Forgive me father for I have sinned.
I haven’t done direct ab work in well over a year.
I don’t even jog anymore.
Literally all I do is sparring.
I figure at this rate all I need now is an undiagnosed eating disorder and I’ll be on my way to becoming james toney.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
[quote]Aussie Davo wrote:
please why does no one consider the fact that heavier weight classes hit harder because they are HEAVIER not because they can put up bigger numbers in the weight room?[/quote]
Exactly.
To me, you’re pushing to two totally different planes. With a squat, you’re pushing towards the ceiling, with a punch, you’re whipping to your front. While weight itself is going to make you punch harder, the strength in your legs doesn’t matter for shit - if anything, it’s the momentum you build up in that back-to-front motion, combined with proper technique and appropriate range, that are going to make you hit hard.
I can’t the scientific names for all these motions and ligaments and all that shit, but I sure as hell know what I see. And I’ve NEVER seen a guy punch significantly harder because he started doing squats.[/quote]
Not necessarily arguing with you, but I think the argument for squatting is that muscles move the body and the stronger the muscles the potentially faster they can move the body through space or better they can overcome any resistance that they may encounter on the end of a punch (again power punching, which has much more penetration than speed punching). Of course there is a point of diminishing returns and spending all your time squatting would be a poor use of time.
[quote]Aussie Davo wrote:
I figure at this rate all I need now is an undiagnosed eating disorder and I’ll be on my way to becoming james toney.[/quote]
!!!
hahahah
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
JJ-dude - would you agree, however, that there’s a point of diminishing returns with squats, and that it arrives fairly quickly if boxing is your game?[/quote]
This!
[quote]jj-dude wrote:
As for core work like most boxers do it – sure, that is tried and true. Tons of situps also are a good endurance routine for the abs which is a consideration for a bout, however I don’t really recommend the way I used to, just because martial artists are pretty much always stuck in trunk flexion and over time this can start giving them another set of training issues. I advocate things like ab wheels, stability ball exercises (some really toast your core), dragonflies and the like. Oh and landmines…
– jj[/quote]
Very much this!
[quote]Aussie Davo wrote:
I figure at this rate all I need now is an undiagnosed eating disorder and I’ll be on my way to becoming james toney.[/quote]
Hahaha and this so fucking much! I’ll be actively searching for conversations in which I can use this phrase.
[quote]jj-dude wrote:
Edit: trying to track down the article, but I do recall the punch tested was a cross only.[/quote]
jj-dude,
I would be really interested in taking a look at that study. Do you remember any thing about it, title, journal title, author, etc.?
Regards,
Robert A
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Can you explain this a little more thoroughly for those of us who spent science classes smoking cigarettes in the bathroom?[/quote]
Are you talking about the momentum figure?
At the risk of incurring a charge of aggravated dickweedery by quoting myself from this thread.
From page one:
[quote]some retarded monkey on the internet wrote:
WARNING! THE FOLLOWING IS APPROACHING CRITICAL NERD. DO NOT CONTINUE IF YOU WISH TO REMAIN COOL.
To whom it may concern:
I think momentum is the much more germane calculation/nerd factor for striking than kinetic energy. First of all it is a vector so the direction of the force matters. Second, and this is my opinion based on some text book/lab understanding of physics/and mechanisms of wounding combined with redneck/dumb guy normal thought, it better describes what we know happens when we punch or get punched.
Momentum, p, is simply mass, expressed in kg, multiplied by velocity, expressed in meters per second. p = mv expressed in kg-m/s (kilogram meters per second). Kinetic energy undervalues mass and way oversells velocity when we are talking about punches/kicks/strikes. I grant that KE might have more sway when discussing high velocity (lets say 2000 ft/sec plus) rifle bullets because cavitation in tissue is a mechanism of wounding, but with punches momentum tells a better story.
If KE was the appropriate measure, than holding a small weight in my hand, e.g. a roll of quarters, would make me hit lighter than without it. My fist would be traveling slower (lets assume similar punch mechanics so straight vs straight). The velocity difference would be an exponential factor.
This doesn’t seem to work out. The hand load makes you hit harder. Not that it is at all necessary to do physics calculations in order to knock someone onto queer street.
A salient point with both p and KE is that they use velocity not speed. Velocity is directional, so only the amount of ass, mass, you get going in the direction of the strike, velocity, matters.
/NERD
Again good posts guys.
I recommend getting a copy of Jack Dempsey’s book if anyone reading this is interested in the mechanics of punching.
Regards,
Robert A
[/quote]
And further less nerdy explanation from page 2
[quote]Some jackass who probably likes Star Trek wrote in response to a Sportswriter who just hit some serious deadlift numbers:
Didn’t mean to. Basically kinetic energy could lead one to think that hitting faster, even at a great expense of how much weight/mass/leverage is put into the punch, would equal a harder/stronger blow.
That don’t seem to work out. Sap gloves and hand loads allow harder blows by increasing mass at the expense of speed. If I had a choice of eating your left empty handed, or with you palming a roll of quarters I am taking the former.
I suggested momentum because:
1.) It is a vector (direction matters) so it means that only the body weight you have going into the punch helps. If you are flailing around in a bunch of directions you are increasing the “energy”, but not the effect of the blow. Kinetic Energy is termed a “scaler” and has no direction.
The punchers with great “short power” are usually masters of getting what they can “into” the punch. Meaning getting as much of their body weight going in the direction of the strike. Dempsey called punches where the body and the fist are moving in the same direction as “pure”.
2.) Momentum places a more equal value on velocity, how fast you are moving in the direction of the strike, and mass, how much of your body you are getting “into” the punch (I think this is what you mean by leverage) so it describes what we know. “Pushing” with punches really doesn’t do as much damage regardless because it happens too slowly, but hitting fast with an “arm punch” won’t let me punch my way out of a paper bag either.
Basically get as much as possible, moving as fast as possible, in the direction you want the strike to go. This matches up pretty well with what we all see going on when good punchers punch. It also allows for a quick explanation for common mistakes.
Puncher “A” hits weak because he is too rigid. He thinks he is hitting hard because he is doing a lot of work and his muscles are straining. He is flexing all his muscles and consequently is moving way too slow. If he would loosen up and throws “crisper”, or “faster”, or with “more pop” then he would hit “harder”.
Puncher “B” is plenty loose and fast but still hits like a bitch. He is not getting enough of his body weight into the blows. This is the “slapping” type of puncher. Oh, he’s fast and he can punch in combinations great because he doesn’t need to shift a lot of weight from punch to punch. Maybe his name is Calzaghe? Problem is that you can sort of “walk through” his punches to land on him. If he is not holding a box cutter he is pretty well fucked when anyone grabs a hold of him.
Puncher “C” is definately moving his weight around. He is moving fast. He is putting a lot of “effort” into his strikes. They still are not doing all that well, especially when he gets tired. This is the guy that contracts explosively but is all fucking over. He twists his hips/shoulders way farther than he needs to on straight punches. He tries to drive forward with his hooks. He is wasting energy by moving a bunch of his mass in directions the punch is not going. Stepping foreward with a hook is not the same thing as stepping/“shifting” into the hook. If your knuckles are ripping into my spleen from the side, your body weight should be going as close to that direction as possible. That is the “weight”/“leverage” that goes “into” the punch and breaks my ribs.
I know you have seen these mistakes Irish. Hell, “A”, “B”, and “C” probably have faces for you. Sentoguy teaches, so for him they probably all have too many faces to count.
What I do know is that punching from the stomach - or, one might say, just the hips - is the way I used to do it when I was involved in karate.
It can make for a pretty powerful punch I guess… but in my opinion, never as powerful as actually turning your whole weight into it.
Physics explains this, and it needs to be able to. If we try to use physics to explain something that we know happens, like say you injuring me when you hit me and the math doesn’t add up than we did the math wrong. The broken bones and blackened eyes are all to real.
I have written this before, but if you have good technique you will never fight alone. Issac Newton, Archimedes, and the other giants of physics will be with you ready to pull a train on whomever stands against you.
I went into the whole physics thing not so much for you and Sento, I know that you guys know what you are doing, but in case anyone is lurking and starts trying to match up the great advice you two are doling out with a physics text. Note: I have actually read and heard on real life some instructors saying they hit much harder than boxers because the punch of a boxer is reliant on mass, and that they use speed to create their kinetic energy. Guess how well that shit sits with me?
As for why I wrote this post.
RANT COMING:
I probably go too far into the book shit in my posts because I really don’t want anyone to think they can’t understand it. Physics is about modeling/describing the world. Newtonian physics, the kind we are talking about, is something fighters already understand. I HATE when people convince themselves that something they are already applying is beyond their comprehension. Technical/clinical terms, like all language, are valuable only to convey information/ideas. I realize that some people like to use their education or familiarity with terms to hinder the understanding of others, this is anathema to how I view knowledge. I will go so far as to say that the fact some of those doing this are professors and doctors is fucking unconscionable.
RANT OVER
Regards,
Robert A
[/quote]
[quote]Aussie Davo wrote:
Forgive me father for I have sinned.
I haven’t done direct ab work in well over a year.
I don’t even jog anymore.
Literally all I do is sparring.
I figure at this rate all I need now is an undiagnosed eating disorder and I’ll be on my way to becoming james toney.[/quote]
Brilliant
This whole thread is gold. This last page from BJJ-dude, Robert A, Aussie Davo, and TNations’s very own bleeding hearts (Pidgeonkak and Fighting Irish you know who you are) is fantastic, and should be required reading for everyone who is thinking about starting another ‘What if I’m Floyd Mayweather good, and Stan Efferding jacked, won’t I beat everyone up?’ thread.
[quote]LondonBoxer123 wrote:
This whole thread is gold. This last page from BJJ-dude, Robert A, Aussie Davo, and TNations’s very own bleeding hearts (Pidgeonkak and Fighting Irish you know who you are) is fantastic, and should be required reading for everyone who is thinking about starting another ‘What if I’m Floyd Mayweather good, and Stan Efferding jacked, won’t I beat everyone up?’ thread. [/quote]
I’m a bleeding heart? My god… I… I need to re-evaluate. Maybe go… somewhere quiet, cry.
Or this thread: “I also own an Italian restaurant. Should I make a fictional boxing comeback at the age of 50?”
[quote]
Or this thread: “I also own an Italian restaurant. Should I make a fictional boxing comeback at the age of 50?”[/quote]
Yes. And don’t worry about protecting yourself, you’re old. Just drop bombs with your old man strength.
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
[quote]LondonBoxer123 wrote:
[quote]Aussie Davo wrote:
[quote]Bangerangg18 wrote:
Mike Tysons hit pretty hard and he squats pretty heavy[/quote]
Dude didn’t hit up weight training until post-prison.
He was also 220lbs and had been trained obsessively to be a explosive and ACCURATE puncher, not to mention his genetic makeup probably gives him some sort of fantastic fast twitch fiber dominance.
I’m betting that has more to do with his power than squats ever did.[/quote]
I’ll bet all my possessions that Mike Tyson aged 18, completely untrained with weights, could lift more on his first time in the gym on every lift than I could if I trained for 3-4 years under a guy like Louie Simmonds. Even in the world of professional sportsmen, Tysonis part of the top 1% of genetically gifted humans. The guy was over 200lbs at single digit bodyfat, at 15 yearsold. Most guys in the bodybuilding forum will not have those stats after a lifetime of obsessing over getting to be that big. [/quote]
You are most likely right, guys like Tyson, Foreman, Tua, and Marciano would probably be stronger and hit harder than the vast majority of the population had they never trained period. They are the genetic elite.
However, I actually think that’s a bad reason to use then as examples to disprove the potential benefits of strength training to punching power. Personally I’m less interested in how the genetic elite who would have hot hard no matter what trained for power than I am in how someone who was not a naturally gifted power puncher maximized their punching power.
In my experience strength training (along with improvements in technique of course) does aid in the development of power striking (if done correctly). However, it is also true that the ability to generate maximal power is a very different thing from having the timing, distancing, accuracy and strategical skill to apply that power in real time against a fully resisting skilled opponent. That takes a much, much longer time to develop, and is why most serious boxers spend the majority of their time training boxing skills rather than strength training. The other issue is of course weight classes.
So I think it’s important to distinguish that training to be able to develop absolute maximum punching power is not the same thing as training to be the most effective boxer.[/quote]
Good points, well made.
I think you hit the core of the matter when you say that the ability to generate maximum power is not the same as the ability to deploy it.
Conceivably you may be able to hit harder against a punchbag, or unresisting opponent. The crossover though between any marginal increase in power from squatting/weights is likely to be minimal in practise against a live opponent, as timing, accuracy, attritional effect will likely tell long before a marginal increase in power output registers on the significance scale. If someone’s got their technique and skill set honed to perfection, then have at the squats, go nuts, and the situation might arise where an improvement in strength makes a difference. But everyone should remember in the meantime that the more power and commitment you put into a punch, the more open you leave yourself to taking shots in return. a bad shot thrown with knockout power is probably more dangerous to the person throwing it than being feather fisted is.
[quote]Pigeonkak wrote:
[quote]LondonBoxer123 wrote:
This whole thread is gold. This last page from BJJ-dude, Robert A, Aussie Davo, and TNations’s very own bleeding hearts (Pidgeonkak and Fighting Irish you know who you are) is fantastic, and should be required reading for everyone who is thinking about starting another ‘What if I’m Floyd Mayweather good, and Stan Efferding jacked, won’t I beat everyone up?’ thread. [/quote]
I’m a bleeding heart? My god… I… I need to re-evaluate. Maybe go… somewhere quiet, cry.
Or this thread: “I also own an Italian restaurant. Should I make a fictional boxing comeback at the age of 50?”[/quote]
Being as I’m the only one in the New Jersey/New York area…
[quote]Pigeonkak wrote:
[quote]LondonBoxer123 wrote:
This whole thread is gold. This last page from BJJ-dude, Robert A, Aussie Davo, and TNations’s very own bleeding hearts (Pidgeonkak and Fighting Irish you know who you are) is fantastic, and should be required reading for everyone who is thinking about starting another ‘What if I’m Floyd Mayweather good, and Stan Efferding jacked, won’t I beat everyone up?’ thread. [/quote]
I’m a bleeding heart? My god… I… I need to re-evaluate. Maybe go… somewhere quiet, cry.
Or this thread: “I also own an Italian restaurant. Should I make a fictional boxing comeback at the age of 50?”[/quote]
Don’t worry, being punched in the head and the intellectual freedom to form your own opinions don’t sit well together for long. Soon you’ll be welcomed into the fold, where you can type nonsensical racial slogans in capital letters via the anonymity of the internet whilst drooling into your dribble glass.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
[quote]Pigeonkak wrote:
[quote]LondonBoxer123 wrote:
This whole thread is gold. This last page from BJJ-dude, Robert A, Aussie Davo, and TNations’s very own bleeding hearts (Pidgeonkak and Fighting Irish you know who you are) is fantastic, and should be required reading for everyone who is thinking about starting another ‘What if I’m Floyd Mayweather good, and Stan Efferding jacked, won’t I beat everyone up?’ thread. [/quote]
I’m a bleeding heart? My god… I… I need to re-evaluate. Maybe go… somewhere quiet, cry.
Or this thread: “I also own an Italian restaurant. Should I make a fictional boxing comeback at the age of 50?”[/quote]
Being as I’m the only one in the New Jersey/New York area…
[/quote]
You will not be able to play with the rest of us for quite some time.
[quote]LondonBoxer123 wrote:
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
[quote]LondonBoxer123 wrote:
[quote]Aussie Davo wrote:
[quote]Bangerangg18 wrote:
Mike Tysons hit pretty hard and he squats pretty heavy[/quote]
Dude didn’t hit up weight training until post-prison.
He was also 220lbs and had been trained obsessively to be a explosive and ACCURATE puncher, not to mention his genetic makeup probably gives him some sort of fantastic fast twitch fiber dominance.
I’m betting that has more to do with his power than squats ever did.[/quote]
I’ll bet all my possessions that Mike Tyson aged 18, completely untrained with weights, could lift more on his first time in the gym on every lift than I could if I trained for 3-4 years under a guy like Louie Simmonds. Even in the world of professional sportsmen, Tysonis part of the top 1% of genetically gifted humans. The guy was over 200lbs at single digit bodyfat, at 15 yearsold. Most guys in the bodybuilding forum will not have those stats after a lifetime of obsessing over getting to be that big. [/quote]
You are most likely right, guys like Tyson, Foreman, Tua, and Marciano would probably be stronger and hit harder than the vast majority of the population had they never trained period. They are the genetic elite.
However, I actually think that’s a bad reason to use then as examples to disprove the potential benefits of strength training to punching power. Personally I’m less interested in how the genetic elite who would have hot hard no matter what trained for power than I am in how someone who was not a naturally gifted power puncher maximized their punching power.
In my experience strength training (along with improvements in technique of course) does aid in the development of power striking (if done correctly). However, it is also true that the ability to generate maximal power is a very different thing from having the timing, distancing, accuracy and strategical skill to apply that power in real time against a fully resisting skilled opponent. That takes a much, much longer time to develop, and is why most serious boxers spend the majority of their time training boxing skills rather than strength training. The other issue is of course weight classes.
So I think it’s important to distinguish that training to be able to develop absolute maximum punching power is not the same thing as training to be the most effective boxer.[/quote]
Good points, well made.
I think you hit the core of the matter when you say that the ability to generate maximum power is not the same as the ability to deploy it.
Conceivably you may be able to hit harder against a punchbag, or unresisting opponent. The crossover though between any marginal increase in power from squatting/weights is likely to be minimal in practise against a live opponent, as timing, accuracy, attritional effect will likely tell long before a marginal increase in power output registers on the significance scale. If someone’s got their technique and skill set honed to perfection, then have at the squats, go nuts, and the situation might arise where an improvement in strength makes a difference. But everyone should remember in the meantime that the more power and commitment you put into a punch, the more open you leave yourself to taking shots in return. a bad shot thrown with knockout power is probably more dangerous to the person throwing it than being feather fisted is.
[/quote]
Absolutely agree.
Also your point about the more power/commitment you put into a punch the more recovery and telegraphing you are going to have, thus opening you up to being more easily countered. Honestly the only time I would ever throw a full on power punch would be if I basically had the person out on their feet but for whatever reason couldn’t put them down with regular punches (a very rare situation).
The real benefit in training power striking is that you eventually internalize the mechanics and can apply them (albeit in an abbreviated fashion) to your regular striking (even your speed strikes pack a wallop) and can generate power from any distance with any punch. We call this “explosive striking” in our style. Interestingly enough, it doesn’t seem to be possible to develop with skill without training both speed and power striking. Or at least I’ve never seen anyone be able to teach it to non naturals in any other way.
[quote]jj-dude wrote:
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
[quote]Aussie Davo wrote:
please why does no one consider the fact that heavier weight classes hit harder because they are HEAVIER not because they can put up bigger numbers in the weight room?[/quote]
Exactly.
To me, you’re pushing to two totally different planes. With a squat, you’re pushing towards the ceiling, with a punch, you’re whipping to your front. While weight itself is going to make you punch harder, the strength in your legs doesn’t matter for shit - if anything, it’s the momentum you build up in that back-to-front motion, combined with proper technique and appropriate range, that are going to make you hit hard.
I can’t the scientific names for all these motions and ligaments and all that shit, but I sure as hell know what I see. And I’ve NEVER seen a guy punch significantly harder because he started doing squats.[/quote]
Here’s where we get technical…
Momentum = speed * mass
One study I read took a bunch of boxers and had them hit a force plate as hard as they could. They also measured the speed of the punch (high speed camera) and guess what they found? That the mass of the punch on very good boxers was almost equal to their arm weight! (momentum/speed = mass, then measure how heavy the arm is & compare.)
Translation: Boxers hit with their arms. All of them. Excellent boxers had nearly 100% of the arm mass in the strike. Nobody exceeded the arm mass in striking momentum.
Good boxers can get enough core stabilization to maximize this. The entire trick with punching harder is to go as fast as possible, keeping the core solidly behind the strike. Since even a little chaos where the punch lands can take away a lot of power, this is a lot trickier than it sounds, as any boxer (yes, I used to box and loved it) can attest.This is a timing issue so that at the moment of impact, the core is really solid. A split second either way and you lose power. Generating raw power with limbs will only help if the limbs get bigger AND you can control them. More, say, pushing power with punching won’t really patch poor core coordination (though it can give mediocre people a hobby while they suck. Oops, did I say that out loud?) It might, however, help to avoid injuries, so pushups, pullups, &c., &c., are good requirements to keep in your training.
Therefore, do squats help your punch with leg drive? Not per se, but the core stabilization involved in a good squat can have carry over. As I said in another post, I coach people to do a bout of squat training (standard of 3 - 6 months, then they are done), with an aim to improving mechanics, not raw power generation because of the timing involved in good striking (or throwing, or anything else in a martial art, for that matter). Only way to get good timing is to practice timing. Being freakishly strong can win the oddball bout but IMHO isn’t worth the training time enough to have as a regular part of the syllabus.
– jj
Edit: trying to track down the article, but I do recall the punch tested was a cross only.[/quote]
I would be most interested in reading that article, because I’m fairly certain that I know quite a few people (myself included) that can punch with a lot more mass than that of their arm ( unless you’re talking about the “weight” of their arm at terminal velocity or something like that). But I remain open minded enough to read such an article and glean any useful info I could from it. For instance I’d be interested in whether the force plate was immovable or whether it was say implanted in a dummy or heavy bag, whether the boxers could take a step as they through their punches or had to stand stationary, how they determined the speed/distance travelled (what body part were they tracking), what type of strike was being thrown, and a bunch of other procedural questions.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
[quote]Pigeonkak wrote:
[quote]LondonBoxer123 wrote:
This whole thread is gold. This last page from BJJ-dude, Robert A, Aussie Davo, and TNations’s very own bleeding hearts (Pidgeonkak and Fighting Irish you know who you are) is fantastic, and should be required reading for everyone who is thinking about starting another ‘What if I’m Floyd Mayweather good, and Stan Efferding jacked, won’t I beat everyone up?’ thread. [/quote]
I’m a bleeding heart? My god… I… I need to re-evaluate. Maybe go… somewhere quiet, cry.
Or this thread: “I also own an Italian restaurant. Should I make a fictional boxing comeback at the age of 50?”[/quote]
Being as I’m the only one in the New Jersey/New York area…
[/quote]
Bro, are you questioning my manhood by posting a Billy Joel song? Because everyone in my crew KNOWS that I’m more of an ‘Uptown Girl’ fan. I’m totally offended.
It really baffles me that nobody understand that squats make just about EVERYTHING better. You can take every little thing I say and try to break it down so that I appear to be wrong, but the general idea is quite blatantly right. Squats make you a healthier, stronger, more stable individual as long as you possess the correct mobility and form. I bet that most of you that are arguing my point squat all the damn time which makes me wonder what your goal is on this forum. So what if Tyson didn’t back squat? Up until recently everyone trained like bodybuilders in most professional sports but that doesn’t mean it was the best way to train. You don’t squat when you punch? No way… you also don’t jog, do push-ups, or leg-lifts when you punch, yet all of these things are in the training regimen of most strikers/fighters out there. Hmmmm, maybe because they develop the body in a way that allows punching to be better? Wow, brilliant concept I know. Look at the bigger picture, use some common sense, and stop being silly.
[quote]Ckenney wrote:
It really baffles me that nobody understand that squats make just about EVERYTHING better. You can take every little thing I say and try to break it down so that I appear to be wrong, but the general idea is quite blatantly right. Squats make you a healthier, stronger, more stable individual as long as you possess the correct mobility and form. I bet that most of you that are arguing my point squat all the damn time which makes me wonder what your goal is on this forum. So what if Tyson didn’t back squat? Up until recently everyone trained like bodybuilders in most professional sports but that doesn’t mean it was the best way to train. You don’t squat when you punch? No way… you also don’t jog, do push-ups, or leg-lifts when you punch, yet all of these things are in the training regimen of most strikers/fighters out there. Hmmmm, maybe because they develop the body in a way that allows punching to be better? Wow, brilliant concept I know. Look at the bigger picture, use some common sense, and stop being silly. [/quote]
jogging has a direct carry-over to boxing, it improves cardiovascular ability.
Not to be rude, but you’ve literally just reaffirmed the point we’ve been making in this thread the whole time: resistance training, be it pushups or squats, are supplementary training.
It has very little impact on your development as a fighter.
My strength training plan when I moved up several weight classes was hap hazard and if I posted what it was like at some points I would get berated to no end by most members on this forum. Irrelevant, it worked, I put on muscle and moved up in weight. I hit harder because I was heavier and more experienced, not because my lifts were fantastic (they weren’t and still aren’t).
Emmanuel Steward when asked to comment on James Toney’s training regime that basically consisted of nothing more than heinous amounts of sparring, replied that you absolutely can be conditioned to fight with nothing more than sparring and that he would take it over every other training tool in the gym if he had to pick.
I don’t think anyone is saying “DONT SQUAT EVER BRO” rather just saying no one should really focus on squatting, or any lift for that matter, to improve their fighting ability. Especially as amateur your limited time is so much better spent on extra sparring or pad work etc.
[quote]Ckenney wrote:
It really baffles me that nobody understand that squats make just about EVERYTHING better. You can take every little thing I say and try to break it down so that I appear to be wrong, but the general idea is quite blatantly right. Squats make you a healthier, stronger, more stable individual as long as you possess the correct mobility and form. I bet that most of you that are arguing my point squat all the damn time which makes me wonder what your goal is on this forum. So what if Tyson didn’t back squat? Up until recently everyone trained like bodybuilders in most professional sports but that doesn’t mean it was the best way to train. You don’t squat when you punch? No way… you also don’t jog, do push-ups, or leg-lifts when you punch, yet all of these things are in the training regimen of most strikers/fighters out there. Hmmmm, maybe because they develop the body in a way that allows punching to be better? Wow, brilliant concept I know. Look at the bigger picture, use some common sense, and stop being silly. [/quote]
I squat because I’m not competing. If I was not competing, I would not squat.
Boxers have NEVER, NEVER trained like professional bodybuilders - they’ve always trained like boxers. Running is still a a part of that because if it didn’t work, it would have been thrown out over the three millenniums that people have been boxing.
Plus, I personally, along with many others on this forum, have felt tremendous carryover from running in the street to fighting in the ring.
You’d be hard-pressed to find many who really think they ever punched harder because they could squat 330 as opposed to 175.
You’re baffled because you’re kind of wrong but you haven’t caught on yet.