Weight Lifting for boxing

there's so many open ended things you leave to what you have to say its not worth it arguing with you.

dosnt necessarily build mass? if my shoulders get bigger but my body weight's the same ive still put mass on my shoulders is that one of necessiaralies? or say you do compund movements sure you have a weight specific for certain muscles but how do you know how that weight is going to react with your stabilizer muscles and synergistic? if your at 70-90% 1 rm which is where it should be for 3-5 rep sets then your synergists and stabilizers are hitting right around 50% perfect for building mass. another necessarily?

"in a way" which results in greater force? and how does it do that? magic? greater speed? greater speed then what? then no weights? how do you do something with weights at a greater speed then with out weights? or with less weights? there is no greater speed its simply the same speed under greater resistance allowing for greater acceleration to the same exact speed.

you train for top speed with out weights and acceleration with weights the two go together quite well.

when done right? ohhh so 3 exercises twice a week is right? sounds fine by me.

and that theory is bull **** for reasons above? please point out the reasons above that have anything to do with my theory instead of just claiming things are there that dont exist.

 

Are you drunk? Is English your first language? Are you infact, a caveman?

 

running is included in boxing to train your legs to support your weight and teach you to breath properly. if running was in boxing solely for cardio you could swim bike row.....do all kinds of things in place of it. but im sure most trainers will tell you nothing beats road work and thats because its not just for cardio respitory fitness.

and i allready mentioned claiming fast twitch fibers to be better simply because fast is in their name dosnt count as a reason why a boxer would want them more then slow twitch.

flick out your pointer finger and then then simply point your pointer finger out when did it go out faster? now lets say you train your pointer finger every day till your no longer flicking it you just power through your thumb it dosnt even feel like your thumbs there any more. Is there still a flick? are you still as fast?

 

Are you serious? You sound very confused, I think you are mixing up neural adaptions with the functions of fast and slow twitch fibres. It's hard to understand what you're trying to say with the way you write. You know how I advised you to read a physiology book? I take that back, you should start with something more appropriate, such as 'Spot goes to school'.

 

well its merly a theory and im not quite sure how the neural strengthening and fast twitch fibers are connected and theres also other factors involved i had read a study a while ago where they took both fast twitch fibers and slow twitch fibers and exposed them to stuff and found that fast twitch fibers contract immediately when stimulated with electricity as well as slight contractions when submerged in an potassium solution where the slow twitch muscles didnt react to either which shows that the muscle actually needs to be in a human connected to a brain to contract so id imagine the ability to control slow twitch much better then fast twitch allows for improved timing and kinetic linking while a lack of timed control with fast twitch would account for crappy kinetic linking less speed and less snap.

perhaps a combination of both being too strong and a lack of distinct control over each distal segment due to a high percent of fast twitch fibers.

 

You're such a moron. You really need to stop with your awful theories and listen to people that actually have a clue. Ask questions, don't try to argue for points when you know absolutely **** all.

I laughed pretty hard when I read that... Lets make this simple; Tyson, one of the best, most powerful punchers ever to box, does he have more fast twitch muscle fibres or more slow twitch?

If your punches back up your theories I'd rather punch like Tyson than have the same power as your slow, awful punches.

 

atsch

 

one nice advantage of fast twitch fibers is that a sense of distance is not required.

 

Answer the question...

Oh, and that was idiotic. Maybe you can explain what you think muscle fibre types has to do with sense of distance.

 

umm yeah he definatly has fast twitch fibers.

 

Slow twitch fibres are for finer motor movements so they are obviously important in a high skill sport such as boxing. So are fast powerful movements from the fast twitch fibres. Everybody has a combination of slow and fast twitch fibres. It's not one or the other. Fast people have a greater percentage of fast twitch fibres. I almost understand where you are going with it all but you are wrong.As I said just try and educate yourself abit, you can't just come up with theories and present yourself as an authority on a subject when you don't understand the basic science behind the things you are talking about.

 

You're wrong, again. I've lifted heavy weights for the past 8 years (heavy as in a lot of fast twich muscle fibres recruited) and since I've practiced boxing and kickboxing my punches and kicks have only become harder and faster and I've always had a snap in my punches.

Am I a freak of nature or are your theories bull****?

 

This whole post is you admitting you don't actually know what you're talking about. Why are you arguing a point when you don't even understand it?

I know **** all about engines, but under your logic this means I could go to a mechanic and tell him that we don't need to use engines because the Flintstones did just fine without them.

 

id say its more like your talk is.

2 days later you suddenly decided to answer my question with the perfect shut me down answer?

all you've done since you've got in this thread is repeat the same thing thats been said before and patting other posters on the back.

its fairly obvious who's worth my time and who's not and your not.

 

its not admitting i dont understand it its admitting i dont completely understand it.

i argue a point i dont completely understand to get a better understanding, who better to see the flaws in an idea then the people who think im wrong? and how better to progress then continue arguing it?