BoxRec

boxbible wrote:

dempseyfire wrote:The upper-body doesn't carry any mass? Huh? So putting on increased mass on your arms and shoulders won't increase lactic acid build-up?

For your body to be affected by "carrying" a heavier load, or mass, it has to be working against the downward pull of gravity. In that sense, the upper-body doesn't "carry" the mass. The legs "carry" the mass. When people get heavier, do their shoulders pop? Does there ribcage explode? No... But their knees sometimes give out. It's not used to the added weight. Substitute upper-body muscle mass for stomach fat and its the same effect, "carrying"-wise.

Now, if you added muscle mass only to the legs to gain weight, and the legs are the biggest muscles in the body anyway, and just strengthened the upper body without added mass, you would get stronger, and faster, without a doubt. Afterall, it's the legs that generate the majority of punching power anyway. The comparatively tiny upper body muscles just transfer that power.

The more disproportionate a fighter's height/frame to mass ratio, the quicker he will tire in the wide majority of cases. And the actual in-ring evidence backs me up.

Does that mean the skinnier you are, the less tired you're gonna get? Tommy Hearns always got a bit tired. How about those two power-houses Tua and Ibeachi going toe-to-toe for twelve rounds? Two bulky athletes who were well conditioned.

Do I think ALL weight lifting is detrimental, no of course not. But overall it does more harm than good.

Selective evidence to back up deeply-seated dogmas just won't cut it. Sometimes, it's better to realise that the old methods, or times, WEREN'T as good as some of the new ones. Weight training is a prime example evidenced by almost every major sport on this planet.

Retorts:

1) OK, I understand what you are saying. But you still have increased lactic acid buildup in your arms and shoulders if you are bulking up in those areas. They may not 'carry' the weight, but it's definitely present in those areas.
2) A great concept, but that doesn't happen in reality.
3) No, a very skinny fighter would have their own problems. That's why fighters attempt to strike a perfect balance between strength/muscle mass and being lean/conditioned enough to go 10-12 hard rounds.
4) Tua-Ike was a sloppy fight with basically no good footwork employed and both fighters leaning on each other the whole fight. Ike threw a lot of punches but the lack of footwork/defense/overall skill was very evident.
5)It's not selective, it's across the board.

Footwork was neither man's forte. Tua proved that a guy could benchpress over 400lbs and still throw punches for 12 rounds.

dempseyfire wrote:1) OK, I understand what you are saying. But you still have increased lactic acid buildup in your arms and shoulders if you are bulking up in those areas. They may not 'carry' the weight, but it's definitely present in those areas.

great.. the "carry" message came through... now for the lactic acid...

Lactic acid is the by product of muscle contraction. Under normal circumstances, regular blood flow allows for the carrying away of this lactic acid, some of which passes through the liver to be converted back into glycogen, and then back to the muscles to replenish the energy supply.

But if the muscles are being worked more than normal, then more blood flow is needed to keep the cycle going, otherwise, the muscle runs out of energy and the muscle locks up due to lactic acid build up. Which is why the heart starts beating faster when forced to do hard work involving the muscles.

But if you gradually train the whole system so it becomes used to the heavier load, then lactic acid buildup does not happen. Unfortunately, heavyweights, who are the most apparent when it comes to bulkiness, are also usually quite ill-conditioned and can easily reinforce this stereotype.

2) A great concept, but that doesn't happen in reality.

Whoever conditioned Pernell Whitaker had it figured out. When he moved up in weight, I was amazed at how thick his legs looked while his upper body looked the same. The heavier guys weren't able to push him around and he was just as fast and nimble as a lightweight. Plus, he was actually hurting guys like McGirt and the other welterweights he faced.

Too bad more fighters haven't figured this out.

3) No, a very skinny fighter would have their own problems. That's why fighters attempt to strike a perfect balance between strength/muscle mass and being lean/conditioned enough to go 10-12 hard rounds.

Exactly... my only argument is that you say putting on bulk is detrimental. I say putting on bulk the proper way will always benefit a fighter. It'll make him stronger and faster. It does NOT make him prone to muscle fatigue and will not slow him down or make his reflexes slower. Being ill-conditioned is what does that.

The balance you speak of is correct, but it is a constraint of amount of time able to be spent doing the various training regimens and human will. To bulk up takes a tremendous amount of weight training time which can easily take away from time spent on endurance and technique. If you have unlimited time, you should be able to pack on tremendous muscle mass, condition the lactic acid threshold so it won't be a factor, and work on technique and endurance. And guys like Rahman and Tua have achieved this for a short amount of time during their careers. Holyfield did it for quite a while.

The amount of time spent bulking up the upper half of the body may become counterproductive as a whole. But it is not because "bulky muscles contribute to lactic acid buildup, slower reflexes, and so forth..."

4) Tua-Ike was a sloppy fight with basically no good footwork employed and both fighters leaning on each other the whole fight. Ike threw a lot of punches but the lack of footwork/defense/overall skill was very evident.

You're really stretching now...

5)It's not selective, it's across the board.

Filler...

boxbible wrote:

Ambling Alp wrote:...but if fighters that bulk up too much will have negative consequences.

Not if it's done correctly... it sure didn't hurt Bernard Hopkins go up 2 divisions... and neither did it hurt RJJ move up to heavyweight!!!

I strongly disagree with you saying that "there's no way bulk hurts reflexes and hand speed." Of course it can. Add several pounds to person who is already in good shape and they are going to be much slower.

Then how come sprinters can bulk up and keep getting faster? If you add 10 pounds of muscle to your legs, it's gonna be that much easier to propel your bodyweight in the direction of your opponent. You'll be able to do it faster, and with more power. Of course, bulking up the tiny arm and chest muscles while not strengthening the leg muscles will have the opposite effect of making it harder for those same leg muscles to propel the heavier body-weight forward. that is definitely counter-productive weight training.

Really big heavyweights are almost always slow and don't react well.

Lennox Lewis would disagree... it is a smaller pool of talent to pick from when it comes to huge people, therefore there should be far less exceptional athletes amongst them leaving the division with a bunch of average talent (slow, clumsy and not too powerful).

Look at Shannon Briggs after he bulked up. He became much slower.

He was quite a bit older too...

Fighters at lower weights almost always have faster hand speed than fighters in the upper weights.

Fighters at higher weights almost always have more power than fighters at lower weights...

An F-15 will surely outspeed a B-52... but which one would you choose to pulverize your enemy?

Again, read what I am writing!
-I said that boxers that get too bulky suffer the consequences. I'm not talking about Bernard Hopkins moving up to lightheavyweight or Roy Jones beating John Ruiz. I'm talking about heavyweights that aren't even that tall that weigh 240, 250, 260 etc.

-As for as sprinters, well how many of them are "bulky"? Not many. Certainly not the best. Besides, I am talking about boxing. Having excessive size is going to limit speed. Common sense should tell you that. Again, the proof is in the pudding. There simply are very rarely really big fighters with good hand speed.

-Lennox Lewis wouldn't agree that bulky heavyweights are almost always slow? I doubt he could name one that is fast because there aren't any.

-I know that fighters at higher weights usually have more power. I didn't say that they didn't.
If you aren't going to read my comments, stop responding to them.

Seamus wrote:Footwork was neither man's forte. Tua proved that a guy could benchpress over 400lbs and still throw punches for 12 rounds.

I highly doubt Tua was ever benching 400 lbs, especially when he was being trained by Duva. Sounds like Internet rumor to me.

I'm sure even boxbible would agree with me that the bench-press is a completly worthless exercise when it comes to boxing training.

dempseyfire wrote:

Seamus wrote:Footwork was neither man's forte. Tua proved that a guy could benchpress over 400lbs and still throw punches for 12 rounds.

I highly doubt Tua was ever benching 400 lbs, especially when he was being trained by Duva. Sounds like Internet rumor to me.

I'm sure even boxbible would agree with me that the bench-press is a completly worthless exercise when it comes to boxing training.

I read the sixteen year old Tyson could bench 250 twelve times...I suspect he could do 400 lbs once...

I would think squats would be great for a boxer as they utilize every part of the body...

This is an excellent weight routine for a boxer or any combat sport for that matter.
I use it and I recommend it.
Randys Coutures routine:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkQahsavtMA

I distinctly remember reading an article some yrs back that said Tua was benching over 400 and squatting over 600. Looking at his physique it isn't hard to believe.

I knew Cruiserweight contender Craig Bodzianowski back in the 80's, and he did lot's of high sets with relatively heavy dumbells. 90-100 lbs. He was a slugger, but his stamina was good from running stairs, pushups etc.

If Tyson was benching 250 for 12 reps, his max would be about 340 maybe 350.

Bodzianowski is an example of a fighter who trimmed up using weights.
I fought on the same card with him in 83 and he was too heavy/flabby even.
As his career progressed, he toned up a bit.
The routine he was working that you mentioned Seamus really helped him.

TheOneIsHere2008 wrote:

dempseyfire wrote:

Seamus wrote:Footwork was neither man's forte. Tua proved that a guy could benchpress over 400lbs and still throw punches for 12 rounds.

I highly doubt Tua was ever benching 400 lbs, especially when he was being trained by Duva. Sounds like Internet rumor to me.

I'm sure even boxbible would agree with me that the bench-press is a completly worthless exercise when it comes to boxing training.

I read the sixteen year old Tyson could bench 250 twelve times...I suspect he could do 400 lbs once...

I would think squats would be great for a boxer as they utilize every part of the body...

A perfect example of Internet rumor . . .

Tyson never lifted weights under D'Amato, who was dead-set against them.

At the Tryon School for Boys, the 13-year-old Tyson bench-pressed 220 pounds for $10 bets with the school staff.

http://espn.go.com/classic/s/Tyson_Mike_add.html

One of the books on Tyson which most of it is on the net alludes to an older Tyson lifting much more than that...It's too hard to hunt for...

Ambling Alp wrote:I'm talking about heavyweights that aren't even that tall that weigh 240, 250, 260 etc.

Are you talking about bulk, or about fat... cos when Rahman and Tua fought at heavier weights, it's because they were fatter, not more muscular.

Now, if a powerful fighter kept training to increase bulk and power rather than improving stamina and technique, then yes, it's not such a great idea.

But not because it's detrimental. It will still improve his capabilities, just not anywhere near as much as if he worked on technique and stamina since he's already got power.

At some point, there is a point of diminishing returns. But it is certainly not because it is "detrimental".

The other thing is, the word "bulk" is kind of ambiguous here. To some, bulking up is any kind of weight increase, to others, it is any increase in muscular size.

TheOneIsHere2008 wrote:At the Tryon School for Boys, the 13-year-old Tyson bench-pressed 220 pounds for $10 bets with the school staff.

http://espn.go.com/classic/s/Tyson_Mike_add.html

One of the books on Tyson which most of it is on the net alludes to an older Tyson lifting much more than that...It's too hard to hunt for...

That may or may not be true, but regardless, Tyson was still not lifting weights as part of his training routine while he was training with D'Amato/Rooney.

Seamus wrote:There was a time when coaches in almost every sport, thought weights were bad. It was supposed to ruin your swing, your throwing motion, make you too tight, destroy your flexibility etc. All that's been long disproven however, and now you'll find guys pumping iron in virtually every sport including boxing. Obviously, you CANNOT make it the main focus of your training. And, heavy weights will not harm your stamina. Neglecting exercises like pushups, dips, high repetitive punching workouts and road work is what most accounts for lack of stamina.

i always wonder how much someone like Rocky Marciano would weigh if he were boxing today and incorporated a regular consistent weight training regimen into his workouts.

i usually figure that he could've carried himself around quite well at 200-205.he'd probably stay around that weight after awhile but much of the earlier stages in his carear would likely be fought at Cruiserweight.

elmersalsa wrote:The great Pernell Whitaker used weights to improve his upper-body strenght against certain opponents.

Also Terry Norris lifted weights as part of his training regime.

I also believe that the great Sugar Ray Leonard lifted weights for his upper body strenght for the second fight against the great Roberto Duran.

SRL had Big Upper Arms for a WW.

Tale of the tape showed he had 15" arms while at 147.

Tracy Harris Patterson had freakishly Huge Upper Arms for a 122-130 lb'er.

I recall the tale of the tape saying 15-1/2" at 122 and 16" at 130.

Gene Fulmer,with his bulky 5-8 160 lb frame only had 15" arms according to tale of the tape.
In his fights though,his arms look more like 16-1/2".Probably didnt flex his arms while they measured em.

On the contrary,Roberto Duran's arms only measured a mere 12-1/2" for the 1st Leonard fight.Not sure about the 2nd fight though.He looked drained and sickly in that one.

George Foreman in the 70's had 17" arms and in the 90's he had 20" arms.

Sonny Liston had 16-1/2" arms according to tale of the tape but they seemed more like 18".

Mike Tyson only had 16" arms in the Holyfield fights.Holyfield had the same arm measurement.
Tyson's thighs measured 27" to Holyfield's 22"
Tyson's calves measured in at a whopping 19" while Holyfield's clocked in at a spindly 13".

I remember being in a bar back in june of 1999 and this big dude that i had gone to school with in the past talked for a little while about working out and lifting.Anyway though,he thought that my arms looked around 19" even though they were just under 17" at the time.(and no,the dude wasnt gay,he was with his girlfriend)

I wonder what advantage having extra big forearms might bring as far as boxing.I would guess that they could serve as better defense in very close fighting and serve to enable naturally better clinching abilities.They are an extra big shield to use for covering you're face as well,no?

Obviously,Having Extra big forearms(mine are 15" btw) could definately carry over quite well in MMA fighting using an exclusively favorable grappling style to you're arsenal.I remember in TKD how i would block kicks with my Forearms quite often and people would be surprised that they didnt get badly bruised up or even broken.What's Really freaky is that my Calves only measure in at a mere 14-1/2".

I sense a disturbed fetish for measurements of all sorts here...

Bob Foster had incredibly skinny arms, yet you would be hard pressed to find anyone better at parrying punches.

Tyson's measurements stacked up against Tommy Hearns' inches made no difference to their explosive punching power.

Blocking and parrying is mainly about timing and direction. Punching power is a lot about muscle elasticity and the speed at which the fibers can switch from lengthening to contracting.

boxbible wrote:I sense a disturbed fetish for measurements of all sorts here...

Bob Foster had incredibly skinny arms, yet you would be hard pressed to find anyone better at parrying punches.

Tyson's measurements stacked up against Tommy Hearns' inches made no difference to their explosive punching power.

Blocking and parrying is mainly about timing and direction. Punching power is a lot about muscle elasticity and the speed at which the fibers can switch from lengthening to contracting.

i basically totally agree with you're points.

i just thought that my post was of a relevant enough nature pertaining to the thread and it's title.

SRL Really did have big upper arms though.It's amazing how fast he threw the flurries of punches like in the Price,Gonzalaz,and Ranzany fights.Against Hearns,SRL Really let loose with Powerfull Rapid fire Punch flurries.Tracy Patterson had gigantic upper arms.Not as fast as SRL but Very Rugged with alot of stamina and decent speed and power.16" arms is Really freaky on a 130 lb boxer though.

boxbible, What do you think of Haye's progression in bulking up to Heavyweight?

I'm sure he's got some topnotch guys working on that so hopefully it's a nicely balanced program incorporating plenty leg power routines.

But the problem with Haye is he needs to bulk up his chin and trim up his defense. The offense is obviously quite effective, but he's had a couple of real bad patches in the noble art of self defense.