HEAVYWEIGHT COACH (why the average coach shouldn't be training heavy weights)

[monkeyrhythm]

Training time is valuable so dont waste it running for CARDIO when you could be grappling for cardio

Grappling is 10x the cardio as running!!!

# Logic no comedy

Okay, I thought we were starting with “one logical statement I disagreed with”. I haven’t disagreed (or agreed) with the above anywhere in this thread. Without that you could have brought things back to the original thread subject I suppose “HEAVYWEIGHT COACH (why the average coach shouldn't be training heavy weights)”...

But okay, I don't want to muddy the waters; let's run with what you’ve gone with:

Training time is valuable so dont waste it running for CARDIO when you could be grappling for cardio

Of course, training time is valuable but the way you present this sets up a false premise. If we are talking about professionals, then we have whole days/weeks/months/years to work with.
In a given day are you saying that an athlete should just grapple all day? For example, would 8 hours of grappling be better for “CARDIO” than 7 hours of grappling plus 1 hour of LISS running?
Are we talking balls to the wall grappling or some deliberate variation of intensity? If intensity is being deliberately varied, how are intensity levels being measured?
Are there zero benefits to running (for combat sports) when compared to grappling?

Grappling is 10x the cardio as running!!!

So, to make the maths simple 1 hours running is equivalent to 6 minutes of grappling, for “cardio”?
For what? All combat sports?
You’ve referenced wrestling, muay thai, MMA and boxing in this thread. If it’s just better ‘cardio’ would Muhammad Ali be as well to grapple for 6 minutes as he would to LISS run for an hour?

Even if we assume it’s a combat sport where grappling is a core component, let’s say an already expert grappler like Cejudo does no other training aside from either 6 minutes of grappling per day, or 60 minutes of running; which modality would be best (or least worst); over say a few months?

Maybe we should compare 12 minutes of grappling per day to 6 minutes of grappling and 1 hour of running? Which is the lesser of two evils when it comes to mitigating endurance deconditioning? Remember we’re talking cardio, not technique etc.

You’ve mentioned “science” many times throughout this thread; what evidence do you have to support your assertion that “Grappling is 10x the cardio as running”?

 

[-guerilla-]

Okay, I thought we were starting with “one logical statement I disagreed with”. I haven’t disagreed (or agreed) with the above anywhere in this thread. Without that you could have brought things back to the original thread subject I suppose “HEAVYWEIGHT COACH (why the average coach shouldn't be training heavy weights)”...

But okay, I don't want to muddy the waters; let's run with what you’ve gone with:


Of course, training time is valuable but the way you present this sets up a false premise. If we are talking about professionals, then we have whole days/weeks/months/years to work with.
In a given day are you saying that an athlete should just grapple all day? For example, would 8 hours of grappling be better for “CARDIO” than 7 hours of grappling plus 1 hour of LISS running?
Are we talking balls to the wall grappling or some deliberate variation of intensity? If intensity is being deliberately varied, how are intensity levels being measured?
Are there zero benefits to running (for combat sports) when compared to grappling?

So, to make the maths simple 1 hours running is equivalent to 6 minutes of grappling, for “cardio”?
For what? All combat sports?
You’ve referenced wrestling, muay thai, MMA and boxing in this thread. If it’s just better ‘cardio’ would Muhammad Ali be as well to grapple for 6 minutes as he would to LISS run for an hour?

Even if we assume it’s a combat sport where grappling is a core component, let’s say an already expert grappler like Cejudo does no other training aside from either 6 minutes of grappling per day, or 60 minutes of running; which modality would be best (or least worst); over say a few months?

Maybe we should compare 12 minutes of grappling per day to 6 minutes of grappling and 1 hour of running? Which is the lesser of two evils when it comes to mitigating endurance deconditioning? Remember we’re talking cardio, not technique etc.

You’ve mentioned “science” many times throughout this thread; what evidence do you have to support your assertion that “Grappling is 10x the cardio as running”?

If you take two identical clones and one of them spends 100% of their time on grappling and the other one spends half their time grappling and half their time jogging who's going to be a more effective fighter?

Will the Clone that supplemented his grappling with 50% jogging or running for cardio have better cardio on the mat?

Over my multiple decades as a professional MMA and wrestling coach I have seen countless excellent Elite Runners come into my gym to gas out in under three minutes on the wrestling mat vs some fat mechanic that has never ran a mile in his life or a tough farm boy who smokes 2 packs a day

These are elite runners who have good compeditive backgrounds like college level championships not a kung fu guy that claims he runs 10 miles a day

If you have time and energy to go jogging you haven't grappled enough today

Running for cardio is a classic fallacy that persisted because of the monkey see monkey do training scenarios

Your Heroes did it so you copycat copy cat their training in hopes of getting some of that Glory yourself one day

you people keep referencing Muhammad Ali and Alexander Karelin as Pinnacles of combat sports conditioning due to their running programs however you all have failed to remember that both these men's biggest losses occurred because of cardiovascular GAS OUT not because they were pinned or knocked out by a more powerful opponent!!!!

I submit that they would have been even better had they spent their valuable training time on sparring, hitting the bag or Advanced cardiovascular conditioning like HIIT training... running is in archaic waste of valuable training time

Coaching MMA and high school wrestling is not my real job... I have spent my primary career working in science having recently switched back to my pre college career of Public Safety recently for the larger paychecks

Its really the most simple of science principles

why would you run for cardio when MMA training of virtually any kind is so much more cardio demanding

Of course when i say grappling for cardio i dont mean 2 bjj soibois playing "pass the guard" wearing 300$ gis in a air conditioned strip mall worring about their hair gel melting

Real compeditive sparring where each opponent is trying to win is by some stretch the best cardio for MMA

2nd best is partner drills and padwork

if you dont have a partner then hit the bag

If you lack BOTH partners and punching bags then cycle or swim using blast principals

If you dont have a bike or water available do polymerics and hill sprints for "blast" cardio

I used to think that sustained jogging for cardio was just a waste of time but modern science actually proves that it is a NEGATIVE for combat Sports as it develops long muscles at the expense of fast twitch blast muscles and has a high degree of serious long term injury because of the repetitive impacts isolated to the lower body and back

running for cardio is as foolish as chasing chickens, drinking raw eggs and not copulating in the weeks b4 your contest but monkey see monkey do

Hero worship student deciple 101

I took a 30yr old wrestling program from dead last to the middle of the district in ONE SEASON largely because I ELIMINATED "running for cardio"

 

[monkeyrhythm]

If you take two identical clones and one of them spends 100% of their time on grappling and the other one spends half their time grappling and half their time jogging who's going to be a more effective fighter?



Will the Clone that supplemented his grappling with 50% jogging or running for cardio have better cardio on the mat?



Over my multiple decades as a professional MMA and wrestling coach I have seen countless excellent Elite Runners come into my gym to gas out in under three minutes on the wrestling mat vs some fat mechanic that has never ran a mile in his life or a tough farm boy who smokes 2 packs a day



These are elite runners who have good compeditive backgrounds like college level championships not a kung fu guy that claims he runs 10 miles a day



If you have time and energy to go jogging you haven't grappled enough today



Running for cardio is a classic fallacy that persisted because of the monkey see monkey do training scenarios



Your Heroes did it so you copycat copy cat their training in hopes of getting some of that Glory yourself one day



you people keep referencing Muhammad Ali and Alexander Karelin as Pinnacles of combat sports conditioning due to their running programs however you all have failed to remember that both these men's biggest losses occurred because of cardiovascular GAS OUT not because they were pinned or knocked out by a more powerful opponent!!!!



I submit that they would have been even better had they spent their valuable training time on sparring, hitting the bag or Advanced cardiovascular conditioning like HIIT training... running is in archaic waste of valuable training time



Coaching MMA and high school wrestling is not my real job... I have spent my primary career working in science having recently switched back to my pre college career of Public Safety recently for the larger paychecks



Its really the most simple of science principles



why would you run for cardio when MMA training of virtually any kind is so much more cardio demanding



Of course when i say grappling for cardio i dont mean 2 bjj soibois playing "pass the guard" wearing 300$ gis in a air conditioned strip mall worring about their hair gel melting



Real compeditive sparring where each opponent is trying to win is by some stretch the best cardio for MMA



2nd best is partner drills and padwork



if you dont have a partner then hit the bag



If you lack BOTH partners and punching bags then cycle or swim using blast principals



If you dont have a bike or water available do polymerics and hill sprints for "blast" cardio



I used to think that sustained jogging for cardio was just a waste of time but modern science actually proves that it is a NEGATIVE for combat Sports as it develops long muscles at the expense of fast twitch blast muscles and has a high degree of serious long term injury because of the repetitive impacts isolated to the lower body and back



running for cardio is as foolish as chasing chickens, drinking raw eggs and not copulating in the weeks b4 your contest but monkey see monkey do



Hero worship student deciple 101



I took a 30yr old wrestling program from dead last to the middle of the district in ONE SEASON largely because I ELIMINATED "running for cardio"

Wow. I thought we were going to have a go at "logic"

Logic is a method of reasoning that involves a series of statements, each of which must be true if the statement before it is true.

I asked you a number of explicit questions to help try and get to the bottom of this; none of which you've answered.

Let's try and make it even simpler:

Its really the most simple of science principles

What, exactly is the "most simple of science principles" you are referring to?

 

[-guerilla-]

Wow. I thought we were going to have a go at "logic"

Logic is a method of reasoning that involves a series of statements, each of which must be true if the statement before it is true.

I asked you a number of explicit questions to help try and get to the bottom of this; none of which you've answered.

Let's try and make it even simpler:

What, exactly is the "most simple of science principles" you are referring to?

(Man hangs his head)

# sound of school bell

I had a THEORY (jogging sucks 4 combat cardio)

and a CONTROL (30yr old wrestling program)

I instituted a VARIABLE (eliminated running)

This was an EXPERIMENT (because i was testing THEORY)

I then produced a RESULT (because they won more)

This result was REPEATABLE (because i did it again with other programs)

you see it was abundantly clear that with precious limited training time athletes were wasting their opportunity to learn higher levels of skills, strength and conditioning and participate in activity that was much more cardiovascularly demanding then running so the elimination of a unproductive practice from a long established program produced a verifiable and repeatable result

# school bell rings
# got that?
# that word is SCIENCE

* sports science

 

[monkeyrhythm]

(Man hangs his head)

# sound of school bell

I had a THEORY (jogging sucks 4 combat cardio)

and a CONTROL (30yr old wrestling program)

I instituted a VARIABLE (eliminated running)

This was an EXPERIMENT (because i was testing THEORY)

I then produced a RESULT (because they won more)

This result was REPEATABLE (because i did it again with other programs)

you see it was abundantly clear that with precious limited training time athletes were wasting their opportunity to learn higher levels of skills, strength and conditioning and participate in activity that was much more cardiovascularly demanding then running so the elimination of a unproductive practice from a long established program produced a verifiable and repeatable result

# school bell rings
# got that?
# that word is SCIENCE

* sports science

Right, okay; that’s not science.

I think you mean you had a HYPOTHESIS not a THEORY. A scientific theory is an explanation of some aspect of the natural world that has been substantiated through repeated experiments or testing.

So, a hypothesis not a theory; although what you’ve posited is not a good hypothesis.

A hypothesis is a suggested solution for an unexplained occurrence that does not fit into current accepted scientific theory. The basic idea of a hypothesis is that there is no pre-determined outcome. For a hypothesis to be termed a scientific hypothesis, it has to be something that can be supported or refuted through carefully crafted experimentation or observation; this is called falsifiability and testability.

Your hypothesis cannot, by any stretch of the imagination be termed a scientific hypothesis.

Your CONTROL also does not pass muster. There are a number of common scientific controls used such as:

• Control Variable
• Uncontrolled Variable
• Negative Control
• Positive Control
• Random Assignment
• Blind Experiment
• Double-Blind Experiment

The most robust studies combine multiple control mechanisms; for example, in randomised double-blind placebo-controlled experiments.
Your example would be closest to another type of control: a historical control. Historical controls aren’t the best but are widely used where ethical reasons prevent the use of a control group e.g. it would typically be unethical to use placebos in a cancer trial.
Even in well-designed studies historical controls have many disadvantages, and their use typically mandates large sample sizes.

I could go on, but there’s no point flogging a dead horse-vet.

The daft thing with the above is that you very likely did the correct thing for your high school wrestling team. Your athletes limited time was almost certainly much better spent on the mat than doing laps of the field. Nobody in this thread has disagreed with you on that; you don’t have to make a ham-fisted attempt to make it sound like you conducted a scientific study.

HOWEVER: Your experience coaching a high school wrestling team, and the conclusions you’ve drawn from it have very little to do with understanding and addressing the conditioning requirements of a professional boxer (for example); apparently, you are suggesting that they do.

I’m probably going to bow out of this thread now (unless there’s an opportunity for a little light humour) as it’s clear that our approaches to communication and critical thinking are million miles away from each other.

(*Obviously I'm now curious about your career in science but I'm not going to open that can of worms...).

 

[-guerilla-]

Right, okay; that’s not science.

I think you mean you had a HYPOTHESIS not a THEORY. A scientific theory is an explanation of some aspect of the natural world that has been substantiated through repeated experiments or testing.

So, a hypothesis not a theory; although what you’ve posited is not a good hypothesis.

A hypothesis is a suggested solution for an unexplained occurrence that does not fit into current accepted scientific theory. The basic idea of a hypothesis is that there is no pre-determined outcome. For a hypothesis to be termed a scientific hypothesis, it has to be something that can be supported or refuted through carefully crafted experimentation or observation; this is called falsifiability and testability.

Your hypothesis cannot, by any stretch of the imagination be termed a scientific hypothesis.

Your CONTROL also does not pass muster. There are a number of common scientific controls used such as:

• Control Variable
• Uncontrolled Variable
• Negative Control
• Positive Control
• Random Assignment
• Blind Experiment
• Double-Blind Experiment

The most robust studies combine multiple control mechanisms; for example, in randomised double-blind placebo-controlled experiments.
Your example would be closest to another type of control: a historical control. Historical controls aren’t the best but are widely used where ethical reasons prevent the use of a control group e.g. it would typically be unethical to use placebos in a cancer trial.
Even in well-designed studies historical controls have many disadvantages, and their use typically mandates large sample sizes.

I could go on, but there’s no point flogging a dead horse-vet.

The daft thing with the above is that you very likely did the correct thing for your high school wrestling team. Your athletes limited time was almost certainly much better spent on the mat than doing laps of the field. Nobody in this thread has disagreed with you on that; you don’t have to make a ham-fisted attempt to make it sound like you conducted a scientific study.

HOWEVER: Your experience coaching a high school wrestling team, and the conclusions you’ve drawn from it have very little to do with understanding and addressing the conditioning requirements of a professional boxer (for example); apparently, you are suggesting that they do.

I’m probably going to bow out of this thread now (unless there’s an opportunity for a little light humour) as it’s clear that our approaches to communication and critical thinking are million miles away from each other.

(*Obviously I'm now curious about your career in science but I'm not going to open that can of worms...).

LOL...you best stick to jokes because your getting "rag dolled" on the science

"sports science" 101 has eluded you for some time it seems, let me explain it to everyone thru basic definitions

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sports_science

nice attempt to disqualify my method cherry picking a few terms to confuse the readers

the·o·ry | \ ˈthē-ə-rē , ˈthir-ē \
plural theories
Definition of theory


1: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomenathe wave theory of light
2a: a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of actionher method is based on the theory that all children want to learn
b: an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theoryin theory, we have always advocated freedom for all
3a: a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation
b: an unproved assumption : CONJECTURE
c: a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subjecttheory of equations
4: the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an artmusic theory
5: abstract thought : SPECULATION
6: the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another

Want to take another swing,

another bite at the apple,

move the goalpost...?

trouble for you is I did this for decades with martial arts AND combat sports as a multi discipline coach, not just my highschool team

it works for:

wrestlers
judoka
mma
boxing
muaythai...

any and all combat sports conditioning is IMPROVED if the practitioner ELIMINATES running and REPLACES it with something more DEMANDING like sparring, bagwork, HIIT training...anything but jogging!!!

you guys are so lost you dont even know what your arguing about...your just trying to post funny pics

# shedog trollpharm FAIL

 

[monkeyrhythm]

LOL...you best stick to jokes because your getting "rag dolled" on the science

"sports science" 101 has eluded you for some time it seems, let me explain it to everyone thru basic definitions

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sports_science

nice attempt to disqualify my method cherry picking a few terms to confuse the readers

the·o·ry | \ ˈthē-ə-rē , ˈthir-ē \
plural theories
Definition of theory


1: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomenathe wave theory of light
2a: a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of actionher method is based on the theory that all children want to learn
b: an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theoryin theory, we have always advocated freedom for all
3a: a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation
b: an unproved assumption : CONJECTURE
c: a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subjecttheory of equations
4: the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an artmusic theory
5: abstract thought : SPECULATION
6: the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another

Want to take another swing,

another bite at the apple,

move the goalpost...?

trouble for you is I did this for decades with martial arts AND combat sports as a multi discipline coach, not just my highschool team

it works for:

wrestlers
judoka
mma
boxing
muaythai...

any and all combat sports conditioning is IMPROVED if the practitioner ELIMINATES running and REPLACES it with something more DEMANDING like sparring, bagwork, HIIT training...anything but jogging!!!

you guys are so lost you dont even know what your arguing about...your just trying to post funny pics

# shedog trollpharm FAIL

Lol, I didn't cherry pick; I literally started at the beginning, worked my through and stopped as I figured I'd gone far enough.
The beauty of the both the scientific method in relation to the hard sciences, and logical argument is that they stand up to independent scrutiny; it doesn't matter who you are, or I am. You could have talked about your wealth of experience and that would absolutely have been valid up to a point; however, you decided to start throwing the science and logic cards around whilst having little understanding for what the terms mean.

In summary this thread went along the lines of:
Guerilla: “HEAVYWEIGHT COACH (why the average coach shouldn't be training heavy weights)”
Other posters: "Oh really, why's that then?"
Guerilla: "Because experts!!"
Other posters: "Yeah, still don't see it; we recognise that heavyweights may have different training needs but still not sure why the coach needs to be an ex heavyweight fighter to understand that?"
Guerilla: Don't be fucking idiots?! Running's stupid!! Science!!!
Other posters: "Yeah, this is getting silly now."
Guerilla: "Only one of us is a founding father of MMA!!!
#not u
Other posters: "Something funny"
Guerilla: Resorting to humour SoyBoy!!!
Other posters: "Something funny"
Guerilla: "Logic bitches!!"
Other poster: "Yeah, that's not actually logic. Or science"
Guerilla: "Wikipedia and dictionary links. Sports Science 101!!!"

Other poster:

 

[KnightTemplar]

OR hes a professional coach who broke records with a 30yrold program by eliminating running for cardio and replacing it with WRESTLING FOR CARDIO
(Wrestling is 10x cardio as running)



LOL
# running is lazy
# u mad
# alt account
# annoymous internet

You broke records in a high school wrestling program? That's like saying you're the most decorated soldier in the Pope's Swiss Guards

 

[-guerilla-]

Lol, I didn't cherry pick; I literally started at the beginning, worked my through and stopped as I figured I'd gone far enough.
The beauty of the both the scientific method in relation to the hard sciences, and logical argument is that they stand up to independent scrutiny; it doesn't matter who you are, or I am. You could have talked about your wealth of experience and that would absolutely have been valid up to a point; however, you decided to start throwing the science and logic cards around whilst having little understanding for what the terms mean.

In summary this thread went along the lines of:
Guerilla: “HEAVYWEIGHT COACH (why the average coach shouldn't be training heavy weights)”
Other posters: "Oh really, why's that then?"
Guerilla: "Because experts!!"
Other posters: "Yeah, still don't see it; we recognise that heavyweights may have different training needs but still not sure why the coach needs to be an ex heavyweight fighter to understand that?"
Guerilla: Don't be fucking idiots?! Running's stupid!! Science!!!
Other posters: "Yeah, this is getting silly now."
Guerilla: "Only one of us is a founding father of MMA!!!
#not u
Other posters: "Something funny"
Guerilla: Resorting to humour SoyBoy!!!
Other posters: "Something funny"
Guerilla: "Logic bitches!!"
Other poster: "Yeah, that's not actually logic. Or science"
Guerilla: "Wikipedia and dictionary links. Sports Science 101!!!"

Other poster:

You broke records in a high school wrestling program? That's like saying you're the most decorated soldier in the Pope's Swiss Guards

View attachment 691751

cartoons, profanity and desperate diss attempts post raggdoll experience with a bigger stronger and smarter man

# ouch my bunz

trollpharm 101

one of us is a record breaking combat sports coach

# not you!!

# go run for cardio

 

[-guerilla-]

you internet boys like to disrespect my background when I say heavyweights are different and "SHOULD HAVE" a specialist trainer that would be a heavyweight themselves for optimal results

thats understandable, the hero worship mentality is entirely dependent on "superstars" as a reference because much like a small child they need consistent assurance

From the OP...
2min 50 sec

interview: "what has allowed you to see it [heavyweight skills] more so than other trainers?"

Stacy: "Well, I fought heavyweight myself...you get a feel for it...its a lot different than somebody telling you "you have to fight a heavyweight like this" how do you you know??...you never fought heavyweight, heavyweights are different"



https://boxrec.com/media/index.php/Stacey_McKinley

Stacey McKinley

• Full name is Roosevelt "Stacey" McKinley
• McKinley began working with Don King promoted fighters in the early '90s and has continued ever since. He is a close confidant and partner of King.

Trains / Trained

• Shannon Briggs
• Trevor Bryan
• Isaac Ekpo
• Amir Imam
• Guillermo Jones
• Andriy Kotelnik
• Ricardo Mayorga
• Jameel McCline
• Rafael Mensah
• Ray Mercer
• Alexander Povetkin
• Tony Tucker
• Mike Tyson
• Albert Williams

 

[Cole train]

Where does this thing about wrestling being so heavy on the cardio come from

I used to do freestyle and cardio wise it really wasnt that heavy

 

[-guerilla-]

Where does this thing about wrestling being so heavy on the cardio come from

I used to do freestyle and cardio wise it really wasnt that heavy

Well, lets look at the competition format

Hmmm

What do you notice about wrestling in particular??

Specifically duration of contest??

Any theory?

 

[KnightTemplar]

cartoons, profanity and desperate diss attempts post raggdoll experience with a bigger stronger and smarter man

# ouch my bunz

trollpharm 101

one of us is a record breaking combat sports coach

# not you!!

# go run for cardio

The records you broke were meaningless. The students you trained were second-rate. The opinions you hold are worthless.

#DealWithIt

#ThisisHowHashtagsWork

 

[-guerilla-]

The records you broke were meaningless. The students you trained were second-rate. The opinions you hold are worthless.

#DealWithIt

#ThisisHowHashtagsWork

Actually the level of the athletes you coach is not important when determining the quality of coaching

# hero worship

whats important is your rate of improvement

# math

if you take someone that got second place last year and got them to first place the next year you accomplish something but only a bit

# thats called relative

if you take an ENTIRE TEAM from last place to the middle of the pack you accomplished even more

Much much more

success is entirely relative

The records i broke,
The champions I have trained

They all tell a story

They all tell the same story

the science PROVES that heavyweights are different

They should have a specialist coach

The best person for the job is a former heavyweight competitor who is now a professional coach

# got that?

 

[-guerilla-]

Max Kellerman explains how heavyweights are DIFFERENT

 

[JimRussel]

That was the bump we needed bro.

 

[-guerilla-]

That was the bump we needed bro.

Right...like I'm going to ignore evidence and opportunity to support and buttress my statement

#kellerman told ya

 

[JimRussel]

Right...like I'm going to ignore evidence and opportunity to support and buttress my statement

#kellerman told ya

wat

Has any human of average IQ or greater ever argued against what Max said in that video?

 

[-guerilla-]

wat

Has any human of average IQ or greater ever argued against what Max said in that video?

Yeah...

The whole point is that heavy weights are different and and an optimized heavy weight training program will have a person experienced in heavyweight competition as coach

 

[JimRussel]

Yeah...

The whole point is that heavy weights are different and and an optimized heavy weight training program will have a person experienced in heavyweight competition as coach

What proficient coach doesn’t understand this? Especially at the elite level? Especially in boxing?

Who are you arguing with/trying to prove a point to here?