The Theory of "Modern Training Methods" Being Superior

For me, it all comes down to the film. I can say with confidence that the likes of Freddie Steele, Kid Chocolate, Tony Canzoneri, Barney Ross, Panama Al Brown, John Henry Lewis, etc., etc.(guys who competed in the late 20's and/or 30's) were modern era caliber. I can say with even more confidence that the fighters (not all of them, mind you) from the past 15 years or so are of a much lesser quality than their predecessors from 30, 40, 50 years past. This is my opinion based on viewing and studying a lot of film.

Another thing: it helps to have a firm grasp on/a keen eye for the technical aspects of the game when trying to decipher the differences in this sort of thing.

 

I don´t think there is real progression. Boxing is around for a very long time. People adept to new rules that´s what happening. It may take a while to find out which techniques and styles are ideal for the new rules and which aren´t - for example throwing 100 punches a round in a fight that can be over 40 rounds is pretty dumb, as dumb as it is to throw 8-10 punches a round when the fight goes over 12 rounds - but that´s not progression or evolution it´s adeption.

I agree with you roughly on the eras and your last sentence.
IMO there were three major eras and 1-2 transitional periods.
The Pioneer era from the 1880s to the late 1910s, basically still bareknuckle boxing with gloves but some fighters like Gans or Corbett pushed boxing forward
The first transitional era between the late 1910s and the early 1930s, 15 rounds are invented, the mouthpiece, neutral corner rule and so on. Technique and styles get adepted to the new rules.
The Classic era from the mid 1930s to the late 1970s. Boxing is coming into it´s own, technique is perfectly adepted to the new rules. Somewhere in there boxing peaked. Probably in the 40s, perhaps in the 50s.
The second transitional period from the late 1970s to the mid 80s. 12 rounds, 24-day weigh-ins, bigger gloves. Some minor adeptions are going on, training strength and power get´s more important than endurance, body punching get´s less important and so on.
The modern era from the mid/late 80s to now. IMO you can summarize - with some exceptions- this era with "style over substance".

 

but what would someone like chris johnson do to the guys from the 50's and 60's? hed be a blur on the field

 

We know there are plenty of fighters who were very explosive without weight training. Where are their contemporarys? Where are the fighters that got more explosive with weight training?

 

with a proper plyo, aerobic, and anerobic workout he woul dhave been even more devestating than he was in my opinion. plyos are huge. they work on fast twitch muscle to develop explosiveness. so there is a good chance with a good plyo workout he could have been even faster. my opinion.

 

Where did you get the everything was better in the past from? I described you the fate of tennis over here. That happened. I see parrallels in today´s football. The football played today is vastly suprior to the football played 20, 30, 40, 50 years ago. No question. I doubt that the developement outside the pitch is as favourable for the sport. You call it pessimistic. I call it realistic.

And btw. I´m glad I live now and not 40-50-60-70 years ago. Even though that sometimes I think the world is becoming to complex. I like it simple and easy going. :hat

 

Name any fighters who punched harder or were better AFTER weight training?

Maybe Evan fields is the sole exception in history.

 

:good

 

i don't know exactly which boxers do weight lifting,but it's a fact that oly lifting is the best thing for power and explosiveness.look at oly lifters,sprinters,nfl,basketball...they are the most powerful and explosive athletes and they all do some kind of power/oly lifting.
listen jones,ali,patterson,dempsey etc had great genetics,power,speed,explosiveness etc but the thing is they would be better almost in everything if they knew how to work with weights.

 

Not again. Read the thread!

 

Punching power is nothing to do with maximal strength or even explosive lifting per se.
I fail to see how the lifters in the olympics could by this theory be great punchers with some boxing training.

Thomas hearns,felix trinidad and julian jackson couldnt probably even lift their bodyweight in the clean and jerk. None of these three would necessarily increase their skills by lifting.
Joe frazier was **** in the lifting contests of the seventies.
Boxing is a lot more than just maximal explosive force on one punch,otherwise shavers would be the GOAT.

 

Yeah, but you have to consider that with modern training and weight lifting, Shavers could've hit even harder!

 

Pernell Whitaker used a weight training routine based on a Soviet routine to increase his punching power.

 

Why dont you consider that with a lifting prgramme shavers might have added muscle and thus been slower and had even less stamina.

I dont see how shavers would have hit harder with a lifting programme.
Punching is a very specific skill,it is not like sprinting which is really maximal force in the shortest time. Punching is timing,technique and a smooth quick flow of body-weight transference.
Name ONE fighter in history who became a better puncher or boxer after a weights programme?

ps; And did anyone notice whitaker transition from pep to hearns after this 'soviet ivan drago' programme?

 

No, 135 is 147.

This content is protected