If someone is morbidly obese enough that running or jumping rope is dangerous to their health, should they be boxing? If that's the case, what could they do in the way of boxing that wouldn't be? If they have a pre-existing injury, they should see a doctor and let it heal. This is a boxing training forum. I don't see the need to put up "surgeon's general" warnings of the obvious -- "If you have a heart condition, this might not be the sport for you," "If you have experienced brain trauma, talk to your doctor first," etc. I mean, really? You need these things pointed out on every thread? Yes, running and jumping rope can be harmful. So can any exercise you could possibly name. Oh, and if you try running and you cross a street, make sure to look both ways because stepping in front of a moving bus could be harmful to your health.
Saintpat gives me the impression he has actually been around boxing in real life, unlike others who presume to know everything.
So has Ann Wolfe and? Did you ever see they way she conducts her training? Working through pain is idiotic. Lets say you cracked your meniscus or a rib and you dont know it but it hurts like a *****. You really think its good to work through that?
Virus and dealt_with are quite difficult people and common sense doesn't usually play a factor. :good
I have associates that are 15 years in boxing, ex fighters,trainers and it will surprise you how little they know about boxing. So that means squat.
...but where has it been proven that anyone in the anti-traditionalist movement knows more, necessarily? About boxing specifically, that is. Or what's the best way to go about things in the context of boxing. I mean, in baseball, there was skepticism and push-back when sabermetrics came out, but it faded as the old-timers gradually came to accept the undeniable truth in front of their faces. I don't see that happening in the boxing sphere - traditionalists are just digging their heels in even deeper and fortifying their positions stubbornly while the anti-s just crow arrogantly how superior their viewpoint is without it seeming to be any more substantiated. Both sides can swap anecdotal "see, told ya!" examples to prove their respective points all day. Until there is a decisive sea change, across the sport in every corner of the globe, trending in either direction, it will remain an open question and boxing training will be a pretty catch-as-one-can affair where newcomers are hopelessly mired in between two diametrically opposed camps who claim not only to be correct but the safer and wiser alternative, with neither side able to prove this with a large sampling of actual full-time boxers using either methodology and producing various almost incalculable data sets (improvement of technique, speed, or power or, more bottom-line, increase in statistical chances of winning, reduction of susceptibility to injury etc)
...and I realize that sabermetrics (a system of talent evaluation) has nothing to do with training, so that isn't an apples to apples comparison, but the parallel of new theory applied to a sport driven by recent scientific findings versus the accepted more-than-century-old "way things are done" is there.
The only way I know for sure what works for me is from doing it myself. Jumping rope is good conditioning for your foot work but doesn't take the place of it.
Nope, not in my opinion. Does skipping rope teach you not to cross your feet? Does it teach you how to move forward, backwards, left and right correctly? Nope, What about how to pivot correctly? Nope.