scientific training methods often dont work...sports science vs practical experience

I do not disagree with you, but for the trainer looking like a noodle. How come Virgil Hunter, Angelo Dundee, or Jimmy Montoya weren't good boxers? Same logic.

 

I agree partly, because it is a fundamental question raised already in the bible: what to trust and rely on: tree of knowledge or tree of life. I did both, by now experience convinced me trust more life/intuition/heart (depends how you call it) than cold knowledge from any expert, because there are always exceptions.

 

Scientific literature is certainly not without it's limitations, but it is far superior to some random anecdote. I'm not saying anecdote doesn't have it's place, it absolutely does and if top coaches neglected observations because it didn't align with the available literature, they'd be naive IMO. The problem I see all the time with boxing coaches though (not all coaches, but it's common in boxing) is this refusal to abandon old-school tradition.

 

My opinion is this.

If someone has legitimately made a neutral study of something, and found certain excellent results that might be of benefit to you, you would be a fool to not TRY it.

On the flip side, if you base your entire training philosophy, training program or beliefs about physical training in general, on one "scientific study" or one ideology, then you are also a fool. This will also probably change the next time a "groundbreaking" study comes out.

People who have not DONE what they tell you to do, or at least have experience in the sport, similar styles, similar ideas, should not really be listened to right away. If a big fat guy comes up to you and tells you how to get into good shape, would you trust him? One fat guy has never exercised in his life but read some stuff on the Internet, but another fat guy might have been a professional bodybuilder up until 5 years ago then just dropped it all. Similarly, if a coach with a sports science degree of some sort, unrelated to boxing, comes and tells you how to train as a boxer, would you believe him, or would you listen to an uneducated, unqualified world champion boxer? One guy will have been fed his whole ideology on training from a textbook and never tried it, and the other guy will have been in the trenches, been training for years and found what does work. Plus, there are a lot of extra factors within training and life, that don't come up in the textbooks. There is a lot of mental action going on in training, its not just physical. The sports scientist will know nothing of this, if he has never competed.

The very best way to be a successful athlete AND a successful coach is to ALWAYS be learning, educating, reading and seeing new things, and investigating different methods. It's a life long process, but your core philosophy should be rock solid and based on your own experiences in and out of the gym. Don't suddenly change your entire training style because of one article one guy wrote about how this one guy trained, who is a world champion. For his method A of getting to be a champion, there will be another 20 methods that attained very similar results in very different manners.

A good example is the world of Olympic weightlifting. The two main ways that world champions train are quite different for the most part, with the same core principles. everyone snatches, cleans, jerks, squats, but group A doesn't go to maximum weights all the time and uses a large number of sets and reps, whereas group B does go to maximum weights all the time and use a low number of sets and reps. Within the scope of weightlifting, they are polar opposites, with the same gooey chocolate centre, and they get similar results, with one edging out the other on any given occasion.

"or my pro strongman buddy
who looked at my friend who never shuts up proper sports science
and how this and that bodybuilder is doing things wrong"

This is a classic situation, and it's clearly obvious who knows whats what, and who doesn't. The guy who has the results, the years of training and experience, will usually know more than the guy who is shouting the loudest about his knowledge, how to train, why this world champion is doing things wrongly.

There have even been STUDIES into the studies/experience subject, and the results were basically that what works for one person will not always work for another, and that one man's flaw will be another man's technical gift, and he makes it work for him. For example, Muhammad Ali, hands down, punches from the hip. If a kid walked into the gym, would you teach him the fundamentals, or would you teach him to fight like Ali? He is slow with his hands and his feet, so that style would be a flaw for him. Another guy walks in, the same physical attributes as Ali - for him it would be an advantage.

Back to weightlifting. Some guys WILL respond better to higher rep training, for strength purposes. Other guys get great results from lower rep training, with maybe a higher frequency. The thing is to try different things out, but base your escapades around a core philosophy that is rock solid. So a boxer will spar, hit the bag, jump rope, run sprints, have good fundamentals, work on his defense a lot as the game is hit and not get hit. A weightlifter will snatch, clean, jerk, squat. If the boxer trains every day, for rounds that are longer than his competition rounds, or another guy trains all out non stop for half the round time, and another trains the same round time, and they get the SAME results physically, which guy was "wrong"? If a lifter snatches high volume with 80% every day, and another snatches 90% for a moderate amount of reps every day, and another snatches to maximum every day, and they get the same results, who was right? But if the maximum every day guy started training with 80%, and his results shot up, then he found out that higher volume works better for him - there will be studies and examples to support this. If the 80% volume guy starts training maximally every day, and gets better results, he is better suited to that style - there will be studies and examples to support this.

Basically the people trying to shove a philosophy or idea down other people's throats should be taken with a pinch of salt as to why this person is trying to force this idea on you. Actions speak louder than words, and experience has had a lot of action. It's a similar situation to an army officer fresh out of officer training, being in command of veterans of a few years army service - who knows best how being in the army and all that comes with that works? The guys in the trenches, or the guy with the textbook? Combine the textbook with the trenches, over time, and you have a very well schooled person, in all walks of life.

What I don't like personally is when someone just says "that's not the way you do it" when something I have done has worked well for me. If I was to say that squatting every day heavy has worked the best for me, there will be all kinds of guys saying I am overtraining and its too much and blah blah, but I am the one with the new squat personal bests every week. And like everything else, there will be a guy who got injured and his numbers went backwards with the same style. Who is right?

well that was a ramble.

 

re: the Mexican example- they got the benefits form training at altitude.. but yeah know what your saying. basically everyone is different and different things work for different people.

 

Its a REAL copout to say that, but it is true, as long as there are some core principles which are common with all top athletes. Those are more important than the details. Many years ago there was a real search for the "best" weightlifting training system. A top Russian coach went up to the guy who was doing the research and said "why are you doing this? everyone trains the same anyway" - and that was true, for 90% of the actual training. Don't give too much importance to the details, unless the foundations are rock solid and what the best guys have been doing for ages.

 

A very Good Post was that

 

I knew I liked you, scrap!

 

Although as you say, it's not really the point of this thread; Cus D'Amato only had 1 amateur fight I think.

 

Very important to understand the limitations in a study, one thing that many pubmed ninjas don't.

 

I know, that was my point :good