Was there any other trainer other than Dundee that didn't believe in weight training?

[them_apples]

They didn't have the knowledge they do today..overwhelming evidence suggests weight training does improve performance in any sport..almost any modern trainer includes weight training to some degree and iof they don't they are doing aninjustice to their fighter.Im assuming all trainers of the past didn't like weight training as they associated it with being slow,however lean muscle is faster than no muscle or fat,due to the muscle fibers becoming more explosive.So yea I would say every trainer.

Where is the overwhelming evidence? Have you ever boxed? How come the two best boxers of this generation don't use weights? The only benefit woth weights is it allows fighter to better fill into a weight class above them.

I can tell you weights doesn't do that much for boxing compared to nailing railroad spikes all day. So many people on this forum talk out of their asses.

Boxing isn't a 30 second sport. Any weights used by pros are in high repetition form, and in this case just replace a calisthenic workout or throwing cinder blocks around.

[billeau2]

In reply to the original post - a lot of the old school trainers didn't believe in it, Eddie Futch, Ray Arcel etc and in reply to juggernaught - weights don't make you better it's how you use them that do, and many of the older fighters did things that were substituted for weight (chopping a tree for example). Also a lot of fighters make the mistake of spending more time with weights rather than with boxing. For every fighter who has lifted weights there are fighters that haven't that our strong as an ox, Tyson and Frazier never lifted weights... Yet who would you say is stronger than them today? and which fighter have you ever seen more explosive than Tyson? Oh wait, let me guess... Wlad klitchko? Lol

Your point really is what its all about, assuming someone does not have a physical deficiency, like Valuev (Gigaintism). Weights are supposed to be a way of more quickly exhausting a muscle, or group by isolating the area. And the idea that more reps versus less reps is actually debatable. Anytime a weight is used it should be too build capacity aerobically as well as anaroebically, by making that muscle work so hard that it has to develop. Bigger muscles are, as you hint to in your post, more a function of how much weight training one does, not, as many believe, how capable you are in performing work.

And heres a way to validate what i am saying: Take a runner and give him a relatively heavy weight for him to lift with his arms....he can't last very long can he? Now take a person with well developed tricept and bicept strength and create the same scenerio....make the weight amount relative to what each person would consider a relatively heavy weight.....If the guy with the better arm development can lift the weight more times (he will be able to) would this make him more aneorobically strong than the runner? remember the runner is an aerobic stud, he can run a lot more than the guy with strong arms, yet the guy with the better arm development can lift a weight he considers relatively heavy more than a weight the runner considers the same? the point is that the distinction between strenght (anarobic) and endurance (aerobic) becomes meaningless. One guy simply has better muscle function in his arms, i.e. he can perform more work with his muscles because they have been forced to grow.

What this means is that when we build strength we simply get stronger in every way, including aerobic strength.... and that is what modern applications of weights, movement, and other exerscizes like PIlates do for athletes today. The mistake people did was to use weights in manner more suited to building muscle and not performing work. This means less intensity and building muscles not used so much like the arms and chest.

[rightsideup]

I recall seeing a picture of Jack dempseys Back with his arms flexed above his head. He had absolutely no excess fat and looked extremely powerful as if his body was created to punch. I know he only fought in the 190 lb range but you could just sense by his build that he was powerful and conditioned incredibly.

[Ray Corso]

What trainers today are on the same level as the men mentioned earlier on this thread? No offense to Roach but he was mentored by Futch is he at Futch's level? Who today is on Mr. Blackburns level?
Theres a reason the pro boxers of the current times are one dimentional the trainers are from the amateur boxing ranks not the 60 year old gyms were the generations of trainers taught boxing to fighters and trainers.
The inside game is almost completely gone, the high volumn punching along with teach power techniques is missing. The reason is because the amateur count the tap the same as a solid hit, to bad it shouldn't be that way. You should earn more points when power is used in your balanced attack instead of long distance taps. Chess with consequences is more intriquing than checkers!
Ray

[billeau2]

What trainers today are on the same level as the men mentioned earlier on this thread? No offense to Roach but he was mentored by Futch is he at Futch's level? Who today is on Mr. Blackburns level?
Theres a reason the pro boxers of the current times are one dimentional the trainers are from the amateur boxing ranks not the 60 year old gyms were the generations of trainers taught boxing to fighters and trainers.
The inside game is almost completely gone, the high volumn punching along with teach power techniques is missing. The reason is because the amateur count the tap the same as a solid hit, to bad it shouldn't be that way. You should earn more points when power is used in your balanced attack instead of long distance taps. Chess with consequences is more intriquing than checkers!
Ray

Love that analogy "chess with consequences."

[Suckmedry]

weights are definitely useful in boxing but its boxing specific strength training.

Bench, deadlift, squats, lunges and rows are the only traditional lifts u should be doing, 5x5s

Tyre and hammer swings, rope swinging drills, and medicine ball throws are all used to build explosive power

this is all used to supplement a base of push ups dips and chin ups.

[juggernaut666]

In reply to the original post - a lot of the old school trainers didn't believe in it, Eddie Futch, Ray Arcel etc and in reply to juggernaught - weights don't make you better it's how you use them that do, and many of the older fighters did things that were substituted for weight (chopping a tree for example). Also a lot of fighters make the mistake of spending more time with weights rather than with boxing. For every fighter who has lifted weights there are fighters that haven't that our strong as an ox, Tyson and Frazier never lifted weights... Yet who would you say is stronger than them today? and which fighter have you ever seen more explosive than Tyson? Oh wait, let me guess... Wlad klitchko? Lol

Tyson is a natural HW as what was aiready explained, he did squats which puts on muscle all over ,the rest of what you wrote has nothing to do if weights help or not ,they do desptite if a fighter is not correctly utilizing them,Frazier was not strong as an ox ,he had a decent left but thats another topic.

[ironalex]

Tyson is a natural HW as what was aiready explained, he did squats which puts on muscle all over ,the rest of what you wrote has nothing to do if weights help or not ,they do desptite if a fighter is not correctly utilizing them,Frazier was not strong as an ox ,he had a decent left but thats another topic.

What does Tyson being a natural heavyweight have anything to do with it? The fact is he never used weights and was the most explosive fighter of all time. Lol at "frazier was not strong as an ox, he had a decent left" A) he was extremely strong and b) decent being average?! He had the best left hook of all time so it's far from average. strength work is very important but doing it with weights isn't, this is a fact

[billeau2]

Tyson is a natural HW as what was aiready explained, he did squats which puts on muscle all over ,the rest of what you wrote has nothing to do if weights help or not ,they do desptite if a fighter is not correctly utilizing them,Frazier was not strong as an ox ,he had a decent left but thats another topic.

Its amusing how you claim to be trained yet certain things you say and conclude are "different" to put it diplomatically. Some fighters are considered strong because of what and how they function in the ring, it is a descriptive term used to indicate useful strength, not physique, not how they look. For example, When Toney fought Rahman, despite Tony's physique compared to Rahman's.....Rahman looked like a greek statue Toney like a blimp, Toney was the stronger fighter. He threw more punches, was more active during the fight...i.e. he performed more useful work than Rahman in the context of exerting oneself in a boxing match.

Frazier could thow punches at a very high rate, press relentlessly, in the heavyweight division coming fowards throughout the fight, had incredible recuprative abilities, etc....He was therefore considered STRONG. Vlad who you like, looks like a Greek statue but could not work in the ring to do half the amount of punches, movement, etc that Frazier could do. I am not critisizing him on this account either, maybe Vlad made a conscious decision to fight what he considers "smarter.' But STRONG as I have heard it relates not to what a fighter can benchpress, but what they can do in the ring.

[billeau2]

Where is the overwhelming evidence? Have you ever boxed? How come the two best boxers of this generation don't use weights? The only benefit woth weights is it allows fighter to better fill into a weight class above them.

I can tell you weights doesn't do that much for boxing compared to nailing railroad spikes all day. So many people on this forum talk out of their asses.

Boxing isn't a 30 second sport. Any weights used by pros are in high repetition form, and in this case just replace a calisthenic workout or throwing cinder blocks around.

Weights are a means to an end. Purely. They are one means of isolating a specific area that needs more work to get the body to respond by building more strength. For example, if a guy gets winded after a round of fighting and needs endurance, the round a bout way of dealing with this is to have him do more roadwork, supplementrd by high to medium reps with weights.

The biggest change now is that most modern trainers would instead not see his problem as an aerobic conditioning problem. They would have him perhaps wall climb, or use a hammer with whole body movements, or even grapple for 3 minute rounds because all these activities build muscle in the core areas and in so doing build aerobic and anarobic capacity.

As Ray said, weights have been used at least since Jack Johnson....Weights became primary because of body building training. people assumed that because body builders look strong, using weights would make one strong....Even back then though the strongest men in the world WITH WEIGHTS were always the power lifters who had such strong abs that they looked like they had a beer belly!