Why were many old time boxers so scrawny looking

That's why plyometrics should be used instead of weights

 

I always figured it would be very difficult to land on older Foreman clean. Nice to hear confirmation of that, though. That awkward arms out defence just seemed to stymie a lot of shots, or had them glancing off the top of his big chrome dome. Morrison was having a hell of a time landing clean on George. His lefts were just getting sapped before they landed, and George's constant forward pressure was forcing Tommy on the backfoot and unable to get full torque on them as well. Looked like a nightmare to fight if you were a smaller fighter.

I wonder how it would work against a much taller fighter though. I can imagine someone like Vitali being able to land a lot more solidly on George than a little tank like Tua or Tyson ever could due to the angle at which he'd be punching.

 

The cross armed defence used by Foreman (Also Archie Moore) is extremely efficient in stopping hooks and straights but it is a little bit on the weak side against uppercuts.
But Foreman was such a strong man those uppercuts mostly didn't bother him in any significant way.
And some fighters don't throw uppercuts anyway

 

Having great static strength and having great dynamic strength aren't that related. One's mostly a matter of raw power, the other's a matter of technique, build, power, endurance, bloody mindedness etc.

Rahman no doubt had tons of the former, which contributed to his huge one punch power if he could wind up and land it flush, but lacked in so many other respects that he could not routinely make that power count in a dynamic environment.

Would be interesting to see how high he registered on a punchometer, though, compared to other traditionally huge punchers. I think he'd do rather respectably.

 

It wasn't just a regular cross armed defence though, not like, say, the way Norton applied it. Foreman just seemed to stick his arms out there and stop the momentum of the punch dead in its tracks. It wasn't a tight guard like Moore and Norton applied.

I can imagine it being like trying to punch someone through a padded cage.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5Zk2vUmjpk

 

:rofl

 

I used to be a bit of a modern science and nutrition zealot till I realised that a) most of this stuff's been around for yonks, and b) most modern fighters don't have the discipline or professionalism to actually benefit from it, certainly not in the heavyweight division. While I do still hold to the notion that there have been improvements in certain aspects of training and nutrition, the idea that old school fighters had no idea what they were doing just smacks of ignorance. There are very few other sports where there's such an incentive to get it right, and whilst boxing hasn't been immune to tradition and conservative mindedness, if you're doing something that improves your chances in the ring then it's probably going to catch on in a hurry.

 

That's what I said. :good

 

Exactly. :good

 

**** your science you **** stupid, ponce man, look - I train every day non-stop unlike you, with your rest periods and other *****, man, my grip strength is obscene just from speed bag. Sparring rounds off my training nicely, gives excellent cardio and leg endurance. NOTHING ELSE IS NEEDED YOU ARE WASTING YOUR TIME!!! Funny thing is, you actually buy that crap you've been reading, sucker.

 

Speaking to few -- 'n some of the best old school trainers -- they confided, they humored fighters letting them do that BS, if it built their confidence. Your simple regime made a lot of ATGs.

 

One old-time trainer told me all you need to develop a world class fighter is that ring over there and the heavy bag.