Does Lennox Lewis lift???
Moonsaullt
I read in a post one time that there are some heavyweights who train using free
weights, and some who don't. Notables that do: Tyson, Holyfield, Foreman, and
then those that do NOT train with free weights supposedly: Lennox Lewis,
Moorer...
I was wondering if any of you know much about Lewis' overall training regimen
enough to know if he trains much with free weights? He's a big guy that's for
sure. And if he doesn't, has he ever said why or why not?
And another thought... most people noticed Tyson was much more muscular and
defined when he got out of prison. Would any of you boxing experts agree that
Tyson's weight training has slowed him significantly thus explaining his loss
of movement and quickness in the ring and the deteriation of his skills???
-Anton
Ghislain
Although I'm not a boxer I abhor lifting weights. I'd much rather do
pushups,
situps and running as exercise. The great fighters: Jack Dempsey, Rocky
Marciano,
Muhammad Ali, Archie Moore never lifted weights.
A lot of people don't know this but Roy Jones Jr. has stated that he
does not
lift weights. Most people don't belive this because he has huge
biceps. People
ask me all the time if I lift weights (because I have large, defined
biceps) and
I tell them that I hate doing weights because it makes my arms feel weak
(and
SLLOOWWWW).
I'm not a boxing expert but when I see the great boxers question weight
training
I tend to agree with them. Subsequently, did anyone notice how slow
Holyfield's
arms were punching against Bean? (Holyfield is an avid weightlifter).
-Ghislain
Mwhaught
>Does anyone know about Norton? My guess would be no, but he
>definitely had the muscles.
Norton states that he did not begin lifting weights until he was rehabbing his
injuries after his auto accident.
>I've always wondered when I saw old reels of boxers chopping wood if
>that was a true training technique or if it just looked good on film.
>Anyone know if this was a serious training technique?
>
>Todd
Very good for muscular endurance. I probably was in the best shape of my life
the 2 months I split 10 cord of wood and dug out a hole for a cistern. A side
benefit...you learn to pace yourself until you're done with the job.
-mwh
Derrick Brasslett
Ghislain wrote in message <3610A5...@istar.ca>...
>Although I'm not a boxer I abhor lifting weights. I'd much rather do
>pushups,
>situps and running as exercise. The great fighters: Jack Dempsey, Rocky
>Marciano,
>Muhammad Ali, Archie Moore never lifted weights.
With the possible exception of Ali, these guys all fought in an era in which
weight training was considered 'bad' for athletes in general. Even in sports
such as American football, where strength is such an obvious factor, most
coaches discouraged their players from weight training. This attitude didn't
change much until the last couple of decades and is still prevelant in
sports (such as boxing) where tradition often rules.
BTW, I seem to remember hearing that Ali did indeed train with weights later
in his career, but I could be mistaken.
>People
>ask me all the time if I lift weights (because I have large, defined
>biceps) and
>I tell them that I hate doing weights because it makes my arms feel weak
>(and
>SLLOOWWWW).
Your arms will feel that way immediately after a workout, especially if
you're not used to training with weights.
>I'm not a boxing expert but when I see the great boxers question weight
>training
>I tend to agree with them.
Again, most of the greats you mention are old-school fighters from an
entirely different era. Many trainers now advocate weight training. IMHO it
is especially helpful for more advanced, older boxers that can use the added
strength to compensate a bit for the loss of speed and reflexes that
naturally comes with age. Younger boxers might be better off using their
time and energy concentrating on the basics, but anyone can benefit from
added strength.
Subsequently, did anyone notice how slow
>Holyfield's
>arms were punching against Bean? (Holyfield is an avid weightlifter).
The muscle-bound athlete is largely a myth. It's been shown in many studies
that strength training (properly done) does *not* slow you down. Most, if
not all, world class track and field athletes train with weights, including
sprinters. If weight training slowed them down, they wouldn't be doing it.
The benefits in a sport like boxing are harder to measure but that doesn't
mean they don't exist. Strength is only one component in boxing but all
things being equal, a stronger fighter is a better fighter.
Derrick
Moonsaullt
Derrick Brasslett writes:
Yes, but would Evander Holyfield or Mike Tyson whup Muhammad Ali? I doubt it.
And what about Lennox Lewis, i don't think he weight trains(i'm not sure about
that)... and he has the hardest right-hand in the heavies. He would whup
Evander and Tyson as well.
I use baseball as an example... your hardest throwing pitchers are not big at
all, certainly no where near as big as the power hitters, yet they throw that
ball close to 100mph. Now would you say Mark McGwire could throw heat like
that? His muscles and forearms are so much bigger. You have to possess quick
arm motion to be a pitcher(maybe quicker than a boxer).
You defeat your whole argument when you refer to the old-skool fighters as if
they were uninformed about the benefits of weight training... at least they had
good fighters back then, unlike today with the exception of a few(most in the
lower weight categories who don't weight train and Lennox). Well, i think i
have said enough, i hope you can respond.
-Anton
pa...@samerica.com
these days that doesn't lift weights, as there is specific weight training to
improve explosivity. imd you, that doesn't mean you don't have to work still
just as heavily on technique, but weight training is a very effective way of
adding sport-specific extra strength, and sometimes even speed. The training
program needs to be carefully tailored to the athlete's requirements, though,
and monitored quite often.
...pablo
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Gregory Gliedman
pa...@samerica.com wrote:
> In a nutshell: yes, lennox Lewis lifts weights. There isn't a top athlete
> these days that doesn't lift weights, as there is specific weight training to
> improve explosivity. imd you, that doesn't mean you don't have to work still
> just as heavily on technique, but weight training is a very effective way of
> adding sport-specific extra strength, and sometimes even speed. The training
> program needs to be carefully tailored to the athlete's requirements, though,
> and monitored quite often.
While I agree with you 100%, Roy Jones Jr claims he doesn't train with weights,
and that all of his arm definition is from punching.
GG
kfitzgerald
moons...@aol.com (Moonsaullt) wrote:
> And another thought... most people noticed Tyson was much more muscular and
> defined when he got out of prison. Would any of you boxing experts agree that
> Tyson's weight training has slowed him significantly thus explaining his loss
> of movement and quickness in the ring and the deteriation of his skills???
This argument goes round and rounds lots but it seems fairly clear from
the literature that I read that a properly conducted weight lifting
program should enhance physical strength, add muscle mass, and not reduce
one's speed - in fact, properly conducted, it should increase it. The vast
majority of professional athletes (and top Olympic-level amateurs) lift
weights. It's not clear what effect this has on the very specific skills
that boxers have, but it would be very surprising if it wasn't beneficial.
Remember that exercises like push-ups, sit ups, deep knee bends, squats,
etc. are all resistance exercises anyway - using body weight instead of
iron.
KF
kfitzgerald
moons...@aol.com (Moonsaullt) wrote:
>
> Yes, but would Evander Holyfield or Mike Tyson whup Muhammad Ali? I
doubt it.
> And what about Lennox Lewis, i don't think he weight trains(i'm not sure about
> that)... and he has the hardest right-hand in the heavies. He would whup
> Evander and Tyson as well.
I don't think that's the issue. The issue is that with proper training
methods an athlete can take fuller advantage of all of his physical gifts.
Given what we know today about diet alone, for instance, we could probably
improve Ali's performance - especially as he got older. In Ali's day, 32
was considered old for a fighter. In fact, there was talk of both he and
Frazier retiring as early as their first bout together. We certainly
could have improved his aerobic fitness, too. Could we have improved his
hitting power and and hand speed with weight training? That's harder to
say, because to my knowledge nobody's done specific research on any
relationship between weight training and hitting power. But it would be
surprising if we couldn't.
Having said that, there are a lot of factors in boxing and in every human
activity that have to do with genetic endowment - Ali had a very, very
long reach, even for someone of his size. He had extraordinary reflexes -
no doubt partly due to some genetic endowment. One thing that a lot of
people, forget, too, is that Ali was probably the toughest boxer who ever
lived. People think of him as the dancing master, etc., but laypeople
often forget that the guy could also take shots that nobody else could
take and just keep going. I remember the ref. from the first Frazier
fight said that the punch that knocked Ali down in the 15th round would
have floored any other fighter for a count of 80. Ali was up at 3. That's
not just training hard - there's something less tangible at work there.
> You defeat your whole argument when you refer to the old-skool fighters as if
> they were uninformed about the benefits of weight training... at least
they had
> good fighters back then, unlike today with the exception of a few(most in the
> lower weight categories who don't weight train and Lennox). Well, i think i
> have said enough, i hope you can respond.
Good fighters relative to what? Relative to other fighters at the time. I
doubt very much that a prime Joe Lewis would last long against a Holyfield
or a Lennox Lewis. For one thing, like a lot of the heavies of his day,
he was much smaller than today's fighters. He described his perfect weight
as 193. So he'd be giving up almost _fifty_ pounds to Lennox Lewis, and
about eight inches in reach, too. He also talked in his autobiography
about his workout routine. A champion fighter today will train six hours
per day for thirteen weeks or so leading up to a big fight. Lewis
described his training regime in the 40s as (I can get the exact quote if
you like) a round on the heavy bag, two rounds skipping, a round on the
light bad, two rounds of sparring, two rounds of exercise. Road work now
and then. Then go off and eat a pork chop, or whatever. Do that for three
weeks or, fight, then eat whatever you want, live however you want, until
a few weeks before the next fight. Was he in shape? Yeah. Was his
cardiovascular endurance in the 10th, 11th, or 12th round equal to today's
fighters? I simply can't see how it could be with a training regime like
that.
KF
Moonsaullt
Pablo writes:
>In a nutshell: yes, lennox Lewis lifts weights. There isn't a top athlete
>these days that doesn't lift weights, as there is specific weight training to
>improve explosivity. imd you, that doesn't mean you don't have to work still
>just as heavily on technique, but weight training is a very effective way of
>adding sport-specific extra strength, and sometimes even speed. The training
>program needs to be carefully tailored to the athlete's requirements, though,
>and monitored quite often.
>
>...pablo
How do you know this? Do you have any sources? Like I said in my inital post
on this topic, i once read a posting from a boxer stating that certain fighters
do NOT lift weights, and these included Lennox Lewis and Michael Moorer.
This guy was explaining how a boxer like himself might train. He didn't list
his sources either, but i think he knew what he was talking about at least.
If I heard Lennox say "yes, i lift weights" I wouldn't be a bit surprised, he
has nice muscle definition and is a pretty big guy. However, so was Ali, and
we know he did not train with free weights.
And just to make myself clear, I am talking about free weights, not strength
training all together. I do not consider chin ups, pushups, dips, etc as
weight training and i am sure most fighters do these. But of course everybody
knows training with your own bodyweight is different than free weight training.
-Anton
BoxMuham
>Would any of you boxing experts agree that
>Tyson's weight training has slowed him significantly thus explaining his loss
>of movement and quickness in the ring and the deteriation of his skills???
I would say Tyson's deteriorating speed and quickness have much more
to do with age than with lifting. The weights may have played a part, but the
speed he demonstrated at age 22 will naturally have slowed by age 32.
The weights would probably help if anything, in terms of tools at the
table. His lessened speed is inevitable. Increased muscle mass would aid
Tyson's other strength. Strength!
Boxmuham
Boxmuham
Alejandro Olague
>In article <36115D7B...@oxy.edu>,
> Gregory Gliedman <glie...@oxy.edu> wrote:
>
>> While I agree with you 100%, Roy Jones Jr claims he doesn't train with
>weights,
>> and that all of his arm definition is from punching.
>
>I don't believe that for a second. He's just trying to raise the myth of being
>an old school fighter or something. He sure did lift weights in the amateurs
>leading to the Olympics (it's pretty much mandatory part of high level amateur
>boxing training), and I am sure he still does hit a weight program. he doesn't
>*bodybuild*, that I believe.
>
I was looking at some old pictures(of some of his first few pro
fights) and he looked much less defined than he does now.
Alejandro
pa...@samerica.com
> While I agree with you 100%, Roy Jones Jr claims he doesn't train with
weights,
> and that all of his arm definition is from punching.
I don't believe that for a second. He's just trying to raise the myth of being
an old school fighter or something. He sure did lift weights in the amateurs
leading to the Olympics (it's pretty much mandatory part of high level amateur
boxing training), and I am sure he still does hit a weight program. he doesn't
*bodybuild*, that I believe.
...pablo
Frank rosario
use free weights and usually they are very light(if you know anything
about boxing and i don't mean this as an insult but you will also know
that muscle in general carry more weight) therefore it would be in the
best interest to keep his weight at the maximum in as great a shape as
possible but without that added bulk.basically for endurance purposes.if
you go down in history following the great champs such as
ali,marciano,louis etc.you would have noticed that none of those
mentioned were really "ripped".as for tyson ,prison does a number on
your mind as well as your head and his head was really never straight
before he got locked up.forget him tyson was good for the sport for a
while and has his place in history ,but as far as the future of boxing
with him in it.boxing can do without him.any true boxer with talent can
do him big time ,remember what happened to him in japan,that should show
you where his talents really lie.feel free to answer,if you dare to
care.
it's been quite fabulous:almost breathtaking to say the least,but for
now i've got to go. never saying goodbye but just until next time your
alltime friend frankiefab
BGMiddle35
I dont know where you read that Moorer doesnt lift weights but that is not
true. When Moorer trained here in Tampa for his fight with Foreman he trained
at Calta's Boxing and Fitness Gym. His regular training regime consisted of
running in the morning, WEIGHT training after that and then coming to the gym
in the evening to spar. I know this because I trained with him at the time.
Incidently I also trained with Shannon Briggs when he came here and he is a
regular weight trainer too. As far as other top fighters who train? I would
estimate almost 90 percent do in one form or another.I train with Alex Stewart
on a regular basis and he made mention that lifting weights three times a week
was part of Riddick Bowes regular training when he was in camp with Bowe also
and that it was a big deal because "Old Time" trainer Eddie Futch was the one
who had to be convinced to allow Bowe to do it. But relented when presented
with evidence of its benefits.
In the last year and a half I have trained with guys like Golota, Tua, Rahman,
Zab Judah, Phillip Holiday, Cory Sanders and many others and all of them use
weights in their training, (Holiday and Judah are not big men:)). There is a
difference between using lifting for fitness and lifting for bodybuilding, a
huge difference. Alot of it has to do with diet too. But times have changed and
most modern day trainers all encourage their fighters to incorperate weights in
one form or another to better their training. And this is not coming from
something I read but what I actually have been witness to.
MIKE
Johnboy
> > I would say Tyson's deteriorating speed and quickness have much more
> >to do with age than with lifting. The weights may have played a part, but the
> >speed he demonstrated at age 22 will naturally have slowed by age 32.
>
> Emanuel Steward said that he thought Tyson's style of fighting like
> Jack Dempsey's wasn't conducive to an older fighter. Its dependent
> upon aggressiveness, speed and pressure.
The same could, plus wear and tear, be said for Joe Frazier.
Johnboy
Derrick Brasslett
>
>Yes, but would Evander Holyfield or Mike Tyson whup Muhammad Ali? I doubt
it.
An opinion I share, but one that does nothing to disprove what I said.
Strength is only one component of performance. As I said before, the
stronger athlete is a better athlete *all thing being equal*. A better
question IMO is, would Evander Holyfield be a better fighter if he didn't
train with weights? I highly doubt it.
>And what about Lennox Lewis, i don't think he weight trains(i'm not sure
about
>that)...
I don't know either, though I'd be a bit surprised if he didn't.
and he has the hardest right-hand in the heavies. He would whup
>Evander and Tyson as well.
Both statements are 100% opinion and even if you're right, it doesn't prove
anything re: the benefits of strength training.
>I use baseball as an example... your hardest throwing pitchers are not big
at
>all, certainly no where near as big as the power hitters, yet they throw
that
>ball close to 100mph. Now would you say Mark McGwire could throw heat like
>that? His muscles and forearms are so much bigger. You have to possess
quick
>arm motion to be a pitcher(maybe quicker than a boxer).
I'm not sure what your point is here.
>You defeat your whole argument when you refer to the old-skool fighters as
if
>they were uninformed about the benefits of weight training...
Anything I've read about the training methods of older fighter leads me to
believe either they *were* uninformed of weight training's benefits or were
encourged to avoid it. It was commonly believed that weight training would
slow you down, make you "muscle-bound", or even destroy your back. There is
both research and empirical evidence that shows these notions to be myths,
yet they persist to this day.
at least they had
>good fighters back then, unlike today with the exception of a few(most in
the
>lower weight categories who don't weight train and Lennox).
Boxing had a greater depth of good fighters in the "old days", but it had
nothing to do with training methods. If you read about great fighters like
Harry Greb, you'll find a lot of 'training practices' (like spending his
time in whorehouses instead of the gym) that no one in their right mind
would advocate. Boxing is a whole lot more than brute strength or even
physical talent and conditoning, but being strong and in condition certainly
contribute to sucess.
AFA your comment re: Lewis -- I won't go there. 8-)
Derrick
Derrick Brasslett
Moonsaullt wrote in message <19980929205757...@ng143.aol.com>...
>If I heard Lennox say "yes, i lift weights" I wouldn't be a bit surprised,
he
>has nice muscle definition and is a pretty big guy. However, so was Ali,
and
>we know he did not train with free weights.
As I posted previously, I thought I heard Angelo Dundee say that Ali did
train with weights in the later years of his career. But whether he did or
didn't really doesn't matter IMO.
>And just to make myself clear, I am talking about free weights, not
strength
>training all together. I do not consider chin ups, pushups, dips, etc as
>weight training and i am sure most fighters do these. But of course
everybody
>knows training with your own bodyweight is different than free weight
training.
Sure, it's different. What they're doing is a less effective form of weight
training. An athlete does the above exercises to add strength, and it works
up to a point. However, once a fighter can pull or push up their own weight
easily there is no longer a benefit to the exercise in terms of adding
strength.
There is some debate amongst trainers and coaches about which is better,
machines (such as Nautilus, Cybex etc.) or free weights, but it is
universally accepted that the most efficient means of gaining strength is to
train with progressive resistance -- something that chin-up, etc. won't
provide unless your adding weight somehow.
Derrick
pa...@samerica.com
Joh...@zzapp.org wrote:
> > Emanuel Steward said that he thought Tyson's style of fighting like
> > Jack Dempsey's wasn't conducive to an older fighter. Its dependent
> > upon aggressiveness, speed and pressure.
>
> The same could, plus wear and tear, be said for Joe Frazier.
Right, and how long did Frazier's prime last? It is true that Tyson and
Frazier lost their most important boxing assets as a natural consequence of
the ageing process.
...pablo
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Johnboy
> Right, and how long did Frazier's prime last? It is true that Tyson and
> Frazier lost their most important boxing assets as a natural consequence of
> the ageing process.
Frazier, in his biography, implies that aging had less to do with the
decline in his abilities than just the punishment he had to absord
fighting. He would cataglogue kinks, eye injruies, etc. Anyway, that was
what he implied about himself.
I think that fighting styles like his just are not meant to be kept up
over a long career. Not only is it more demanding physically, but the
ability to recover from the sort of punishment that it entails is going
to decline with age.
Johnboy
Gregory Gliedman
pa...@samerica.com wrote:
> In article <361252...@zzapp.org>,
> Joh...@zzapp.org wrote:
> > > Emanuel Steward said that he thought Tyson's style of fighting like
> > > Jack Dempsey's wasn't conducive to an older fighter. Its dependent
> > > upon aggressiveness, speed and pressure.
> >
> > The same could, plus wear and tear, be said for Joe Frazier.
>
> Right, and how long did Frazier's prime last? It is true that Tyson and
> Frazier lost their most important boxing assets as a natural consequence of
> the ageing process.
>
IMO Frazier's style was one that put a lot of wear on the body. He was always
ready to take another man's shot to give one of his own, and over the long haul
that isn't a great way to maintain your abilities.
Tyson OTOH, was a reasonably elusive fighter when he was younger. Cus
D'Amato's peekaboo style and Tyson's head movement made him a difficult
target. Unlike Frazier, who would get hit a lot even in fights where he
dominated (Frazier-Quarry being a good example) it was rare to see the young
Tyson hit with a clean shot.
GG
justin chanho pak
>
> Ghislain wrote in message <3610A5...@istar.ca>...
>
[snip]
> Subsequently, did anyone notice how slow
> >Holyfield's
> >arms were punching against Bean? (Holyfield is an avid weightlifter).
>
>
> The muscle-bound athlete is largely a myth. It's been shown in many studies
> that strength training (properly done) does *not* slow you down. Most, if
> not all, world class track and field athletes train with weights, including
> sprinters. If weight training slowed them down, they wouldn't be doing it.
> The benefits in a sport like boxing are harder to measure but that doesn't
> mean they don't exist. Strength is only one component in boxing but all
> things being equal, a stronger fighter is a better fighter.
>
> Derrick
What Derrick writes is true. Yes, muscle mass can slow you down,
but that's usually when the person has little or no flexibility. A simple
stretching program after a workout will solve that. In addition, as long
as the boxer keeps training properly, there's no reason why it would slow
him down...
Just my (US)$.02...
Chico
>
>Sure, it's different. What they're doing is a less effective form of weight
>training. An athlete does the above exercises to add strength, and it works
>up to a point. However, once a fighter can pull or push up their own weight
>easily there is no longer a benefit to the exercise in terms of adding
>strength.
>
>There is some debate amongst trainers and coaches about which is better,
>machines (such as Nautilus, Cybex etc.) or free weights, but it is
>universally accepted that the most efficient means of gaining strength is to
>train with progressive resistance -- something that chin-up, etc. won't
>provide unless your adding weight somehow.
Derrick, I agree 100% with everything that you've written on this
subject.
Everything that you wrote is absolutely correct and not open to any
intelligent debate.
BUT- machines (GOOD ones like Nautilus, MedX, and Hammer) ARE superior
to free weights for building muscular size/strength. With these machines,
you do not have to deal with variables like balance and coordination-
therefore you can devote all of your efforts towards full, high-intensity
contractions.
Chico
TICKYUL
>BUT- machines (GOOD ones like Nautilus, MedX, and Hammer) ARE superior
>to free weights for building muscular size/strength.
I guess you are right,but the great fred hatfield disagrees with you.You might
want to give his book "power a scientific approach" a read.
King...@webtv.net
> > Chico wrote:
> > BUT- machines (GOOD ones like Nautilus, MedX, and Hammer) ARE superior
> > to free weights for building muscular size/strength.
> TICKYUL wrote:
> I guess you are right,but the great fred hatfield disagrees with you.You might
> want to give his book "power a scientific approach" a read.
Doctor Squat is wrong as usual.
Chico
Eric Taylor
: BUT- machines (GOOD ones like Nautilus, MedX, and Hammer) ARE superior
: therefore you can devote all of your efforts towards full, high-intensity
some machines are real good. for instance, when doing flys with free
weights, you don't get pressure through the whole movement, so the
machines are better for that exercise. However, for plain old, big
weight exercises the free weights are better because of the balance and
coordination aspect. when you do leg presses on a machine you develop
your quads very well, but that's it. on the other hand, when you do
squats, you not only work your quads but you also work all the
stabilizing muscles around your knee, which is especially important
when you want to reduce risks of injury in sports. Sometimes an
athelete is physically unable to use free weights (for instance, a bad
back may rule out the squat for an athelete) and then he has to use
machines. Just my opinion.
--- edt