McGuigan says modern fighters are much fitter

It's funny though in the old day's the old 15 rounders and that .I watched a quality documentry on Jake Lamotta and Sugar Ray Robinson .15 round war's man quality .What fighter's today could do that for 15 rounds man ?
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOo3OjzR8E4[/ame]

 

Believe me it does I got tested a week out from a fight when I was on the strictest diet of my life for 8 weeks and my body fat % was 2.5%. We just assumed that a week later it would probably have been closer to 2%. It isn't healthy to be having such little body fat for to long but if you do it right, are eating the right foods, are keeping hydrated, are keeping wrapped up when out side and taking vitamins etc. Is it not better to be eating plenty and stripping the fat off, rather than starving yourself the last few days and completely dehydrating yourself? I think so.

 

As a fully qualified personal trainer and boxer. I promise you, fighters training methods are a million times better now. No question. Those long runs in heavy boots are not just from the 70's I still hear of many trainers advocating that kind of training present day. Its physiologically ******ed, believe me.

At college when I explained to my tutors (one was a professional cyclist- avery good one at that) some of the methods used by boxers for weight making and training for a fight they literally laughed at me. In hindsight I can see why.

If you want to know why these guys managed to put together 15 rounds sometimes 3-4 times in a two month period - it was because of just that- huge activity.

Reversability when your active is very slow. These guys would get up to decent shape and literally stay there by means of their activity level. Periodisation etc was unnessacary because they were alwaysin a suitable condition to fight.

That would suggest then that while they were fit for more of the time, equally they were unable to reach quite the fitness of their modern day peers- in theory. To reach a peak performance wise -in any sport, not just boxing you must gradually progress towards your target date and allow suitable rest/recovery between sessions.

I'd say it didn't matter because everybody was doing the same thing. But these days people have so many different strategies to training, the old way simply won't cut it.

Put it this way- for my last fight I felt really fit and I probably could have done another 10-12 rounds at the pace I was boxing. I did one run a week in the lead up to that, and that wasn't even a long, slow run ... it was intervals based on my fight distance.

 

One run a week ha not good imo

 

I did two a week initially (when I was building my base fitness) but after that I was doing circuits and stuff instead. Perhaps if i'd have more time to spend on training I might have done a bit more running but that was literally twice a day and it worked well for me. These aren't shitty circuits either- proper horrible evil ****ing circuits that make a run seem an easy option.

What kind of stuff would you do in the build up to your 12rounders arnie? Did you build up each week the rounds you did in the gym, or did you use another method? :good

 

I read in the old day's some fighters didn't even eat after a weigh in for a fight .I can't remember who it was but they got stopped anyway .Also some boxer's still beleive today that you can drink to much water ( rubbish it says ) .Jamie Moore drinks the most i've read about . 8 litres a day .

 

@ Brown Bomber - What course did you do at college then mate? (cycling tutor etc)

I'd love to get into that aspect of things.

 

This is where boxing's obsession with the past is going to hurt the sport. All of the knowledge is there, but instead of acting on it trainers will stick to the old methods because 'the old fighters fought more often'.

 

For the guys that think Carl Frampton gets to 2% body fat. Actually think about what you are saying.

In Carls last fight he weighed in at 124.5 lbs. 2% of 124.5 is 2.49.

So you believe that he had less than 2.5 lbs of body fat!

That's all the external fat just below the skins surface (of-course the skin has a massive surface area). And the internal fat which surrounds all his vital organs.

Less than 2.5 lbs!

That's a ridiculous figure and in my experience people almost always massively overestimate how low their body fat is.

 

What test? Performed by who? I think you have been misinformed tbh, It's impossible, there literaly is less than zero chance of that being true, you wouldn't be able to do anything, you'd find it hard to walk let alone train and spar etc. Without even getting into the scientific side of things just look at a picture of a bodybuilder on stage at 4% bodyfat, next to a picture of any boxer at a weigh in and the difference will be noticeable, and as has been mentioned before those guys will find it hard just to get through a posing routine, thats how drained they are and they are on a bunch of drugs and supplements no professional boxer 'should' be taking.

 

If modern fighters are fitter they need to start showing it.

I don't see modern fighters fighting at a harder faster pace over 12 rounds than the old-timers did over 15 !

It's all very well saying, "we train more scientifically now", "look at my body fat %", "we have superior levels of fitness, scientifically tested" ....... but when they get in the ring it's the same old crap.

I want to see Haye and Klitschko fight 20 rounds at Ali-Frazier pace, but it aint gonna happen. :-(

It's all bollocks. People just need to find some reason to praise modern fighters, because we all know exciting intense wars are much rarer nowadays than they used to be.
:deal

 

frampton isn't the sharpest tool in the box.

2% body fat

:rofl

 

It's proven that today's athletes out do athletes of the past and that's why I believe athletically today's boxers will out do boxers from the past.

 

Done a load mate- the main part being a CYMCA Personal Trainer level 3 but did loads of extra bits and bobs such as nutrition, advanced gym instruction etc etc.... good course. Costs a grand though/ :good

 

Re the 2%- that would take some dieting!!! i'd venture that the lowest you'd ever want to go would be 7%+

There is a lot of room for inaccuracy when measuring body fat. The most accurate way is callipers but it has to be taken by a skilled and practiced measurer. The bio-electrical impedance devices have strict protocals but even the top of the range ones we used at college still would give two different readings depends where you applied the tongs.