Clinton Wood's conditioning

Post Reply
Loftgroov
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 3712
Joined: 10 Oct 2003, 10:48

Clinton Wood's conditioning

Post by Loftgroov »

Perhaps it's just me, but Clinton Woods rarely (in fact ever) seems to look in as good nick as I'm sure he could be.

He doesn't exactly seem to be 'cut' does he....

I know not all boxers have such a physique anyway, but when fighting for a WORLD TITLE fitness is obviously going to be a huge factor.

I'm NOT saying Woods looks "out of shape"....but he could be better conditioned/muscled I'm sure of it.
stujones
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 27488
Joined: 29 Aug 2003, 15:08

Re: Clinton Wood's conditioning

Post by stujones »

Loftgroov wrote:Perhaps it's just me, but Clinton Woods rarely (in fact ever) seems to look in as good nick as I'm sure he could be.

He doesn't exactly seem to be 'cut' does he....

I know not all boxers have such a physique anyway, but when fighting for a WORLD TITLE fitness is obviously going to be a huge factor.

I'm NOT saying Woods looks "out of shape"....but he could be better conditioned/muscled I'm sure of it.
Very interesting points, however I have learned that genetically all people are predisposed of a certain somatotype (body shape) and to changes ones somatotype is very hard (nearly impossible).

Certain fighters, will never have a washboard stomach no matter how many situps they do. Other fighters will always look the part even though there is a question mark over they're stamina.

Now, I'm not saying that John McDermmott is the greatest trainer of all time, but compared to the average job bloggs in the street he trains hard. Yet, he looks clinically obese, but I'm sure if fitter than most people. Now, in John's case I'm sure he can work alot harder (after all he's a proffesional athlete) and he could lose a lot of weight. But a body beautiful he'll never be.

That's why you often see a lot of fighters go distinctly overweight after the career is over, their probably were naturally fattish guys but trained hard to look in condition, but never cut (take Nicky Piper). Now, I think Clinton fits this category. He had a life and death struggle to make Super Middle, but even when he was back there he still looked like he could lose a few pounds. Its down to genetics.

Yes, you can change your look (note Sylvester Stallone in Rocky 1 and Rocky 3) but its quite possible that Stallone is a naturally muscled individual who was out of shape in the first Rocky. Also, one can only alledge how he changed his look so radically.
Last edited by stujones on 10 Nov 2003, 10:28, edited 1 time in total.
Loftgroov
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 3712
Joined: 10 Oct 2003, 10:48

Post by Loftgroov »

Great reply Stu, and Stallone is funnily enough one of the examples that I was thinking off.
bennie
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 15244
Joined: 15 Nov 2002, 09:53

Post by bennie »

As Stu mentioned, some fighters will never look 'cut' and Clinton is one of them. But the fact he finished strongly in the Johnson fight (most people would argue because he needed to), proved he was in top shape. It is an interesting dilemma Loftgroov has raised. Jim Watt was always a fighter who looked pale and gaunt, but it belied the fact he possessed incredible strength and stamina. He loved 15-rounders he said. He was the quintessential 15-round fighter.
Then you had someone like Charles Shepherd, built like a car park bollard, who couldn't really break an egg (though he had good stamina).
And Earnie Shavers would be an example of a muscled fighter with suspect stamina (and Frank Bruno even more).
At the end of the day, the perfect boxing physique in my opinion would be that of Ali, Sugar Ray Robinson or Sugar Ray Leonard's. They weren't over defined physically, but had long, slender muscles that didn't weigh them down as the fight developed. Woods, in that respect, ain't too bad.
Post Reply