Does anybody employ the "advances in sports" argument consistently?

I agree some people use "modern" training as an excuse for laziness.

Boxing is definitely a skill sport as much as an athleticism sport. Duran and Foreman and a host of others -- including one of the two brothers who currently dominate the heavyweight division -- prove it.

But I'm not saying today's boxers are more skillful. I'm just talking about conditioning. Duran, Foreman, Walcott, and company could all benefit physically from modern workouts compared to (for instance) 1940s workouts. They'd still be great fighters without modern training methods, but their bodies would be slightly better prepared with more recent advances.

 

Periodized training on the same lines that the current Olympic champions use. Even when you take steroids into account, modern runners have accomplished a lot.

I accept that old-time athletes used some of the same exercises in a somewhat varied program, and that they ate fairly decent food, but modern trainers clearly do a better job at combining everything in an optimal way.

 

Wait, are you talking about how you'd train Jesse Owens differently or Ray Robinson?

 

If you're referring to boxing training for Robinson, Holyfield used some of the first "modern" workout plan designs. I assume that they still look something like this. I haven't kept up with the most recent stuff, but I remember what a game changer this was for an older Holyfield:

http://www.sportsci.org/news/news9709/hatfield.html

 

Gotta call bull**** on your second point, despite modern trainers and modern methods i see no real improvement on the fitness of modern fighters infact its gone downhill but you could put that down to abolishing the 13, 14 and 15th rounds. The only difference i see is that modern fighters are more aesthetically pleasing which means little in a boxing match.

 

And yeah was talking about Robinson

 

Actually, I suspect that your second point relates to your first. Boxers have asked their S&C coaches to prepare them for 12 round fights rather than 15 rounders precisely because the 15 round distance has been eliminated. Considering the old-timers were training for a quarter longer distance, I'd expect their conditioning to hold up decently even if they were using less-than-perfect methods.

The modern guys do seem faster, stronger, and harder-hitting for their weight, though.

 

Ah, ok. In that case, refer to the Holyfield workout for an example of the sort of training Robinson would have received on the cutting edge in '96/'97 -- and it's probably advanced a lot since then.

 

evander had a 12 week conditioning program for each fight, how would that work for robinson who fought almost once a month?

 

I read it was quite interesting i need to try something like it sometime see if i improve

However, I think such a workout could be a hinderance to SRR especially considering the portion of the workout about muscle mass. Holyfield was a rather small heavyweight at the time and was allowed to splurge in a way, for him being naturally smaller increases in physical strength and size would be a big benefit in the heavyweight arena. SRR on the otherhand was already a big welter and increases in muscle mass would probably decrease efficiency and make him more sluggish which would not help when fighting dudes like Gavilan

But if your talking about putting SRR in the modern era and beefing him up with all modern workouts and regimes then who knows how he'd turn out...

 

'The modern guys seem harder hitting' atsch

 

Besides George Foreman, I'll vouch for this at heavyweight. The guys from the 80's and 90's don't hit near as hard as the guys from the last decade. Apples and oranges. And George had his own brand of power that I wouldn't necessarily put in the same knockout category as Lennox Lewis and Wladimir Klitschko.

I myself trained as old school as it got. I had to make some changes about 8 years ago to keep my job and stay successful. The improvement happened almost instantly; I'm stronger, better conditioned, and quicker than I have ever been(Quick as ever for me isn't saying alot).

The results might be varied for others, but I've been there and done that, and taken those punches. Modern athletes, the ones who aren't lazy and ruined by our wrecked society, are something fierce.

One must fairly wonder where PED's come into this, but my point remains.

If I could hook my strength and conditionin coach today up with Mr. Futch 25 years ago, boxing would have been turned on its head.

 

and what about klit and lnnox compared to louis, dempsey, marciano, langford, fitzsimmons, robinson, and wilde?

archie moore, babado joe walcott, jersy joe walcott, sullivan, liston, tyson, and julian jackson?

shavers, hearns, max baer, duran, monzon, foster, danny lopez, choynski, and ketchel?

 

I took it you sparred with the older Foreman and not a prime one but still what did a punch from him feel like? Would you rank him as the hardest puncher you've felt?

 

No. Heaviest shot, maybe, up there with Dave Tua. Hurt like hell, jabs to the face all felt like nosebreakers, but I don't know that he ever hurt me by the traditional definition. Made me think of retiring once or twice, but I was never staggered. Big George had frying pans for mitts; I can see how he was so fierce younger, when he tore into guys like a killer, but as a boxer/slugger, he was not the hardest hitter I encountered.

But the hardest I've been hit is Wladimir Klitschko, by some distance. I'd never been that seriously hurt in a boxing ring before. Yikes. One minute you are just swapping jabs, looking for opening, the next minute Michael Hunter is pouring water on your face asking ya if you can hear him.