Why Do Boxers Do A Lot Of Sit-ups?

[magicman531]

Are all the old time fighting methods worthless? No. Can some be improved? Sure.

Yes, this is where I said they had no merit? Please read it through again... I never said they were worthless. Infact I said the very opposite.

 

[SwiftMcvay]

Yes, this is where I said they had no merit? Please read it through again... I never said they were worthless. Infact I said the very opposite.

Its not whether or not things can improve. Its that there is no actual evidence that other methods are better. There is, however, more than a century worth of evidence to support that high rep ab work is good for boxers. Until some really good actual fighters, who test things out in the ring say low rep ab work with weights is better, I won't believe it. I just have a hard time believing some of the shit that a guy with a masters from Harvard says, when putting food on the table doesn't depend on how he performs in the ring.

 

[Sinister]

Its not whether or not things can improve. Its that there is no actual evidence that other methods are better. There is, however, more than a century worth of evidence to support that high rep ab work is good for boxers. Until some really good actual fighters, who test things out in the ring say low rep ab work with weights is better, I won't believe it. I just have a hard time believing some of the shit that a guy with a masters from Harvard says, when putting food on the table doesn't depend on how he performs in the ring.

*applauds*

Holy shit someone gets it.

 

[magicman531]

Its not whether or not things can improve. Its that there is no actual evidence that other methods are better. There is, however, more than a century worth of evidence to support that high rep ab work is good for boxers. Until some really good actual fighters, who test things out in the ring say low rep ab work with weights is better, I won't believe it. I just have a hard time believing some of the that a guy with a masters from Harvard says, when putting food on the table doesn't depend on how he performs in the ring.

Atleast you're open to the idea that there might be something better out there for fighters. That's all I'm saying, keep an open mind to them. Not like some of the other close-minded posters (eh King? hehehe).

 

[NeoOsiris]

I've been told from a boxer that its for muscle endurance for the core since they have to go 12 rounds and take quite a bit of body shots. In the end, does it really hurt to do 300 crunches? Not really. If you have the time why not do em, add in something with the crunches like sitting up and hitting a heavy bag, then going back down.

 

[Fedorable]

wgfre

 

[Madmick]

I actually thought the first poster- although he was a bit cheeky- was right on.

Do you use your core in boxing? Yes. Is endurance more important in boxing than in the other combat sports? Yes. Are sit-ups both a time-tested and book-promoted technique for increasing core strength and endurance? Yes.

Fedorable, I have familiarity with your history as a poster. You know this stuff. Why would you train abs solely in the max strength & power range when you're taking literally hundreds of punches to the gut each fight? Honestly, I don't understand where you're getting confused.

 

[Fedorable]

I actually thought the first poster- although he was a bit cheeky- was right on.

Do you use your core in boxing? Yes. Is endurance more important in boxing than in the other combat sports? Yes. Are sit-ups both a time-tested and book-promoted technique for increasing core strength and endurance? Yes.

Fedorable, I have familiarity with your history as a poster. You know this stuff. Why would you train abs solely in the max strength & power range when you're taking literally hundreds of punches to the gut each fight? Honestly, I don't understand where you're getting confused.

I never said that. I never said I would train anything solely one way or another. I was just thinking about a program for myself and I was wondering if a high repetition sit-up regiment was right for me since I already have other means of lifting and GPP and skills training that work ab/core endurance and strength.

 

[Centaur]

One way to make sure is too do both. Do the crzy 250 sit-up, russian twist, leg lifts or whatever your boxing/Muay Thai coach has you do.

Then, once or twice a week, grab a swiss ball, a low pullied double end cable and do some low rep, high weight abs workouts. Or a dumbell between the feet and some leg lifts on the Roman chair. Best of both worlds.

 

[Sinister]

Atleast you're open to the idea that there might be something better out there for fighters. That's all I'm saying, keep an open mind to them. Not like some of the other close-minded posters (eh King? hehehe).

You're mistaking closed-mindedness for needing valid proof before changing something that's been validated and proven.

"Be open-minded" is easy for people to say who don't do this to put food on the table and clothes on their backs.

 

[blanko]

let's not talk about "food on the table and clothes on their backs" please. People thought that drinking water while working out was bad for you, people thought that lifting was bad for you, people who had to put "food on the table and clothes on their backs" basically did things the wrong way for a long time. It does not mean anything. It took one open minded trainer/coach to listen to scientists/doctors and it slowly started a movement in a sport. The main example is lifting and basketball. For ever coaches discouraged their players from lifting. The same coaces that had to "food on the table and clothes on their backs" from the performance of their players. Now most if not all coaches have some kind of lifting program. I am not saying that people should jump on bandwagons but using lines such as:

"Be open-minded" is easy for people to say who don't do this to put food on the table and clothes on their backs." is taking the easy way out and quite honestly, i expected more from you.

 

[xinster]

bottom line is you need endurnce, and you need strength. High reps gets you one. Low reps gets you the other. How much of each is needed is really up to you.

 

[Brando]

Blanko, all KK is trying to say is that the traditional high-rep abdominal work has innumerable years of proof to suggest it is an effect training method for boxers. As a professional fighter, there are MANY pieces of the "training puzzle" he has to put together - skill work, strength work, plyometrics, diet, conditioning, footwork drills, and core training are a few. Pro boxers have a pretty tight training regime that has to really make the most of what little time they can dedicate to each goal. Why would he then volunteer himself as the "guinea pig", using a new method of training that hasn't really been established as a viable alternative to what has been working for decades? It doesn't make sense to abandon what DOES work for something that MIGHT work when his career (and yes, consequently the "food on his table and money on his back") is dependant on it.

 

[Sinister]

let's not talk about "food on the table and clothes on their backs" please. People thought that drinking water while working out was bad for you, people thought that lifting was bad for you, people who had to put "food on the table and clothes on their backs" basically did things the wrong way for a long time. It does not mean anything. It took one open minded trainer/coach to listen to scientists/doctors and it slowly started a movement in a sport. The main example is lifting and basketball. For ever coaches discouraged their players from lifting. The same coaces that had to "food on the table and clothes on their backs" from the performance of their players. Now most if not all coaches have some kind of lifting program. I am not saying that people should jump on bandwagons but using lines such as:

"Be open-minded" is easy for people to say who don't do this to put food on the table and clothes on their backs." is taking the easy way out and quite honestly, i expected more from you.

First of all, never expect anything from anyone. That's a very good way to almost always end up disappointed.

Secondly, I don't particularly care what you expect. There are ways to go about questioning successful, proven standards. You are not one of these Doctors or scientists who have given valid evidence that changing certain aspects of training are out-dated. Neither is anyone else in this thread. And so far I'm the only one who actually named two Boxers who validate the point at all, but in so-doing I also noted they have particular scenarios that pertain to them individually. Which might make things not viable for others looking to copy them.

This is called logic.

If you want to insinuate that professionals do not know what they're doing, then that's fine. We can have a debate about why the 90-something percent of Boxers below the heavyweight division continue to be successful both financially and athletically. But what I will not allow is for someone to baselessly speak of training methods being out-dated without offering more than "be open-minded" as an argument. No valid proof, no relevant example, etc. To me that's disrespectful, and half the reason a lot of fighters don't like to talk to people about their training. Everyone in here knows you just don't do that. And this being the internet is no excuse. You wouldn't walk into a gym and do this. And if you would, you'd have a hard time. So if people here want what they'd get from actual fighters, and not just conversate amongst each other and thus, get nowhere. Then they're going to get a bit of the same hard time they'd get in a gym for the same reasons. Yes this is the internet, yes this is a forum in which to discuss perspectives, but if a person cannot deal with the reaction their perspective gets, then fuck them.

When I made that post about this whole thing of questioning training methods that are proven and already work, I didn't bitch moan and cry about those who attempted to reprimand me for it. And here it is again, which is fine. If someone is going to attempt to say Boxing particularly is in need of change in training methods, or that the methods don't make sense, blah blah blah, I don't think it's too much to ask that they offer some kind of proof themselves to validate that. If they don't have it, they should stay quiet until they do.

 

[aaron_mag]

The problem with threads like these is all the various goals people have on this forum. The threadstarter should have asked, "Should I do high rep situp training if my goals are X, Y, and Z in regards to my boxing training."

Because the answer obviously depends on what X, Y, and Z are. Some of the reasons he gave for not wanting to do high rep training (lack of time due to work etc) are perfectly fine in some scenarios. In others, like if you are getting ready for a boxing match, the excuse of "I don't have time for that..." doesn't cut it.

Someone on Sherdog posted an article written by a boxer on the emergence of MMA. He mentioned that most of the new guys at his gym are grapplers looking to round out their training with some boxing and you could hear the frustration in the words he chose. Because the guy was obviously old school. He didn't want to teach people who wanted to 'gain just what they need to get the guy to the ground' (despite the increase in revenue to his gym). He wanted to teach people who were willing to commit to boxing training.

I can understand that frustration, but the reality is that many people are going to have different goals than they used to have when they walk into a boxing gym.

 

[Sinister]

The problem with threads like these is all the various goals people have on this forum. The threadstarter should have asked, "Should I do high rep situp training if my goals are X, Y, and Z in regards to my boxing training."

Because the answer obviously depends on what X, Y, and Z are. Some of the reasons he gave for not wanting to do high rep training (lack of time due to work etc) are perfectly fine in some scenarios. In others, like if you are getting ready for a boxing match, the excuse of "I don't have time for that..." doesn't cut it.

Someone on Sherdog posted an article written by a boxer on the emergence of MMA. He mentioned that most of the new guys at his gym are grapplers looking to round out their training with some boxing and you could hear the frustration in the words he chose. Because the guy was obviously old school. He didn't want to teach people who wanted to 'gain just what they need to get the guy to the ground' (despite the increase in revenue to his gym). He wanted to teach people who were willing to commit to boxing training.

I can understand that frustration, but the reality is that many people are going to have different goals than they used to have when they walk into a boxing gym.

I agree.

It definitely is a rough transition. Which is where certain etiquette comes into play. The guy I sparred yesterday is an MMA stylist not looking to Box specifically. However the main thing he didn't do which made my trainer more apt to help him, was question the validity of anything we did that he saw. Reason being is because he was there first-hand to see how and why it's applied.

Had he questioned it I think it still would have been alright. Mainly because he was face-to-face with us and didn't want to get into a big dramatic situation. I think he would have chosen his approach carefully rather than giving a slight indication of ridicule for sticking by things that don't make a whole lot of sense to him.

On the other-hand my boss actually had a similar question that was about skipping rope. He didn't quite follow the correlation between that and fighting in a Boxing ring. However his perspective is slightly different. He doesn't watch Boxing, doesn't train to fight at all, and isn't considering doing so. So him going "I never did understand why Boxers skip-rope" is a little more understandable than someone who is looking to gain the benefits of Boxing or Boxing conditioning asking the same question.

 

[blanko]

This is called logic.

see man, it's unessary snobbish and totally unessary comments like thease that do nothing but inflame a situaion.

If you want to insinuate that professionals do not know what they're doing, then that's fine. We can have a debate about why the 90-something percent of Boxers below the heavyweight division continue to be successful both financially and athletically.

that's great. As i have said before: "I am not about jumping on bandwagons" but to say "don't quesiton what has been done for centures" is not very logical. I am not talking about one specific exercise (i.e sit ups). I am talking about the mentality that says "dont' question because it the way it has been done for years". This is a place for LOGICAL debate about stand up styles is it not?

Yes this is the internet, yes this is a forum in which to discuss perspectives, but if a person cannot deal with the reaction their perspective gets, then fuck them.

well there is a reaction and there is a reaction. I guess it all depends on the reaction right? You should know this, you look at reactions and decide if the reactions are "out of line".

If someone is going to attempt to say Boxing particularly is in need of change in training methods, or that the methods don't make sense, blah blah blah, I don't think it's too much to ask that they offer some kind of proof themselves to validate that. If they don't have it, they should stay quiet until they do.

again i agree but what is the kind of proof that you are looking for? Some sucessful fighters training that way? or scientific data.

 

[xinster]

this thread needs to be teh close

 

[blanko]

yea i agree this shit's getting out of hand.

 

[Sinister]

see man, it's unessary snobbish and totally unessary comments like thease that do nothing but inflame a situaion.

Come on, if I'm not supposed to get all sensitive neither are those who tell me not to get all sensitive. Sheeze.

that's great. As i have said before: "I am not about jumping on bandwagons" but to say "don't quesiton what has been done for centures" is not very logical. I am not talking about one specific exercise (i.e sit ups). I am talking about the mentality that says "dont' question because it the way it has been done for years". This is a place for LOGICAL debate about stand up styles is it not?

I have never once said "don't question because it the way it has been done for years." I certainly hope you realize that. I do my best to cite examples, and give relevant information on not only theory, but how it's practiced, and to what measure of success it can tentatively bring. Yes, you're right, this is a place for LOGICAL debate, it just seems some people don't understand that questioning certain things whose validity is right before their eyes or they have yet to fully experience, is illogical.

well there is a reaction and there is a reaction. I guess it all depends on the reaction right? You should know this, you look at reactions and decide if the reactions are "out of line".

Indeed, and at-times when I personally see a situation unfold make conscious decisions to hear out reactions. Even from those who cannot help but be entirely insulting.

Hence, I do know this and do my best to practice it.

again i agree but what is the kind of proof that you are looking for? Some sucessful fighters training that way? or scientific data.

Either or. Theory is one thing, putting it into practice with consistent positive results is a different thing entirely. It's just been my experience that those afraid of either simplistic or harder (because of duration, repetition, etc) practices will often strand themselves in a perpetual state of testing unfounded theories and hide behind "I'm being open-minded", when really, they're just avoiding doing what works for whatever reasons. When a person seems determined to continue in a perpetual state of confusion or indecisiveness, or offers no conclusive evidence to their theory, IMO the theory is then useless and they're wasting time.