Weight lifting and boxing?

[johnm is...]

I can do anything when i lie.

whbat ever you do, your clearly not open minded or educated enough to do it as well as you could be.


and no, i wouldnt be surprised if the post i made on page 2 was correct:



I find the biggest problem is coaches in MMA gyms trying to turn their boxers into MMA fighters.

essentially what your saying is, "even if you are right, it goes against what i do for a living, so id never admit it"

That's not at all what I'm saying. That's the conclusion that you're drawing.

I'm incredibly open minded. And I'm also well educated. Much more well educated than you'll ever get with Ross boxing or Google.

What I'm not open to, is someone saying something that I know is wrong.

I have a method that I know works. I may not be 'as good as I could be' but who is?

[HedonisticFrog]

the force a single muscle fiber produces is based on its myosin, there are 18 different kinds of myosin isomers and they are not necessiarly exclusive to one specific type of motor unit.

muscle fibers are grouped into motor units each responding to a single motor neuron.

fast twitch motor neurons are much larger and have many times more muscle fibers in one motor unit.

so lets hypothetically say one fast twitch motor unit has 75 muscle fibers in it, that motor unit fires off, and all 75 muscle fibers twitch.

lets say hypothetically in comparison one slow twitch moto unit only has 10 muscle fibers in it.

so one slow twitch neuron fires off 10 fibers and one fast twitch neuron fires off 75 muscle fibers. thus we can conclude that one slow twitch motor unit puts out nearly 7 times less power than 1 fast twitch motor unit.

mean while 8 slow twitch motor units activating at the same time would have more muscle fibers and there fore create more force.

the difficulty is in training 8 motor units to fire off at once compared to only needing to train one to fire off.


there is no inherent limitation that prevents slow twitch from outputting the same force as fast twitch with in a single movement.

You will never be able to train with light weights(especially 20% of one rep max) and build as much strength as you can with heavy weights. You can talk about motor units all you want it's never going to happen. I have clearly shown that strength provides benefits to boxing and the most effective method to build strength is a power lifting style program.

If you want to build muscular endurance then train for that but don't try to claim you're building a lot of strength with tiny dumbbells. Go find what your one rep max on bench press is and you can see for yourself how effective tiny dumbbells are for strength.

[Spartacus Sully]

You will never be able to train with light weights(especially 20% of one rep max) and build as much strength as you can with heavy weights. You can talk about motor units all you want it's never going to happen. I have clearly shown that strength provides benefits to boxing and the most effective method to build strength is a power lifting style program.

If you want to build muscular endurance then train for that but don't try to claim you're building a lot of strength with tiny dumbbells. Go find what your one rep max on bench press is and you can see for yourself how effective tiny dumbbells are for strength.

you confound alot of stuff that i say.

[Spartacus Sully]

That's not at all what I'm saying. That's the conclusion that you're drawing.

I'm incredibly open minded. And I'm also well educated. Much more well educated than you'll ever get with Ross boxing or Google.

What I'm not open to, is someone saying something that I know is wrong.

I have a method that I know works. I may not be 'as good as I could be' but who is?

mayweather?





Coaches that train specificly in just mma or just boxing?

[johnm is...]

mayweather?





Coaches that train specificly in just mma or just boxing?

No. And hell no. Sport specific doesn't mean they can't improve. That's just silly.

[Spartacus Sully]

No. And hell no. Sport specific doesn't mean they can't improve. That's just silly.

more so my point was along the lines of jack of all trades, master of none.

[Banderivets]

In my day I read a fair bit into slow vs fast muscle fibers and honestly just like a lot of exercise science it really leaves you wondering when you put it to real life.

For example:

1) Skinny black guy at the gym jamming the ball at 5'11" like he's Vince Carter..."Oh that's all fast twitch muscle, he's so explosive"

2) Stocky Asian doing Olympic lifts like its no tomorrow in the weight room, runs balls has zero hops.

Guy 1, couldn't press 135lb over his chest. Useless on the leg press as well.

Guy 2, snatching 275lb with great form, pressing more plates than I can count on the leg press.


Now the "science" tells me that both guys would be using fast twitch fibers for the exercise. Now how who has "more fast twitch fibers", well let me tell you, the Asian guy had more of any muscle period, I mean his calves where like 4x the other guys. But if all his presses are WAY higher then the other guys then how come he cant jump for his life? Just talking about vertical not who can dunk or not.

I just don't buy it and no one seems to be able to explain it.


If you talk about fiber recruitment then what is different lets say a body builder, a strength athlete (oly lifts) and a skinny guy with mad hops.

One is huge and can't jump or lift as well as the other. You can argue his CNS is not recruiting enough fibers.
The other guy is moving incredible weights at a relatively light body mass, so why can't he jump as much? Its clear that he must have his CNS firing off just right.

The last one is skinny and can hop but has very little muscle mass and couldn't move a weight for the life of him. But he can really jump. You can say he has superior muscle recruitment but if it is that good than why is he so "weak"?

Its all very myth like to me.

If it's not simply about sheer muscle fiber count or efficient muscle fiber recruitment than what is it?

[HedonisticFrog]

In my day I read a fair bit into slow vs fast muscle fibers and honestly just like a lot of exercise science it really leaves you wondering when you put it to real life.

For example:

1) Skinny black guy at the gym jamming the ball at 5'11" like he's Vince Carter..."Oh that's all fast twitch muscle, he's so explosive"

2) Stocky Asian doing Olympic lifts like its no tomorrow in the weight room, runs balls has zero hops.

Guy 1, couldn't press 135lb over his chest. Useless on the leg press as well.

Guy 2, snatching 275lb with great form, pressing more plates than I can count on the leg press.


Now the "science" tells me that both guys would be using fast twitch fibers for the exercise. Now how who has "more fast twitch fibers", well let me tell you, the Asian guy had more of any muscle period, I mean his calves where like 4x the other guys. But if all his presses are WAY higher then the other guys then how come he cant jump for his life? Just talking about vertical not who can dunk or not.

I just don't buy it and no one seems to be able to explain it.


If you talk about fiber recruitment then what is different lets say a body builder, a strength athlete (oly lifts) and a skinny guy with mad hops.

One is huge and can't jump or lift as well as the other. You can argue his CNS is not recruiting enough fibers.
The other guy is moving incredible weights at a relatively light body mass, so why can't he jump as much? Its clear that he must have his CNS firing off just right.

The last one is skinny and can hop but has very little muscle mass and couldn't move a weight for the life of him. But he can really jump. You can say he has superior muscle recruitment but if it is that good than why is he so "weak"?

Its all very myth like to me.

If it's not simply about sheer muscle fiber count or efficient muscle fiber recruitment than what is it?

Big power lifters can have good jump height as well. Here's Benedict Magnusson deadlifting 970lb and then jumping a foot into the air.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tOxtGCrx4s

The basketball player probably just has disproportionately strong legs compared to his upper body since you don't need a lot of upper body strength for basketball.

There could be multiple reasons that the asian guy couldn't jump as high. If he's short, that limits jump height since you have less range of motion to develop momentum. He's heavier for his height so he needs more strength to jump the same height as someone skinnier than him. Also what do you mean he runs balls? I've never heard of that saying before.

In the end, anecdotal evidence is worthless and you need good scientific studies and ideally multiple studies supporting the same conclusion. check out the study I posted earlier in this thread that showed strength was correlated with jumping height, sprint speed, and shuttle cone speed in soccer players.

[Spartacus Sully]

check out the study I posted earlier in this thread that showed strength was correlated with jumping height, sprint speed, and shuttle cone speed in soccer players.

kinda weird how the highest jumpers fell in the middle of the chart.

and some of the fastest at the shuttle run had some of the lowest lifts.




id say this is pretty much undeniable evidence that maximal strength does not directly correlate with jumping and shuttle run.

[HedonisticFrog]

kinda weird how the highest jumpers fell in the middle of the chart.

and some of the fastest at the shuttle run had some of the lowest lifts.


id say this is pretty much undeniable evidence that maximal strength does not directly correlate with jumping and shuttle run.

You fail at statistics. The data shows a very strong statistically significant correlation and all you do is say "oh look there's one or two people who don't fall exactly in line with the rest of the data".

If there were truly no correlation as you claim, the line would be flat and have no slope. You're just grasping at straws now.