old school: running miles and miles every morning, doing hundreds of sit ups, pure calisthenics, taking medicine ball to stomach, sparring double the required rounds and skipping and shadowboxing for extended periods of time and blasting the heavy bag non stop new school: interval training,weight lifting, drinking protein shakes, mitt work, working heavily on technique and rest days and in training camps only a few times a year. which one would most benefit a boxer? IMO old school but happy to hear new school arguments. is conditioning the most important aspect of boxing?
Without good conditioning a fighter can't practice any of the techniques. Before any beginner boxer begins to learn boxing in depth (not including basics like punches and how to move, etc.) they need to be in shape. That doesn't mean they have to run miles upon miles and spar 20 rds, they should just be able to work hard each day they go into the gym.
Your question is extremely black and white. I hate to sound boring. But it's really not that simple. There's benefits to each of those things, but mostly it and depends on the situation. For starters - new school methodology isn't the 'opposite' of old school training. So asking if OLD or NEW is better, really isn't a valid comparison. New school training is merely the evolution of old school training. So in my opinion - new. And is conditioning the most important? Just watch a few pro fights to know that there is NO ONE THING that is the most important. Again, it's not that black and white. Only the greenest and most novice amateur fights can be easily scored simply by activity and volume of punches. But even then, conditioning can be greatly impacted by nerves and tension, so there's the added element of mental focus. So that's kind of a non-answer. But again, you really can't ask such a simple question for such a complicated sport.
i must have worded my question wrong. I meant to say in terms if you trained for an upcoming bout, would YOU personally go for the old school or new school approach?
The point is to do what you need to do to improve your ability as a boxer. If your training isn't reasoned i.e. targeting a weakness, you're wasting your time whether you're using old school, new school or something someone made up yesterday.
I agree the question is not black and white. However, what we find as a consequence of the new school concentration on rest (interval) over the old school dedication to longevity training is possibly the difference between old school endurance and new school lack of toughness in fighters. Shortening the rounds to 12 rounds goes a long way toward reducing the opportunity to compare the results of these two training methods.
