BoxRec

Grilling Machine wrote:

Crease wrote:like Mike Tyson, let's say

The lighter Tyson had amazing coordination from his feet up. Same as Tommy Hearns. Whenever you see Hearns throw a big right, rewind it and watch his elbow. His right shoulder dips (which is really hard to do when you're not relaxed) and he cocks his elbow into the last week. The Indiana Jones' whip of punches. That increased travel - hand upturned and away, as if to throw a tennis ball - combined with the speed of Hearns' snap gave him so much leverage. Ray Robinson could throw the same.

A lot of their juice came from having the coordination to drive with their legs and torso as they were turning it over. It's actually a hook initially, using that rotation as an accelerant for energy. Lighter guys with big punches often have the most harmonious full-body timing.

I showed a mate of mine who refuses to watch lighter-weight fighters a compilation of Ricardo Lopez fights the other day. After he stopped mocking how small the dudes were, he would not shut up about how much leverage Finito got into every shot:

"He's bouncing all the time! But then he turns each little bounce into a full rotation of whichever punch he's gonna throw! & then he's back on balance to hit you aaaagain!!!"

It was nice having my prejudices explicated for me, put it that way.

Depends what type of practice & what you mean by top boxer.

10,000 hours of shadow boxing & general fitness would be next to useless, as wouldn't prepare you at all for getting punched in the face or hitting an elusive opponent.

10,000 hours of good sparring would possibly be enough to win a few fights against journeymen, but even 1,000,000 hours wouldn't turn anyone into a 'top' boxer unless they already had the underlying requisites, e.g. Good chin, toughness etc.

Even if I was immortal & could train for 1000 years, I still wouldn't have a chance of getting out of the 1st round against Mike Tyson or Lennox Lewis.

Boxerbeetle123 wrote:10,000 hours of good sparring would possibly be enough to win a few fights against journeymen...

Have you any idea how ridiculous that statement is? "10.000 hours of good sparring..." That's 12 rounds a day, 365 days a year, for over 45 years.

Aden wrote:

Boxerbeetle123 wrote:10,000 hours of good sparring would possibly be enough to win a few fights against journeymen...

Have you any idea how ridiculous that statement is? "10.000 hours of good sparring..." That's 12 rounds a day, 365 days a year, for over 45 years.

I thought it was fairly clear that this whole discussion has been purely theoretical rather than practical.

^ In that case, let me answer in a purely experientially-driven manner:

Don't be so fvcking stupid. It's a combination of environment & genetics, & what you do with it.

Blanket statements like the original question are always riddled with failures in real-world contexts. So your thread title shouldn't have generated any responses beyond my second sentence, above.

Datsue wrote:^ In that case, let me answer in a purely experientially-driven manner:

Don't be so fvcking stupid. It's a combination of environment & genetics, & what you do with it.

Blanket statements like the original question are always riddled with failures in real-world contexts. So your thread title shouldn't have generated any responses beyond my second sentence, above.

It's not my thread title, I just gave an opinion. But you can't really say that the original idea would always fail in a real world context - as already pointed out, it's pretty much impossible to prove without someone agreeing to train for 45 odd years before their first fight. Although, for the record, I agree that environment & genetics are the main factors when it comes to sport.

Less than that makes some people top boxers already. So I would imagine that you would extremely technically proficient after 10,000 hours, whether or not you could apply those skills to a fight and win is another question, there are things that are intangible when it comes to boxing.

Ten thousand xxxxx wouldn't make your xxxx any bigger

As has already been stated, it all depends on your natural aptitude for it. Some people could practice their entire life *well whilst their body is still capable* and yet never get any good and others could get pretty decent, pretty quickly.

Datsue wrote:I showed a mate of mine who refuses to watch lighter-weight fighters a compilation of Ricardo Lopez fights the other day. After he stopped mocking how small the dudes were, he would not shut up about how much leverage Finito got into every shot

And as Angelo always said: big muscles tire faster. The lighter guys who concentrate on plyos to avoid unnecessary bulking (or plyo compounds if they like weights), aren't usually all that strong. But they often have tremendous muscle endurance, even muscular development, and quick hands. Lopez, Arguello, Naz and others had amazing technique on top. Well, maybe not Naz in the classic sense! He was a gazelle master, f'sure.

(I'm not against weightlifting - I think it's ideal for some frames - but if you're not out of breath from doing it, I think your weight's too high and you need more reps. Calzaghe-Lacy was a perfect example of one guy busting his load in a few rounds. And although Haye's one-shot power is greater at HW, he threw hard punches more regularly at cruiser.)

To swing this back on-topic, a fair chunk of these hours would be dedicated to fitness training. Because without fitness you're nowhere, and a big part of a boxer's drive to become fitter comes from his/her personality.

columbo wrote:As has already been stated, it all depends on your natural aptitude for it. Some people could practice their entire life *well whilst their body is still capable* and yet never get any good and others could get pretty decent, pretty quickly.

Nope, now you're going too far the other way. Unless they have some kind of disability/mental issue if someone practiced something for there entire life with proper guidance they would reach a certain level of ability. Genetics, etc. are important but there's no boxing gene so specific practice plays an important role too.

The problem with this debate is that it's too often framed as an either/or.