How would 21st century training, nutrition 'n PEDs improved ATGs?

Yes Im specifically talking about alex ariza who Roach uses. He is very educated in his field, went to college specifically for sports medicine.

I think the same can be said for a lot of boxing trainers these days as far as them being **** poor.


No Mike Tyson is a perfect example of a fighter who went the wrong direction. More into weights and strength and conditioning than boxing, and thats why his timing never really returned.

 

Exactly,thats one of my theories of why mike went down hill,he didnt need weights and conditioning,the boy just needed to train to lose weight and sharpen himself up.
Tyson was better when he trained old school,holyfield the opposite...

 

When did I say old school training was bad? I didnt, I said modern nutrition and some modern training science adds to the performance, which both do.

Is it a coincidence all of the fastest hands of all time are exclusive to the last 30 years?

BTW old school training is a bit of a generalistion, lots of people train differently, always have

 

If you have then that proves you can't follow the logic of a basic conversation, you must have the lowest IQ of anyone on this board and thats saying allot. Immediately take your ADD medication before you forget to breath

And what part of the word highlights don't you not understand? The clue is in the word, what a ****wit

 

Tyson is an example of a fighter who lost his hunger, had his life go off the rails, indulged in coke/weed/women/partying instead of training, became innactive for 4years and everyone was shocked with the consequencial ring results

 

1. Yet you can't answer many of my key points and ignore the basic fact that I cn find ore fighters ripped in the last 8years than you can find in the pre 70s - if there is a bias on this thread thats it

2. So you admit you stooping to the level of purposely agreeing with nonsensical posts to strengten your case, pretty low

I'll leave the thread now as no one here has a clue about training or nutrition anyway

 

I wasn't addressing that part to you in particular.
I'm pointing out that people refering to "pre-70s" and "pre-80s" (it may have been you, and others, I cant remember) seems to assume that the modern nutrition and modern training science came along in the 70s or 80s.
I say it came later anyway.

Is it even true ?

Hand speed is very largely genetic.

I absolutely agree.
But I'm purposely using "old school training" as a very broad generalisation, basically everything and anything excluding what is new to the last 25 years.

 

I haven't been keeping score of who's produced the most photos of ripped fighters.
I've got better things to do than try to convince you of something you'll never accept. And you probably have the same view towards me.

Again, you state "pre 70s" but none of that nutritional supplementation, increase in weight training or "scientific" outlook came to the fore in boxing training during the 1970s, so I'm puzzled as to why that's your cut-off.

No. I dont even see myself as having a "case". I have an opinion, which I would happily change if there was any compelling evidence.

In other words, you know a lot less than you thought you knew but want to save face. :good

 

PP,its quite ironic that you say i cant follow logic ( and thats not a word i would use to describe most of your posts.) ,yet mostly NOBODY agress with 90% of what you post. Is it that nearly everybody doesnt follow your so called 'logic'?
I notice you also like to call names when you are upset or someone calls BS,thats a sign of a poor intellect.
Your very predictable,in almost every thread we know what your are going to say,and how you are going to say it.
In boxing terms you are one dimensional,a veritable sven ottke....

 

Ahh trying to claim another low move. Umm you havent brought a single point to the table, do you seriously think you'd be able to say something I dont have an answer for?

Your opinion is based on rose tinted glasses and your not really going to change it, the point of the matter is modern fighters typically have less bodyfat on average. Hence I was giving up on the convo as you'll never agree no matter what proof I bring

 

No. I'm actually looking for answers.

Why do you say "pre-70s" when none of the modern nutritional supplements and other advances came to the fore until much later ?

You've brought no proof.

But if you're leaving, take this photo of Kelly Pavlik with you :

This content is protected

 

Did you look up the definition of highlight yet ******

You're very aware that you can't respond directly to the points I made because you've been well and truly owned.

Let me recap for you Captain ADD. We were having a conversation about the average bodyfat level in boxers of different eras, I wasnt saying it was the most important part of boxing by any means, but we were debating it. You come on with your irrelevance that its not the most important thing in boxing, no **** sherlock. Aren't you tired of embarrassing yourself?

BTW people disagree with me on here because I rip their fave fighters to shreds and make them :| You act like people on the Classic actually know their boxing, they generally dont and few know the basics on how to actually box

I'm suprised you figured out how to turn on the computer though, well done, or did someone do that for you?

 

Because you'd prob bring up fighters Norton/Shavers who I suspect may have been roiding. Weight training became more prevailant in the 70s

And whoever sad roids had been aroud for 70years, whether that true or not, boxers havent been using them that long

 

Yawn.....
Anybody would think we are in the prescence of the late eddie futch...
Instead,its probably some unemployed 20 year old who majored in table tennis....
Internet geniuses,wasted on riff raff like us...

 

:yep