How come boxers nowadays are a lot more ripped?

They pale in comparison with technical skills for the most part, it has to be said though, as they do in activity. Id blame that mostly on the trainers of today though.

 

this is not true at all. Hearns,Hagler, Jackson, anyone you can think had great bodies. Compare Hearns at 154 to Canelo Alvarez and Hearns looks more ripped. I think it is the exact same with maybe more ripped guys before since I think guys of the past were more motivated. Guys now cherrypick.

 

Kid, you need to stfu. Repeat sprints are aerobic training, and better aerobic training than long slow runs. It's about bioenergetic specificity, whenever you're doing anything there's always the phosphagen system, glycolytic system and aerobic system working in varying ratios. It's not a matter of what is better, it's a matter of what is sports specific. Going for long runs is nothing like boxing. Repeat sprints with short rests, that's getting closer.
Since you've been here you've said some doozys, don't train legs, only run long distance, move your head without moving your body and probably others I've forgotten. You're either an idiot or very young and uneducated.

 

The ******edness of the 'modern' argument that somehow training, nutrition has increased so much since the 60s and 80s that it transformed atheletes must be confronted.

Truth is that most athletes back then had more heart (there exercises were primarily calesthenics/plyo) and hda to do a lot more repitition than weight lifting. Ie tyson based his workout plan on Frazier which was almost consistently bodyweight exercises. Foreman was like this too but would include, like Hearns, weighted medicine balls for his core exercises. They also had a better sense of nutrition and lived in an America without heavily processed foods, a tradition upbringing where mom's cooked nutritious food and dads with high school degrees could feed a family of four.

Any dumbass need to look at athletes today, whether in boxing (Bowe) or during the Superbowl the 49ers defensive line to know that athletes today wouldn't be able to tell the simple fact that cutting requires a calorie deficit and gaining a surplus. Yet I'm sure their 'strength' coaches probably tell them to eat sugar free and avoid fat calories

The argument also somehow, to my amazement, precludes weights in anything before 2000/the 1990s. Weights have been around for a long time and have been in boxing for a long time. I remember very specifically Ali using them during one of his training camps, and I wish I could dig out a picture showing a close up of Ali's arm, but he was one of the most aesthetically ripped and beautiful mother****ers out there. It's the same with the shift from distance running in the 80s to modern day sprinting. It has been known since the 70s that long distance running decreases testosterone and springs increase it. Why the shift then? I don't know. It seems more cultural to me. For instance a lot of boxers and athletes are wearing minamlist shoes these days. That was a big thing in the 60s but then we went to padded shoes in the 70s. What's the trend behind this? Dont know there are advantages to both types of shoes.

So the argument is stupid. I think any sort of gains for athletes (except for PEDs) has been overshadowed by larger nutritional trends in our society to more processed foods and less understanding of discipline. It's no coincidence to me that you see so many of these Eastern European and Asian immigrant fighters. The type of food and environment they come up in produces a lot of consistesy and nutrition (Afro American atheletes are an interesting contrast to this, and I have my own opinion about this) As someone pointed out hydration plays a large factor in today's game and they have 24 hours to play with it.

If one thing that modern day boxers have going for them, it's that style's over the last 15-20 years have become a lot more defensive, and 'smarter' vs going for the KO. For instance at 147+, as much as it hurts me to say this I don't ever see Leonard beating a Sweet Pea or Mayweather. Very different styles and I dont think Leonard would know how to deal with them even if you had 3 matches.

That's the biggest shift with a noticeable impact. Not nutrition. The game has gotten smarter. PEDs to people, our bodies haven't changed that much in 30,000 years

 

because they lift more weights.


/end thread

 

Right and they also get hurt 90% more often! Go figure. Nowadays a guy does jump rope and tears his oblique in half,is out for 9 months.

 

If a strength and conditioning coach had the athlete performing bodybuilding exercises he wouldn't be a strength and conditioning coach.

 

This makes no goddamn sense. Why would a defensive line or Riddick Bowe be cutting? A defensive line in particular needs to be as big and strong as possible, getting 'cut' isn't helpful if those are your goals. Also what the **** is a calorie deficit and gaining a surplus, that doesn't make any sense at all. Any ****ing idiot knows that you need to be on a calorie deficit to lose weight. A strength coach would be telling them to eat plenty of carbohydrates to replenish their glycogen stores, make sure they have adequate protein and limit fat intake if they were trying to cut weight. Old timers didn't know much about nutrition, they would have steak for every meal with some veggies. Even heavyweights would go for constant long runs and try to drop weight, they were in a constant glycogen depleted state so they didn't have the substrates available for high intensity training, hence why you see old footage of guys looking soft and fighting at a slow pace.

 

steroids

 

They arent

 

Dude the point was that they are flabby as hell! How does that flab benefit an athlete? They end up drinking protein shakes etc instead of eating soluble and nutritious fiborous food. This is why you see guts on them.

Point is whatever advances we have seen have been sorely outweighed by athletic education of basic nutrition

 

There are exceptions to everything. But the reason MORE fighters are ripped is because of weights.
You out of shape ***s overestimate how hard it is to get ripped.

 

Hey, man. Happy Birthday.

 

thanks again man

that's not bad and I'm not singling out any one person. I'm just saying in general for guys who are uninformed or not in working out or athletics, it's not hard to get ripped.
If you're completely fat, then it'll be tougher, but most people have no idea about the human body. People who don't realize getting a caloric deficit is the way to lose weight

 

The defensive line needs to be as big and strong as possible. Obviously to be putting on muscle and size you need to be taking in more calories than you're expending and obviously you're better safe than sorry, you're far better off taking in too much rather than too little. Not only for maximising muscle gain but the added fat is simply a bonus, they need all of that weight and as much of it as possible. For a strength or power athlete you need some more body fat, being 'cut' is rarely good for performance. Some of the best olympic weightlifters of all time have guts, and those guys are the strongest and most powerful athletes in all of sport.
Having very little body fat is good for endurance athletes just for simple economical reasons, having non-contractile tissue weighing them down over 40km isn't so useful. Bodybuilders, fitness models they need low body fat. Weight class athletes need low body fat. A heavyweight in any sport or a player in a sport that needs bulk should always have a comfortable level of body fat. Some are okay with less but some don't perform as well unless they have a bit more. Bigger endurance sort of guys generally need more body fat as they have more slow twitch fibres which rely on oxidising fat.
The bigger guys who are explosive athletes and don't do long distance training, like Haye and Wlad, have less body fat and that's their natural. They have fast twitch fibres and they rely on glycogen to power everything.