BoxRec

Morales 'modern training' screwed him up big time because his trainers didnt have a clue what they were doing with him. They seemed to give him a bodybuilding routine which is counter productive in boxing.

Most modern training given to boxers is bodybuilding training, which is counter productive and doesnt build strength or speed. Most sports scientists don't have a clue what they're doing, BUT SOME DO!!!

Phenomenal-Nutrition wrote:Morales 'modern training' screwed him up big time because his trainers didnt have a clue what they were doing with him. They seemed to give him a bodybuilding routine which is counter productive in boxing.

Most modern training given to boxers is bodybuilding training, which is counter productive and doesnt build strength or speed. Most sports scientists don't have a clue what they're doing, BUT SOME DO!!!

It's funny that they expect modern training to make a difference after he's already outgrown super featherweight!

They should've looked into this long ago, when Morales was a featherweight at least.

viciousmaussa wrote:

Phenomenal-Nutrition wrote:Morales 'modern training' screwed him up big time because his trainers didnt have a clue what they were doing with him. They seemed to give him a bodybuilding routine which is counter productive in boxing.

Most modern training given to boxers is bodybuilding training, which is counter productive and doesnt build strength or speed. Most sports scientists don't have a clue what they're doing, BUT SOME DO!!!

It's funny that they expect modern training to make a difference after he's already outgrown super featherweight!

They should've looked into this long ago, when Morales was a featherweight at least.

Not really. What VO2 training was Morales doing? What Explosivity training was Morales doing? They had him doing some side laterals - an exercise that develops no power. I have some questions to ask regarding Morales training:

1. What interval training was he doing? And what types?
2. How did they incorprate explosivity training such as Power Cleans, Power Jerks, Power Snatches, Squats

I know they didn't do any exercise of the sort from what I've read which makes any modern training useless.

My argument is not against modern training methods Stu. I am saying that essentially no matter how good training methods are, someone has to have the desire and the heart to be a great fighter. I think that life in western europe and many parts of the western world is far softer than it was, and as a consquence, we aren't going to be the ones who produce so many fighters.

Also, with so many fewer boxing gyms, less fighters, less fights and fighters fighting less often, I believe the talent pool is dwindling. There are only a few modern day fighters who would have been competitive in any era, among them Hopkins, Mayweather, Oscar, Winky Wright, Shane Mosley, Barrera, Morales, Pacquaio, Marquez brothers.

As you say, many of the old school training techniques are among the best, log lifts, the wood chop, interval running (a technique used as far back as Bob Fiztsimmons, something of a pioneer when it came to what they then called 'physical culture') and press ups and sit ups.

There is a tendency to think of everything and everyone preceding the modern world as primitive imbeciles who knew nothing.

I used to correspond with a sports conditioning coach, who had worked with baseball, american football, and ice hockey stars in America, Stephen Sherry I think his name was. He said that many boxers he worked with, were in terrible condition. Not that they were totally unfit, but that their fitness was not at all geared towards the sport they participated in.

The emphasis on miles and miles of roadwork he said for instance, was totally unsuited to boxing, which required short burst of activity over a few minutes, rather than the long endurance generated by road running.

Isn't it a little arrogant to assume that all these guys from the 1920's to the 1970's knew nothing about how to get a fighter in condition for a fight. If so, how come fighters were able to fight for 3 rounds longer than they are now, often at a pace which puts modern fighters to shame. You only have to look at the shambolic and slothful displays of our modern heavyweights to realise that perhaps these old timers knew something we don't, or that the heavyweights from that era were hungrier and more dedicated.

As for sports supplements and vitamins etc, is their efficacy REALLY proven? I know there is some stuff which definetly works, but there's also a lot of bullshit where the health products industry is involved. At the end of the day, a correct diet, with the right amounts of sleep and correct training is the most important element, the addition of supplements isn't going to turn anyone into a superman.

As you say, Oscar is always in shape when he fights, and that is why his skills haven't eroded much, perhaps not so many fighters conduct their careers with such professionalism as Oscar, I'm not sure, but there seem to be a lot of people who struggle with their conditioning these days, perhaps because fighters just aren't fighting that often any more.

Phenomenal-Nutrition wrote:

viciousmaussa wrote:

Phenomenal-Nutrition wrote:Morales 'modern training' screwed him up big time because his trainers didnt have a clue what they were doing with him. They seemed to give him a bodybuilding routine which is counter productive in boxing.

Most modern training given to boxers is bodybuilding training, which is counter productive and doesnt build strength or speed. Most sports scientists don't have a clue what they're doing, BUT SOME DO!!!

It's funny that they expect modern training to make a difference after he's already outgrown super featherweight!

They should've looked into this long ago, when Morales was a featherweight at least.

Not really. What VO2 training was Morales doing? What Explosivity training was Morales doing? They had him doing some side laterals - an exercise that develops no power. I have some questions to ask regarding Morales training:

1. What interval training was he doing? And what types?
2. How did they incorprate explosivity training such as Power Cleans, Power Jerks, Power Snatches, Squats

I know they didn't do any exercise of the sort from what I've read which makes any modern training useless.

Would you agree that it is in the area of nutrition that the most important advances have been made?

What you're referring to there is I presume pylometrics?

A lot of fighters today really let themselves go when not fighting - in particular Hatton. They just don't live boxing & 1/2 the training is to lose weight rather than fight which is another area that shows up current fighters next to past.

Don't know about de la Hoya being in great condition. He fades after 8 rounds! Which would be a disaster in the mid 80s going back.

I'm not so sure about that, he didn't fade against Mosley in their fight, he had a very good 11th round as I recall.

He also recovered from a sustained body assault to punish Vargas a few years ago.

The one example I think that causes people to think this is his fight with Trinidad, and I think that was more an example of being told he was ahead by his corner and not wanting to get tagged and lose the fight.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:My argument is not against modern training methods Stu. I am saying that essentially no matter how good training methods are, someone has to have the desire and the heart to be a great fighter. I think that life in western europe and many parts of the western world is far softer than it was, and as a consquence, we aren't going to be the ones who produce so many fighters.

Also, with so many fewer boxing gyms, less fighters, less fights and fighters fighting less often, I believe the talent pool is dwindling. There are only a few modern day fighters who would have been competitive in any era, among them Hopkins, Mayweather, Oscar, Winky Wright, Shane Mosley, Barrera, Morales, Pacquaio, Marquez brothers.

As you say, many of the old school training techniques are among the best, log lifts, the wood chop, interval running (a technique used as far back as Bob Fiztsimmons, something of a pioneer when it came to what they then called 'physical culture') and press ups and sit ups.

There is a tendency to think of everything and everyone preceding the modern world as primitive imbeciles who knew nothing.

I used to correspond with a sports conditioning coach, who had worked with baseball, american football, and ice hockey stars in America, Stephen Sherry I think his name was. He said that many boxers he worked with, were in terrible condition. Not that they were totally unfit, but that their fitness was not at all geared towards the sport they participated in.

The emphasis on miles and miles of roadwork he said for instance, was totally unsuited to boxing, which required short burst of activity over a few minutes, rather than the long endurance generated by road running.

Isn't it a little arrogant to assume that all these guys from the 1920's to the 1970's knew nothing about how to get a fighter in condition for a fight. If so, how come fighters were able to fight for 3 rounds longer than they are now, often at a pace which puts modern fighters to shame. You only have to look at the shambolic and slothful displays of our modern heavyweights to realise that perhaps these old timers knew something we don't, or that the heavyweights from that era were hungrier and more dedicated.

As for sports supplements and vitamins etc, is their efficacy REALLY proven? I know there is some stuff which definetly works, but there's also a lot of bullshit where the health products industry is involved. At the end of the day, a correct diet, with the right amounts of sleep and correct training is the most important element, the addition of supplements isn't going to turn anyone into a superman.

As you say, Oscar is always in shape when he fights, and that is why his skills haven't eroded much, perhaps not so many fighters conduct their careers with such professionalism as Oscar, I'm not sure, but there seem to be a lot of people who struggle with their conditioning these days, perhaps because fighters just aren't fighting that often any more.

I agree with that, especially what your correspondance said.

Now, I cannot say I know an awful lot about 1920's but did the world champions from those days traditionally have extensive amateur careers? The training for amateur boxing should be a lot different to that of a proffesional. I do wonder sometimes though if some of the fighters make the change. Scott Gammer for example, I believe he is doing pretty much the same old routine as he was in his amateur days and if that is correct, well I know that routine and I know it isn't going to win you a world title. Does the more prestige in the amateur ranks makes a fighter think "if it aint broke, don't fix it" untill its too late. Obviously amateur with that mind set. Oscar knew straight away that things would have to change when he turned over.

Another difference to consider is the money factor. Even the successful fighters way back when for a large part of their career had to combine their training/fighting with hard manual labour - this day an age as you said, we are getting lazier. I can think of an example of a Rugby player named John Davies - he's 38 and still plays prop for the Llanelli scarlets. Up untill a year ago most pundits were still calling him Wales' best prop and were demanding a recall. He is "old school" - he is a farmer by trade. Does the Milking etc at 5 am, drives to the club, put in the 2 hours training there - and then goes back to do some more hard farm work. My folks know him and he has often said that the farming makes his Rugby so easy. I also know of another ex pro Rugby Union player who retired at 26 - the reason why he retired was because he had no fulfillment in his life and he was so bored. ... He had too much time on his hands. He asked the club if he could play and get a job, they didn't want it - so he retired and now plays for his local team.

Marvin Hagler was one who treated his manual Labourer job as a competition before doing the boxing training. He wanted to be the best Brickie in the firm, he wanted to lay the most blocks. He then would go and train. Some modern fighters (like the ones you mentioned) still have the midset, even if they haven't a hard job they will put even more hours in. Others do not. Although, it is important to consider would these old school greats been so great in the modern era if they had the choice.

Boxing is actually quite a difficult sport for a sport scientist to get a regime for. Amateur boxing is far easier - as you don't need to really worry about the aerobic side of things. With the pro's though, it is consider 50% aerobic, 50% anaerobic. I do think you need a good solid aerobic base, so long runs would be important (Ali was a guy who used to run for miles). Fartlek training is important, as is interval training. Oscar does alot of Fartlek training, but involving a bag (or he did back in 2000) - pound the bag heavy for 3 minutes, then run a slow 350 metres (60 seconds) and comeback for another heavy session on the bag.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

Phenomenal-Nutrition wrote:

viciousmaussa wrote:It's funny that they expect modern training to make a difference after he's already outgrown super featherweight!

They should've looked into this long ago, when Morales was a featherweight at least.

Not really. What VO2 training was Morales doing? What Explosivity training was Morales doing? They had him doing some side laterals - an exercise that develops no power. I have some questions to ask regarding Morales training:

1. What interval training was he doing? And what types?
2. How did they incorprate explosivity training such as Power Cleans, Power Jerks, Power Snatches, Squats

I know they didn't do any exercise of the sort from what I've read which makes any modern training useless.

Would you agree that it is in the area of nutrition that the most important advances have been made?

What you're referring to there is I presume pylometrics?

1. Yes but modern training science has its place. Many boxers today interchange steroids with nutrition. Its easier to get performance enhancement with steroids than nutrition.

2. Yes Plymetrics and Olympic weight lifting generate a more powerful explosive punch - I've noticed when power punching on the pads before and directly after olympic lifting sessions that my/training partners that power increased after - the pad holder will tell you this.

Also basic strength training like Squats/Deadlifts/Bench Press/Overhead Press are very beneficial as part of training. It all needs to be balanced out with stamina training, which is neglected - we see more examples of fighters 'punching themselves out'. They are actually turning on more white muscle fibres generating more power in their punches, but generating more power means your tire faster - see Wlad/Witter/Harris - this didnt use to happen - I think they've overemphasied the power punching.

An excellent example of modern/soviet training is Kostya Tyszu. He emphased weights and benched 275lbs and power cleaned 250lbs. The translated to some serious 1 punch KO power. The Soviet Sports scientists had the best weight training techniques in the 60s, the west didn't - hence they won all the Olympic lifting events

jamesmcdonnell wrote:I'm not so sure about that, he didn't fade against Mosley in their fight, he had a very good 11th round as I recall.

He also recovered from a sustained body assault to punish Vargas a few years ago.

The one example I think that causes people to think this is his fight with Trinidad, and I think that was more an example of being told he was ahead by his corner and not wanting to get tagged and lose the fight.

And he recovered from a damaging 9th round in the rematch, to not just survive but win more rounds than Mosley according to Jim Watt.

Plus he survived a torrid mid round crisis vs Quartey to outlast him and nearly get him out of there in the last.

Completely agree on this, DLH big fade is so overated - sure in two of his highest profile fights he lost the last round. But I think that was because Mosley was exceptional in the first fight - really found something, and DLH thought he was in control vs Tito. You could tell this by the reaction post fight - hardly gasping and he was furious - and sacked Gill Glancy a few days after.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:As for sports supplements and vitamins etc, is their efficacy REALLY proven? I know there is some stuff which definetly works, but there's also a lot of bullshit where the health products industry is involved. At the end of the day, a correct diet, with the right amounts of sleep and correct training is the most important element, the addition of supplements isn't going to turn anyone into a superman.

.

Yes they many are effectively proven although improvements in physical perfromance can be hard to measure. Diet is number 1 priority. But certain supplements improve strength/stamina and generally muscular performance. Nutritionists now know how to maintain as much muscle as possible while shedding pounds - in the past a boxer would be shedding muscle to make weight.

Many supplements are hype but a good few can add 10% to an athletes strength levels over a 6week period. Some can give your more energy to train longer. Some burn fat. All useful for a modern boxer

On the subject of old school fighters having better defensive skills. What about the flip side LaMotta, Marciano who had poor defensive skills. What about Willard who simply a big lump and probably wouldnt win a belt in todays sorry HW division. What about the bum of the month club Louis fought? Hardly old school skills in these cases are they.

A couple of examples that may interest some of you.

A few years ago, a magazine by the name of Men's Health, or Health and Fitness, launched a competition to find the fitrest person in the UK, not including sportsmen and women, just orindary people, including those who did and didn't visit the gym.

The person who won it in the end, was an 18 stone builder from Birmingham, a bit lump with a bit of a beer belly and a mohican. He has the best overall combination of flexbility, core strength, power output, cardiovascular fitnes

Also, in America at the moment, there is a new craze, which is a workout based on what removal men do on a regular basis. They reckon it's the most effective all round exercise routine that's been seen yet.

When I moved house recently, I hired a van and two guys to move my stuff, which filled an entire luton van. These two guys, one a polish guy in his 40's, and the other a Mexican American (amateur boxer as it happened, who I had a chinwag with when he noticed me reading boxing news in the van on the way over), carted all my stuff down four flights of stairs, and then up three flights at the other end, and barely even broke a sweat and were not even out of breath.

The polish guy told me that he was a computer programmer, and that when he started the job 6 months before, he weighed 250 lbs, and was really unfit, he was now 180 lbs and in the best shape of his life.

There is definetly something to be said for regular manual labour.

Phenomenal-Nutrition wrote:On the subject of old school fighters having better defensive skills. What about the flip side LaMotta, Marciano who had poor defensive skills. What about Willard who simply a big lump and probably wouldnt win a belt in todays sorry HW division. What about the bum of the month club Louis fought? Hardly old school skills in these cases are they.

These are a scant few examples. LaMotta did have some defensive skills, he was just very very macho, and liked to prove he couldn't be hurt.

How many fighters with great defensive skills do we expect from 1 generation though? IN the last 15 years we've had the following with great defensive/boxing skills:

Whitaker, Mayweather, Hopkins, Toney, Barrera, Hamed (unorthodox), Jones Jr (unorthodox), Lennox Lewis, Eubank, Winky Wright, Delahoya, Mike Tyson, Holyfield, Calazage, McCallum - and I've probably missed a load

Which period in history has that much significantly more skilled fighters?

I think were overscrutinising todays generation and not looking at what poor fighters there were around when many of the greats were around.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

Phenomenal-Nutrition wrote:On the subject of old school fighters having better defensive skills. What about the flip side LaMotta, Marciano who had poor defensive skills. What about Willard who simply a big lump and probably wouldnt win a belt in todays sorry HW division. What about the bum of the month club Louis fought? Hardly old school skills in these cases are they.

These are a scant few examples. LaMotta did have some defensive skills, he was just very very macho, and liked to prove he couldn't be hurt.

All top fighters have 'some' defensive skills. LaMotta was unskilled defensively by top level standards just as Gatti is today. He actually claimed he wanted to get punched in the face and be punnished for his bad deeds - read into that what you will.

Phenomenal-Nutrition wrote:How many fighters with great defensive skills do we expect from 1 generation though? IN the last 15 years we've had the following with great defensive/boxing skills:

Whitaker, Mayweather, Hopkins, Toney, Barrera, Hamed (unorthodox), Jones Jr (unorthodox), Lennox Lewis, Eubank, Winky Wright, Delahoya, Mike Tyson, Holyfield, Calazage, McCallum - and I've probably missed a load

Which period in history has that much significantly more skilled fighters?

I think were overscrutinising todays generation and not looking at what poor fighters there were around when many of the greats were around.

There's plenty more to add to that list, McCallum is one who spring to mind. Down the lower weights there are tonnes.

There are only ever a few who have truly outstanding defensive skills, but I do think a lot of the old timers were more well rounded. They had a broader pallete of skills, for instance feinting is virtually a lost art, and the slipping and parryinig of punches too. Most fighters these days either move to get out of the way, or block without firing back. Look at the way Ali used to use his gloves to deflect blows away from himself, how many heavyweights do you see doing that now, Byrd and Toney were probably the only ones in recent years that spring to mind.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:A couple of examples that may interest some of you.

A few years ago, a magazine by the name of Men's Health, or Health and Fitness, launched a competition to find the fitrest person in the UK, not including sportsmen and women, just orindary people, including those who did and didn't visit the gym.

The person who won it in the end, was an 18 stone builder from Birmingham, a bit lump with a bit of a beer belly and a mohican. He has the best overall combination of flexbility, core strength, power output, cardiovascular fitnes

Also, in America at the moment, there is a new craze, which is a workout based on what removal men do on a regular basis. They reckon it's the most effective all round exercise routine that's been seen yet.

When I moved house recently, I hired a van and two guys to move my stuff, which filled an entire luton van. These two guys, one a polish guy in his 40's, and the other a Mexican American (amateur boxer as it happened, who I had a chinwag with when he noticed me reading boxing news in the van on the way over), carted all my stuff down four flights of stairs, and then up three flights at the other end, and barely even broke a sweat and were not even out of breath.

The polish guy told me that he was a computer programmer, and that when he started the job 6 months before, he weighed 250 lbs, and was really unfit, he was now 180 lbs and in the best shape of his life.

There is definetly something to be said for regular manual labour.

Manual Labour, was that the Mexican fella that helped you move?

Ba-doom Tish!......................"boo, geddof!"

Thought you'd like it.

He fights Kevin Mitchell over 10 next month.

It's a difficult comparison to make. You can't generalise and say 'old school' fighters were more skilled than today's, some were some weren't. PBF is as skilled as any fighter who has ever fought. So was Pernell Whittaker and many others. On the other hand highly skilled and experianced heavyweights like Ezzard Charles and Walcott were beaten by Marciano who used to fall over his own feet and had very little boxing skill.

I agree that in todays game money is the main factor. Fighters are carefully managed into title fights and are quickly very rich without having fought anybody of note. This cannot create a 'hungry' fighter as they have nothing to work towards, just boxing greatness which some are not bothered about.

You cannot compare athletes from other eras either. Records are normally broken every year and at some point there is going to be a limit to how fast someone runs a 100m. Sprinting is not comparible to boxing. A sprinter just trains to run quick, and thats in a straight line and its over in 10 seconds or so. Boxing is a far more all round sport where numerous things that can happen or go wrong. You cannot compare the two.

Of course I am not talking about 'ALL BOXERS' I am making a point about the median level boxers. My assertion would be that outside the top 20 of each division, I reckon that in the 1950's the 30-50 level guys would have been of a better standard than today, because they were more experienced and also because a loss in those days didn't consign you to the scrap heap.

Controversial wrote:It's a difficult comparison to make. You can't generalise and say 'old school' fighters were more skilled than today's, some were some weren't. PBF is as skilled as any fighter who has ever fought. So was Pernell Whittaker and many others. On the other hand highly skilled and experianced heavyweights like Ezzard Charles and Walcott were beaten by Marciano who used to fall over his own feet and had very little boxing skill.

I agree that in todays game money is the main factor. Fighters are carefully managed into title fights and are quickly very rich without having fought anybody of note. This cannot create a 'hungry' fighter as they have nothing to work towards, just boxing greatness which some are not bothered about.

You cannot compare athletes from other eras either. Records are normally broken every year and at some point there is going to be a limit to how fast someone runs a 100m. Sprinting is not comparible to boxing. A sprinter just trains to run quick, and thats in a straight line and its over in 10 seconds or so. Boxing is a far more all round sport where numerous things that can happen or go wrong. You cannot compare the two.

Marciano though was skilled in his own way, he was excellent at cutting off the ring, and he was more importantly good at imposing his will. His constant pressure eventually got to everyone he faced and his body punching and shots to the arms got their guards down eventually. Marciano also had an inhuman ability to absorb punishment, rather like ?Jim Jeffries, he never showed weakness, and never got discouraged, which must have been very demoralising when you're whacking him with your best shots to no avail.

Having said that, I wonder if he would have done as well when Walcott and Charles were 3-4 years younger.

totally agree about comparing boxing or any other martial art with linear sports line athletics. Fighting and running is like comparing apples and carthorses, they are completely different disciplines. It doesn't take heart and determination to run 100 meters, merely training and athletic ability.

Who said Holyfield was a good defensive boxer?? I suppose he did cushion lots of blows with his chin!