.

Note: There was a topic on here, I believe it was made by Alexkid about punching power 'It was a good thread'. In terms of conditioning and the energy system's used during a boxing match, it is mostly similar to what a middle distance track athlete would be using '400-1500m meter athletes etc'

[billeau2]

Probably is with sports science? It compartmentalizes things, THAT is what science does, THIS is great for sport such as track and field athletics, cycling & swimming but 'Sometimes it has not quite produced the same kind of improvements in BOXING as it has in those other sports 'And like you have pointed out 'It is probably because functional strength/power-weight ratio's are easier to measure in other sports such as i.e Olympic Weight lifting.

If you could measure boxing performances the same way you can measure, split times, reactions times, top-end, speed maintenance in 100 meter track/swimming race? And compare athletes from 70's/80's/90's with heavyweights from this era 'The Data may reveal that for some reason? Today's fighters are not miles ahead of past fighters in pure performance'

I also think there is a certain way you should train boxers, I really don't think the typical body building exercises translate that well over into boxing 'For one the bench press is pretty much the most pointless exercise that any athlete can do 'In sports that require you to ether throw or generate power from a punch' that is just my opinion.

Note: There was a topic on here, I believe it was made by Alexkid about punching power 'It was a good thread'. In terms of conditioning and the energy system's used during a boxing match, it is mostly similar to what a middle distance track athlete would be using '400-1500m meter athletes etc'

Very well said Kool Prince. Indeed how does one measure the fight in the dog? so to speak. Fighting is after all, slightly different from sports, and then when we combine them, it gets difficult. So can we measure quickness? as opposed to speed? its not easy for all the reasons you state.

Punching power is hard to measure because what actually makes a punch work is complex, not the result of any single action. And yes the Bench Press is useless as far as I am concerned.

[PRINCEKOOL]

OK but the idea that people were smaller back then is majorly up for debate.

For 1, the same ratio of 7 footers existed back then as it does today. Difference being 7 percent (or something) of all 7 footers these days are actually in the NBA. It makes basketball look like athletes have got taller, in reality the sport has attracted tall people.

Then you have nationality, some races are shorter than others. With a lot of mixing in certain countries you will have taller people if taller people keep breeding more than shorter people. Not bigger people though. Some shorter men 100 years ago were very stocky. Height is just one gene.

Gene's also don't change like that, they get passed down. When you mix genes up you do get a better chance of getting say, height for example, combined with a strength gene. But you also may get a tall person with a frail build.

So to say athletes are just bigger and stronger isn't the case. It's changed, but it's a hard statistic to measure.

You can't take a sport that has developed over the past 60 years only and claim the athletes are superior, when the sports skill ceiling hadn't even been reached. Boxing is incredibly old. Before the Queensbury rules you had the London ring rules etc, bare knuckle fighters etc. You also have to take into account equipment changes and the nature of the sport. Beating a sprinting record could just as easily mean a better athlete happened to come along, not humans as a whole have evolved. You couldn't block punches in Johnsons Era, the gloves were too small. So defense was different, you grabbed shoulders, parried and rolled. Now today they have wide gloves that allow you to block punches very easy. And thumb connectors to prevent grabbing. Leonard may have lost against Hearns in a 12 rnd fight, Ali may have beat Frazier in a 12 round fight. Holmes may have been Tkoed by Shavers, Foreman by Lyle. They let those fights go on and those guys had heart. How many stoppages today would be premature for yesteryear? How many fighters give up so soon because they are getting paid either way. All a guy like Broner has to do is not get knocked out and keep running his mouth. He will still get paid.

You would be surprised at how many records in the Olympics are only broken due to equipment changes. Jesse Owen's dirt track sprint can't actually be beating by the majority of contenders outside of bolt.


Sorry, I've been reading a lot of Dawkins lately lol

It is almost as if BOXING has been taken out of Evolution. For a long period of time last century? If you was not a member of a royal family, a gangster, business tycoon or some sort of scientist 'Boxing was the only sport that had the ability to uplift somebody to be among royalty' NATURE refines itself, I believe sport in general could behave the same 'Boxing was refining itself, decade after decade'. Until it was no longer quite necessary as it was once before within society etc.

Good point about Jesse Owens, but he ran 10.3xx on a dirt track in heavy leather shoes while living off food stamps.

Note: Boxing was taking out of the evolution of sports, because of societal psychological change and the professionalism of other sports. It seems to be mainly the Heavyweight divisions & Middle Weights divisions that have been hit the hardest.

[them_apples]

Mike Tyson regime was very old school, he did not lift weights until past the year 2000 'He did roadwork and stationary bike exercises etc'

His calisthenic routine would consist of 2000 sit-ups, 500-800 dips, 500 press-ups, and then 10 minutes of wrestlers bridges/neck exercises.

Heavy bad work is technically a plyometric exercise 'In my personal opinion? The invasion of sports science in boxing, has kind of over complicated things. WASTE a lot of time in boxers training camps, all the unnecessary periodisation 'Is sometimes just a way of over complicating things etc'

When certain fighters call themselves old school 'In reality they are not, very few fighters in today's era could fight/function IF they went back in time' But fighters such as Mike Tyson, Floyd Mayweather & Bernard Hopkins could because? It was only really in the latter part of their careers did they start to implement all of these over complicated/intricate methods from sports science idols.

What is Anthony Joshua going to do in the 1970's without a protein shake? I am well rehearsed in sports science, but when it comes to boxing 'I just see a simple sport' in terms of conditioning. My knowledge and background is more translated to Olympic sports such as Track and Field athletics, Cycling, Swimming, maybe even power-lifting.

Note: You have alluded to the changing in culture within boxing over the decades, WE are living in the body building era. Heavyweight boxers had entirely different ideologies for the best part of last century, but that slowly began to change in the 90's.

'Power to weight ratio & Functional strength these are the attributes fighters NEED to think about when speaking about weight etc'

Tyson did train in a purely oldschool method in his prime. he was a physical specimen for sure. That being said his camp did get him eating a lot because they thought he was too small. He was a very small heavyweight, just fast and strong, but mostly fast. I couldn't say he was out strengthing everyone he faced, it was his speed combined with good punching power that allowed him to win, that and a lot of his oponents were scared or just not very stiff competition.

[The Old LefHook]

All the misconception is not surprising. Power is being confused with its effect. Adjuncts such as speed & accuracy are not power, either, bullish boys!

All men use about the same percentage of their grip to throw a punch--say 90%. One man does not use 90% and another man only 50%. And the criterion is dead on every time--the man with the harder grip throws the harder punch, though not necessarily the more deadly, since there is still snap to account for, by buggery, boys. It has to be true, once you think 'er over, rover.

This is especially true for short punches. For the longer the punch, then the more ancillary factors that will creep into the equation. Idealizing short punches, think Sonny Liston; idealizing long punches, think Rocky Marciano. QED

[Anthony342]

Great post. You use the terminology "over complicated." I believe this is a result of trying a "one size fits all" approach. Team sports in the early eighties needed a way to condition athletes and have time to scrimmage. Hence, circuit training caused a revolution in football. Suddenly athletes could exhaust every major muscle and have time to practice subtle plays, etc. But boxing never needed this technology to get better. I agree with your premise.

never the less the conditioning coaches, the new movement therapies, etc was on the menu. These advances were wonderful. I was a trainer back before and used Yoga systems and martial arts systems and I was looked on as being alternative. Today? Trainers know a lot more than we were taught about the body physiology.
Boxers doing what Tyson did, doing roadwork, sparring and bagwork, always got men in peak physical condition. I agree with you on this.

Functional Strength is something few people understand unfortunately. There is still a tendency to think a hard punch results from muscle development. In fact, a hard punch has to do with a chain of movements, including timing and accuracy.

Speaking of more efficient training, I saw one of the 30 for 30 episodes on Gatorade and that was how the inventors came up with the idea for that drink. For athletes, it recovered electrolytes and was better for muscles than water. If one is not as active, then water still works fine though.