Are athletes really getting faster, better, stronger?

Right. But if that's the case, you'd at least expect a concession that we are better at training those specific qualities today. Which I don't think there has been.

I'm just trying to break down the specific areas that the advocates of old school training think that modern training is equal or inferior to what came before.

 

The denial runs deeper than that, mrkoolkevin.

The Thong Squad basically believes that Gilded Age heavyweights were a different species. They occasionally admit that modern fighters can improve with proper, scientific training. But they bitterly cling to the idea that dehydrated, alcoholic toughmen from the 19th century became monsters by running a lot. The Thong Squad believes that 19th century bodies literally did not respond to training the same way that real human bodies do.

Oh, and for whichever Thongers were questioning the effectiveness of plyometrics, USA Boxing has some bad news for you:

"Coaches and athletes are using well-designed plyometric programs to develop added muscular power. This type of training is used to condition the neuromuscular system[,] which will permit faster and more powerful athletic movement. Plyometric programs revolve around bounds, hops, jumps, leaps, skips, swings, and twists[,] which enable the athlete to develop his/her ability to quickly change direction, body motion and position, thus increasing speed and power."

-- Coaching Olympic-Style Boxing, USA Boxing (pub. 1995), p. 53.

This debate was over 20 years ago. USA Boxing wrote those words in 1995. Plyometrics won the debate. USA Boxing included eighteen pages of plyometric drills in a 250 page book. Clearly, plyometrics are valuable for boxing.

Actual boxers have known this since 1995. It's sad that a few nostalgists today still want to reject science.

It's done. Move on.

18 pages now. It's astounding.

Are you trolling?

Shilstone "doesn't understanding aerobic base building"?

 

If you are going to quote me, use my actual quote. It isn't hard just use cut and paste.

I actually said that he "doesn't seem to understand aerobic base building"

Show me where he demonstrates an understanding of that.

 

I will apologize for misquoting you, BitPlayerVesti. Your claim was so ridiculous that I overlooked your qualifier.

With your qualifier included, your claim is still ridiculous.

If you don't see any evidence that Shilstone understands aerobic base building, maybe you don't know what to look for.

Why don't you tell me what's wrong with this picture?

--------------------------------------

People who don't understand basic combat sport conditioning in Thong Squad World:

* Mackie Shilstone
* Elite judo competitors with degrees in sports science
* Judo coaches with doctoral dissertations about training judo competitors
* Nutritionists with degrees from UCLA, who trained Pacquaio and Amir Khan
* Eminent PhDs in sports science who train Evander Holyfield


People who do understand basic combat sport conditioning in Thong Squad World:

* BitPlayerVesti
* 1960s running coaches

 

The exact sport doesn't actually change human physiology. I've shown research backing my points, and Lydaird developed athletes from teenagers to world beaters, rather than taking the glory of already elite athletes who they worked with later on, and his training methods are still used by world level athletes today.

 

You can find PhDs that are creationists too.

Having qualifications doesn't just make you right.

 

I will give you a multiple choice test, BitPlayerVesti.

1) Is it more likely that...

A) You misunderstood the sources
B) Elite, respected coaches with advanced degrees do not understand basic training methods from the 1960s.

For the record, you've just compared Dr. Hatfield and Mackie Shilstone to creationists.

Do you have any consistent standards? Or do you just pick whatever makes the old time boxers look better?

Let's review, BitPlayerVesti:

Somebody cites Hatfield, a respected man in sports science who has an advanced degree in the field. You all but call Hatfield a fraud. You cap this laughable display of chutzpah by claiming that he knew nothing about training boxers, despite training Evander Holyfield. Your support for this ridiculous claim was that Hatfield was a powerlifter.

You then immediately turned around and start citing running coaches for how best to train boxers.

Funny, because when I then cite Teri Tom, MS, RD, who helped train Pacquiao and Amir Khan, you say she doesn't know what she's talking about. To prove this, you cite...more running coaches.

And then you say that you see no evidence that Mackie Shilstone knew what he was talking about either.

And then....THEN....you desperately compare all of these people to creationists!

Somebody stop the bleeding!

 

Aside from having an unpleasant tendency to caricature your opponents' views, you're also overlooking some things.

First, unless you're specifically criticizing BitPlayerVesti for inconsistency (which seems kind of cheap), the fact that some of these guys are running coaches is irrelevant. As YOU YOURSELF have said, human physiology is what it is.

Second, I haven't seen either of you actually comparing exactly what your sources say. Maybe they don't disagree with each other after all.

Finally, maybe it's you who are misunderstanding your sources. It's revealing that this third possibility never even crossed your mind when you made your "multiple choice" question.

 

Thank you.

The footage, testimonials, and the performances show that there is no rb like him. The way defenders glide off him, or how he can put a tiny bit of hip into a 230lb defender tackling from behind, and have the guy laid out on he field after the plays over. Just like Foreman had ungodly strength and power for a 220 athlete, Brown had it the same for football.

He had 4 guys wrapping him up. A 5th ran up to help his teammates and Brown swung out his forearm and tossed him away. I don’t care what the size of those players were, to do that on pro Football defenders is insane.

Many running backs today are smaller. I think the majority are. Some are tiny. They don’t get crushed to death, it’s football. To think that defenders today would bring JB down a peg or two is nonsense in my opinion. He was utterly dominant. We have Tom Brady today, they had Jim Brown. He was that level of player. Many people who saw him play are watching the same football we’re watching today. He was rated the #2 NFL player in history behind Jerry Rice. I think he should’ve been #1.

 

Jim Brown should not be penalized because he was an outlier. However, on the other hand lets not disappear in some fantasy land in which Giants once walked the earth and were so much superior to modern man. During the early development stages of any sport or for that matter any system, you always have more outliers. Look at baseball, football or basketball. Performance overall moves toward the mean and there are fewer outliers. Babe Ruth hit more home runs in some teams and his day. While it might make for a compelling bedtime story, previous generations were not gifted almost magical athletes. The sad reality is thatthe average player improves and systems and strategies become more effective.

 

football players who can't catch. baseball players making backhanded stabs at balls they could easily get in front of. boxers with only one or two punches in the skill set. basketball players who couldn't dribble five feet without violating a rule, had they not thrown the rule book away in the late eightioes. shall i go on????

 

It's so obvious you're using this tactic because you have no ****ing clue about this topic, you already showed you didn't understand how the energy systems work.

I'm well aware of how they came to their wrong conclusions, and I'm sure I explained it, they looked at short term studies using peaking protocols (like Tabata), and confused peaking methods with what works for long term developement, but training like they are suggesting has already been tried before even the days of Lydaird, and it gave worse results.

No, I back it up by showing why he's wrong. I only said him being a powerlifter doesn't back up conditioning knowledge, I didn't say that meant he was wrong.

Yeah just ignore the multiple studies I cited showing the different energy systems.

I didn't say running coaches know how to train boxers, I used their methods to explain how to actually train for endurance. And it was their methods that got *******ised by the people you are referencing. The sports scientists never came up with intervals, if you bothered to read my actual points you'd know they'd been around for decades, but it was found they were mostly effective for peaking. People then studied them, and conflated peaking with developement.

Add in that what the studies I cited, and the coaches I referenced explain why the tradional methods worked pretty well, not entirely optimal, but decent, and why we see so many people using the new methods gassing.

If the new conditioning methods were better, we should be seeing fighters able to go at a much harder pace, instead we see tons with week engines who keep gassing. These methods are not new and scientific, they are tried and failed, and instead of sticking with them because someone said so, I've explained why they don't work, because it's peaking without developement. If you do it to someone that's already at a high level, they can get away with that, because they already have the developement, but when that's what's promoted, you get people coming up who never 't properly develop their aerobic system, and so they have bad stamina. At the same time this stuff was promoted in boxing, similar training ideas got promoted in running in America, where the effect on conditioning is even more visible, and the results were terrible, and since going back to the older style training, we've seen the results once again get better.

 

something that can evolve from easier training methods is the mindset of cutting corners, that of the athlete who adapts the mindset that putting in less effort than guys in the past is the new norm, because he feels he doesnt have to with his new techniques.

Its a false economy.

 

Brown is probably the greatest athlete to ever live. by a wide margin.

 

Brown was a powerhouse .. But as far as athleticism .. No one compares to Barry Sanders