What's the point of mitt drills?

His name is DealtWith.

 

I read through some of his threads thinking I might learn something but it turns out he's a complete idiot He even tried to say he could run a mile in less than 2 minutesatsch

 

Do you understand what sarcasm is? He was blatantly being sarcastic in that thread.

Overall DW knows more than 99.9% of people on this forum when it comes to strength and conditioning. Having said that, can you quote something he's said that shows he's an idiot and explain why he's wrong?

 

Ok Virus I'll take the bait :smoke

He said:

From another thread by poster John Garfield:

"If Willie abstained from ***, RJJ, it could only have been long enough to down a bottle of J&B

When I first met Rocky Graziano at Stillman's Gym, he was hitting a speed bag 'n smoking a cigarette, as most of the ATG's were between rounds of sparring.

Smoking 'n drinking was considered macho then. All the trainers smoked cigars."

Hey it worked for the all time greats, smoking between rounds is the key."

Yes I know he was being sarcastic but his goal was to discredit the old school method of training by implying that since they thought smoking was good then their entire system of training is flawed. This is an incorrect assertion because not all of the atg's from that era and previous era's were smoking while training.

In Jack Dempsey's book "Championship Fighting" he says "I neither smoked nor drank before I became champion. I would not preach to others that they likewise should refrain from tobacco and alcohol. However, I believe that my avoidance of smoking and drinking gave me that extra bit of stamina which enabled me to win several hard fights by the narrowest of margins."

Here even in the WWI era at least Jack Dempsey knew smoking was bad for you at least in the sense of training.

I believe that the reason so many fighters, from the era that DW was discrediting, smoked was because it was an addiction. Nobody really gave a fvck anyway. I asked my Dad about it years ago and he said that his parents knew it was a bad habit so they simply kicked it yet had been smoking for years. It wasn't so much that people were under the assumption that it was healthy they just didn't know had bad it was to a certain extent. The reason so many of the people on this forum are under the impression that people from years ago thought smoking was good was because they use tobacco ads as reference.

 

He didn't imply their entire system was flawed at all. He said that as many people come back with "oh but (insert ATG here) used to do this so obviously it works". DW was sarcastic saying well they smoked so why don't you?

I can see you're attacking DW in an attempt to get at Paulie, you're definitely attacking the wrong person as some sort of retaliation. As I stated earlier, knowledge-wise DW knows more about this stuff than pretty much everyone on the forum. Labelling him an idiot based on a sarcastic troll thread is a ridiculous thing to do.

 

Yes he did imply it. It seems that every time I have quoted him you defend it by saying it was sarcastic. I don't buy into that excuse. After he said he could run a 42 km in 48 minutes all of his fans were saying stuff like "wow thats impressive!" hardly sarcastic.

I don't know how by me saying that DW is an idiot gets at Paulie. They are two different people. Paulie for some reason keeps attempting to make up stuff for example I said that chopping wood increases power and it has been proven to then Paulie said "but it doesn't improve acceleration". Paulie hardly understands the physics concepts that he talks about. Acceleration is the change in speed over time not speed overall. For example if a car starts off going 40mph and increases to 42 mph then it has an acceleration of 2 mph.

 

OK, mate. You carry on embarrassing yourself. I'm out.

 

So you initiate debates and bonk out whenever someone disagrees...got it.:thumbsup

 

DealtWith came here!

 

So have we come to the consensus that Mitt work is pointless past the beginner stages the way that 99% of trainers out there do it?

 

Point being that most people revert back to what comes natural to them and how they were initially trained. This is a major peeve of mine which is most clubs are run by rich idiots who have never boxed.

The first gym I started out was owned and managed by a 60+ coach who got his start in boxing in a boxercise class. Later he took over a gym, another gym was owned by a former junkie who owned a concrete laying business. This idiot was my coach both in the amateurs as well as in the pros. His style was to move the shoulders and throw long punches. He ruined a two time Olympian who he got by offering him a job. Another coach got an inheritance and opened a gym, they all had their own styles and exercise routines which were unalterable. Many of them had quite a following fans and friends and were looked upon as gurus. Getting back to my old coach who was the go to man for training, his style consisted of doing two things moving the shoulders and throwing long looping hooks. Most of the time he'd criticize other coaches just after one of their fighters beat his fighter, by saying when my guys get hit I feel it too. So just throw long punches and move your shoulders. He was a cruddy coach and never had any substantial wins.

So for the poor coaches out there my advice is to get a kid and go to a rich guys gym advertising yourself as a club without a gym.

 

The problem is when certain users come on here and say they are a trainer/coach, strength and conditioning whatever you can't have an opinion against them as they are correct all the time which therefore leaves no opening for a debate.

Whilst I would like to think they do know better, I don't think anyone ever stops learning, there always different ways of achieving same results and no one person knows everything and or knows how an individual is going to respond to that approach.

 

In my mind a trainer who trains/trained highly successful pros and amateurs isn't going to come on a forum and waste as much time arguing instead of spending time training fighters. It doesn't make sense to me. Being a successful trainer is very time consuming. At the amateur level they are always calling and organizing bouts, traveling, training fighters, etc. and pro is trainer is just as busy with his own stable of fighters if not more.

I have to see proof before I take somebodies word for it that they are a top trainer and know what they are talking about. Especially if they say something extremely stupid like "don't do roadwork". I have never come across a trainer other than on here that has said not to do roadwork.

 

harray krisnas, moonies, Mormons, seventh day-Adventists, jehovahs witnesses all claim to have the truth and lesson studies leading to hidden truths. Now we can add trainers to that list :nut

 

I have never seen a true consensus of anything discussed in these forums, so I really doubt that we will ever have one here. There are many different levels of talent in trainers/coaches just as there are levels of talent in boxers. Training has to be made-to-fit for each individual boxer. For some higher level boxers, mitt work is more an enjoyable interaction between coach and boxer than anything else. Mitts done well is just plain fun to do. I often watch for boredom in boxers and once I see that I take them to do mitts. It renews and rejuvenates them and me. I am always looking for new things to do with them. Mitts are an excellent one-on-one training opportunity to work on things that need improvement. Mitts to me are a important part of the key to victory for a boxer. It is but ONE part but an equally important one. However, even if mitt work was nothing more than a coach/boxer interaction I would still do it.