When most people are taught to throw the hooks in boxing, they are told one of two ways to position their wrist and hand. First is with their thumb pointed upwards (if the thumb was extended).
Second is with their thumb pointed inwards. There are many opinions as to why one is better than another but no matter what anyone says, no matter how much experience they have, there is one truth and it is this:
There is no right answer.
There is no way in which to position your wrist, of those two options, that is inherently a better, more effective way to throw a hook. But this Hall of Fame boxer throws it with their thumb in. But this coach teaches with the thumb up. But my trainer coached the Cuban Olympic team for 40 years, I have the right answer. But my uncle was in Golden Gloves! None of this matters, as it relates to this question. No matter what any tells you, no matter how smart they are, no matter how accomplished in boxing they are, there is no right answer.
The answer depends on you, and we are all a little different. Most people will think whatever way they were initially taught is right because doing it the other way feels weird. It's probably obvious but this is because they are used to and have practiced the initial way they were taught so of course it is going to feel natural to them. Sometimes your body composition will have some effect too. The length of your arms, types of shoulders, even certain muscles more developed can make one way feel better in the beginning vs the other.
I have heard coaches and trainers acknowledge that there is no right way to throw a hook, but then qualify it by saying that one works better for one thing, whereas the other works better for another thing, so it just depends on personal preference based on how important those things are. Like for instance, I have heard people say that the thumbs-up can give you more power but thumbs-in can give you more reach for longer distance hooks. I don't believe either of these things are inherently true. Again though, body composition can play some role. So for instance, if you had longer and stronger biceps muscles, you might be able to get more power on the thumbs-up hook because it uses more bicep than the thumbs-in. But maybe not. And it is the same thing with reach. You may find it easier to throw more of longer, obtuse angle hook one way but there is no physical reason that this would true, outside of just the way you are put together and even then, the difference is negligible.
I teach people brand new to boxing to throw hooks in the thumbs-up position. This is because it is the way I personally prefer and also because one thing that new people tend to struggle with is punching with their top two knuckles. A lot of beginners sometimes hit with the wrong part of their hand, particularly the pinky and ring finger knuckles. If you throw a hook with your thumb up and your elbow is in line with your fist, it is impossible to hit the wrong knuckles with your hook, just because the larger knuckles stick out further.
Thumbs-Up Hook
Thumbs-In Hook
When throwing a hook with the thumb turned in and palm facing down, it is very easy to hit with those wrong knuckles, particularly on the lead hook, as you are pulling backwards. Of course that can also be fixed simply by proper positioning but it's one less thing for someone to struggle with early on. Sometimes I have noticed that in general, the more people try to rotate their wrists for punches, the more potential they have for landing the punch with a non-straight wrist, which is less powerful and can lead to injury. Whatever punch you throw, you always want to have a straight wrist upon impact and I have never heard one person say otherwise.
Again though, I must qualify this by saying that the thumbs-up position is very natural to me so I am just looking for logical ways to support it, exactly as I describe a couple paragraphs above. It is true that I have witnessed people hitting their pinky knuckles more with the thumbs-in hook but I also may be more likely to notice in that situation. If someone came to our club with boxing experience and could throw good hooks with their thumb in, I would not try to change that unless they were running into the problem mentioned above or having wrist problems on impact. I have trained some people who have a really hard time bringing their elbows up, parallel with their fist and shoulder, and suggested they potentially switch to thumbs-in, as it can help them bring their elbow up.
The default goal of throwing hooks is to strike from the outside. To go around your opponent's guard, provided you are standing in front of them and hit the side of the jaw, the temple, or the ribs when going to the body. We want to do this in the most efficient, effective way possible that is also defensively responsible. There are many factors that go into achieving this goal, but whether your thumb is pointed in or up is not inherently one of them. And plus, EVERYBODY's uncle was in Golden Gloves!
I think if you were to ask that question to many boxing historians or even relatively casual fans with some knowledge of who fought during the 60s, their knee-jerk response would be to say, "Yes! Boxing was definitely better in the 1960s than it is now."
But the deeper I look, the less I am so sure. The 60s was an interesting decade for boxing. All of the legendary fighters from the 50s - Sugar Ray Robinson, Rocky Marciano, Carmen Basilio, Joe Louis, Archie Moore, Willie Pepp, Rocky Graziano, Ezzard Charles, Jake Lamotta, Jersey Joe Wolcott, and others - would either be retired or no longer relevant by the 60s. When looking at just about anybody's Top 10 Boxers of the 1960s list, none of those people would appear on the Top 10 of the 1950s. Nor vice versa. That is somewhat uncommon when it comes to comparing other decades against each other. Never before was there such a hard line between a decennium.
This is not a knock on that era of boxing, not at all. It's just interesting. It was also a big transition for the business of boxing too as the mafia, who had largely controlled the sport for a while, was being pressured and pushed out by the US government. Color TVs were starting to replace black-and-white, which changed how people watched boxing and saw the fighters. While boxing's popularity was still very high in America, football continued to grow as the Super Bowl era was ushered in. And of course the country itself would go through a huge change throughout the 60s, with rising tensions from the Vietnam War, the cold war, the civil rights movement, and the division between counterculture and the establishment. The times, they were a-changing.
By far, the biggest thing to come out of that decade in terms of boxing was none other than Cassius Clay/Muhammad Ali. His first professional fight was in October 1960 and he would not only go on to become arguably the greatest boxer but one of the most significant sports icons of all time. He came up through the ranks quickly and talked his way into getting a title shot against the seemingly unbeatable champ, Sonny Liston, in 1964. Ali was a 7-1 underdog but showed incredible quickness and footwork for a heavyweight, which nullified a lot of Sonny's power. According to some, Liston had not trained well for the fight, was drinking the night before and came into it with a bad left shoulder. After the 6th round, Liston quit as he had apparently dislocated that shoulder earlier in the fight. Muhammad Ali became a household name after this fight as much of the world witnessed his trademarked Ali shuffle and famous lines like, "Float like a butterfly, sting like bee" before the fight and "I am the greatest."
There would be a rematch the following year in what would be one of the more controversial fights ever. Ali won in the first round, knocking down Liston with a punch that most people at the time did not even see. Ali was going backwards and threw a right hand across his body. It did not appear to land solid and even Ali was reported as asking trainers, "Did I hit him? immediately afterwards. Sonny Liston started to get up, then fell over in a way that looked phony to just about everybody, there was no count by the referee, then Liston got up, and the fight was allowed to resume for a few seconds before it was waved off and the fight called over. After reviewing the tape, with some enhancements, it was revealed that Ali's "phantom punch" did land but everyone questioned whether it would be enough to actually drop such a powerful man like Liston. The referee did not appear to count to 10 either. He was focused on getting Ali back to his corner and by the rules of boxing, the count shouldn't even start until a fighter goes to a neutral corner. The timekeeper started counting immediately after the knockdown and was the one who signaled to the ref to waive it off but again, this is not how the boxing rules should play out.
As to why Sonny Liston would take a dive on purpose, there are multiple theories with the biggest being a mafia fix. Sonny was not only connected to the mob as a boxer but even worked as a debt collector for them. He was also known to have several debts himself and taking a dive was part of the payoff. Some have said that Sonny was also afraid of the Nation of Islam, which Muhammad Ali had recently joined (why he changed his name from Cassius Clay) and there had been death threats from their side. There was also a rumor that Liston's wife and son had also been kidnapped, either by the mob or the Nation of Islam, and that he had to take that dive to save them.
We will never know what actually happened but for me, personally, I have no doubt that it was fixed, even if just by Liston himself. I believe the punch was real, the knockdown was even real, but Sonny was not hurt badly and stayed down on purpose. This doesn't mean he could have beaten Ali on that day or any other day forward. What is often lost in this controversy is Sonny Liston's age, which even itself is controversial. He was born in rural Arkansas with no birth certificate and admits to not knowing exactly how old he was. I have heard his birth estimated anywhere from 1929 to 1932. That means at the very least, he was 10 years older than Ali. Liston might have been able to get off a good punch or two but he would never catch the young Ali in the ring at that point in his life and career.
Muhammad Ali would go on to dominate the heavyweight division but by 1967, he would get banned from boxing for refusing to take part in the Vietnam draft. This was met by heavy skepticism at the time as fighters like Sugar Ray Robinson and Joe Louis - and even Elvis Presley- had abided by previous drafts and served in the military, in some capacity, during their careers. Ali would not fight again during the 60s and would not be reinstated until 1970. Many believe those would have been the prime years for a boxer.
That's a lot to say about one man and there is certainly so much more that could be said about Ali but what about the rest of the Heavyweight field during the 1960s? Of course there was Sonny Liston too and despite his performances vs. Ali, was still known to be one of the most fearsome punchers of all time. Floyd Patterson was the champ from 1960-1962 (before running into Liston and getting obliterated) and he was certainly a great fighter and I would consider him one of the greats, though not an all-time great. The late 60s brought us the rise of Joe Frazier but his best years were in the next decade. George Foreman won the gold medal in the 1968 Olympic Games and had his first pro fight in 1969 but again, better known for what he did in the 70s (and 90s!). Then there were a bunch of decent guys like Ernie Terrell, Cleveland Williams, Jimmy Ellis, Ingemar Johansson, Henry Cooper, George Chuvalo, Zora Folley.
What about the other weight divisions? There were plenty of good fighters, some Hall of Fame caliber, though many of them are not household names to anyone outside of hardcore boxing fans. Here were the big ones:
Eder Jofre - Bantamweight and Featherweight champ for much of the decade. Best Brazilian boxer of all time, most likely.
Fighting Harada - Flyweight, Bantamweight and Featherweight champ. The only man to defeat the aforementioned Eder Jofre, and he did it twice, though towards the end of Jofre's career. He was the 2nd Japanese boxing champ ever.
Dick Tiger - Another great name. Dick was from Nigeria and fought at Middleweight and Light Heavyweight, winning belts in both weight classes
Emile Griffith - Born in the Virgin Islands, Emile Griffith is acknowledged by some to be the best boxer of the 1960s not named Muhammed Ali (or Cassius Clay). He won undisputed titles at Welterweight, Light Middleweight and Middleweight. Looking at his record alone, you will see plenty of losses but he fought everybody at 3 weight classes, at much more frequent pace than anyone fights anyone now so wins and losses don't always tell the story.
Nino Benvenuti - Italian Middleweight and Super-Welterweight champ. Won almost every one of his 84 fights in the 60s, with a loss to the aforementioned Emile Griffith and Dick Tiger, as well as Kim Ki-Soo.
Carlos Ortiz - Probably the first truly great boxer from Puerto Rico, Carlos won world titles in the Lightweight and Light Welterweight division. He still holds the record for most wins in unified Lightweight title fights, which is 10.
Pone Kingpetch - The first world champion from Thailand when we won the Flyweight title in 1960. We would lose the title 2 years later to Fighting Harada but then get it back from him in 1963.
Flash Elorde - Not the first Filipino champ ever but the first since Ceferino Garcia in the 1930s. He won the Super Featherweight lineal belt in 1960 and held that title until 1967, which is still the longest reign in that division ever.
Nicolino Locche - Did not win a title (at Lightweight) until December of 1968 but Nicolino Locche is one of the more well-known boxers of the 1960s (and early 70s) because of his extremely unique, defensive style. Long before the Mayweathers, Locce would box with his both hands down, stand right in front of his opponents, wait for them to strike, then use head movement and shoulder rolls to defend and counter. He actually made at least one person quit in a fight purely out of frustration. Check him out on YouTube some time. I would not recommend anyone try and fight like him, nor smoke cigarettes during training like he reportedly did, but he was interesting to watch. He was also, I think, the 2nd world champion ever from Argentina.
So again, unless you really follow boxing history, many of these guys are not well known or talked about these days. Something interesting about the group I list here is that they were all from different countries. Boxing has always been a worldwide sport but if you were to take just about anybody's Top 10 Boxers of any previous decade, just about every boxer on every list is American-born. The 60s was the first decade where this is pretty universally not the case. Other than Ali and Liston, most of the lists contain all fighters born on foreign soil.
Another nice thing is that many of these guys at even close to similar weight classes fought each other. Other good fighters I did not mention like Jose Torres, Ismael Laguna, Sugar Ramos, Carlos Monzon, Rubin Carter, Jose Napoles were in the mix too.
Despite that, the biggest issue I have with the 1960s as far as ranking it as a great boxing decade was the lack of classic fights. Yes, the Ali-Liston fights were huge and extremely significant but not particularly exciting to watch (certainly not the second one). I know their first fight was listed as Ring Magazine's fight of the year for 1964 and I suppose that is okay but it's not what I would consider to be a classic at all, particularly in the anticlimactic way it ended. Again, looking at all the expert's Top 10/20/etc. lists of the greatest boxing matches of all time, you are not generally going to find anything from the 60s there, other than maybe Ali-Liston I, whereas every other decade since the advent of reliable recordings has at least a few to make the list.
Just to make sure that I wasn’t missing anything big, I watched all of the other Ring Magazine fights of the year in the 60s that were available on YouTube but nothing really moved the needle for me. Best one I saw didn't even win FOTY and it was Floyd Patterson vs Ingemar Johnson III (II won FTOY for 1960 but III was much better).The only other one I hear talked about was Bob Foster vs. Dick Tiger in 1968 because it does pop up in those Greatest Knockouts of All Time lists. And it was a pretty good one. The fight itself is nothing too special.
To compare it the modern day, as I sit here and write this now in August of 2025, I can already give you a handful of great fights that were better and more exciting than any fight of the entire 1960s - Fury Wilder III, Fury-Usyk 1, the first two Katy Taylor-Amanda Serrano fights, Zepeda-Baranchyk, even the Devin Haney-Ryan Garcia was super fun. There are plenty of others I personally enjoyed watching more that may not go down as classics. There are more memorable moments and exciting knockouts in the 2020s already for sure too.
One important caveat to consider is the fact that the best fighter of the 60s, Muhammad Ali, was banned from the sport in 1967. So those are 3 years we didn’t get to see him. Maybe there would have been an even better version of Ali Frazier I in the 60s?
As far as star power goes, obviously, we do not have a Muhammad Ali and no decade ever will but we have seen plenty of future hall-of-famers come through 2020s and some who I believe will be all-time greats when it is all said and done. I've written plenty about Naoya Inoue and look forward to watching more of his mastery. Oleksandr Usyk may go down in very exclusive history as well. Then there are people like Terence Crawford, Canelo Alvarez, Tyson Fury, Dmitry Bivol, Artur Beterbiev, I just watched 20-year-old Moses Itauma dominate yet another opponent on Saturday night and I would not be surprised if the rest of the decade will soon belong to him in the Heavyweight division. I would take any of those guys versus the rest of the field in the 60s- Ali notwithstanding. Plus, we don't just have guys. There are some truly great female boxers now like Claressa Shields and the aforementioned Katie Taylor and Amanda Serrano.
So yeah, compared to the 60s, I think there is more overall talent now and better competition. It is true that the business of boxing was better back then and all the complaints about modern boxing - too many divisions, fights not happening, people afraid to put their perfect record on the line, no cultural relevance, big fights behind a pay-per-view wall, etc. - are still very much valid but I think it’s starting to get better and the good outweighs the bad. The only thing I really wish we still had in the sport was boxers fighting more frequently. From 1960-early 1967, Muhammad Ali fought 29 times. Even after beating Liston for the 2nd time and defending his belt in 1965, he fought 8 more times before the ban in '67. With the exception of Naoya Inoue, most of the top level boxers fight once or twice a year maximum. Terence Crawford has taken over a year for each of his last 3 fights. This is certainly a better strategy for self-preservation and I don't knock current boxers for fighting less frequently but as a fan, it makes it less interesting to have to wait so long to see the very best compete.
My father was a professional tennis player in the 1960s and early 1970s. His name was Owen Davidson and while I never knew the the dude very well, genes are passed down from parents to offspring, etc., etc. and my genes are half his.
He played all the tournaments all of over the world and one thing he told me was that all the other guys on tour used to laugh at him during warm-ups. They would all stretch out before a match and he was so inflexible, they couldn't believe it. Tennis players aren't necessarily known for being super limber but he could barely bring his feet out wider than shoulder length and got nowhere near touching his toes.
Unfortunately, this seems to be hereditary. I have always been very inflexible too. I could never stretch very far, no matter how frequently I did it. As I got older and the yoga craze happened, I was excited about trying it out and hopefully, finally developing at least a little better flexibility. But no, I tried several different studios and never got anything out of it, personally. I have also since had unrelated problems in both knees, which certainly doesn't help but the problem is much deeper.
While I may never be as limber as I would like, I decided that I wanted to give it one more spirited try and see if I could increase my own overall flexibility. And if not flexibility, maybe at least improve hip mobility. What is the difference? Flexibility is about how far a muscle can be stretched whereas mobility is about how well a joint can move actively. Flexibility is a component of mobility but there are other factors, like the active ability to move a joint through it's full range of motion with control and stability.
So I took an 8-week program designed specifically for kickboxers to increase hip mobility as well as overall flexibility. I trained 5x a week and each session was a little over an hour, which included a warm-up, kickboxing drills, dynamic stretching exercises and a long, static stressing at the end. As everyone should with engaging with any program, I trusted the process. I did everything that was asked. I didn't change it up if I was bored or wanted to add something on or thought I knew better. I just followed it to the best of my ability. Here was what I found:
#1) I really, really hate static stretching
I have always hated it and even with a renewed sense of purpose, I still found that last static stretch session at the end of the class to be painfully boring. Sometimes that session itself would be 20-30 minutes but it seemed at least 10 times longer. All I could think of how much I wanted it to be over and all the things I needed to be doing at that particular moment.
When I do heavy bag workouts, my mind is fully engaged and I don't think about much else. I find it fun and interesting and challenging. Stretching I only find challenging but it's not a fun kind of challenge. It also physically hurts me to stretch so the challenge is just about pushing through some of that pain in hopes that a greater good is in store.
#2) I do like some dynamic stretches though
I'm the kind of guy who likes to move and so dynamic stretches, particularly ones working the muscle groups in my hips and legs that I want to strengthen, are a much better sell. Plus I would just do one of these for a minute before I went back to drills on the heavy bag so it didn't feel like I was stuck on the ground.
#3) My flexibility did not improve at all
Or if it has improved, the difference is pretty negligible. I am more used to stretching, that is for sure, so in a way it feels more comfortable to me but I cannot come any closer to touching my toes or bring my legs any further apart or sink down any deeper into a squat or lunge than I did before.
#4) There are some improvements to hip mobility, but they are small
I have a little more control within my range of motion. There are some small muscles that don't get used a lot because my flexibility is so limited but trying to push that helped get them activated.
So in the end, I can't say as it was a successful program but definitely worth trying. I may do it again but maybe 3x/week vs 5x. I also might try out another program to see if it's any different. Maybe I can continue to chip away and make minor improvements but I am not sure the very limited amount of juice is worth the disproportionally time-consuming squeeze and in the end, while my last name is different, I am ultimately still a Davidson.
I don't want to seem like I am knocking stretching as a process though. Whether you are good at it or not, it is valuable to do some stretching before and after a workout. There are also other benefits to stretching besides just flexibility and mobility, like increasing blood flow and to help prevent injury. I am certainly not going to abandon it completely. I just don't think that it is something I will make a lot of progress with, at this point in my life. Thanks, Dad!!
When you are learning the technique to any sport, it makes perfect sense that sometimes you need to slow things down to get the proper form and movement down. Trying to go too fast and rush before the technique is solid can easily lead to errors, bad habits, even sometimes injuries early on. There's that old expression, "If you can't do it slow, you can't do it fast" and that is certainly true with most (not all) things.
But I have seen this kind of thinking used as a crutch or an oversimplification in training. Punches are generally meant to be thrown fast. You want to use the proper technique, of course, but part of the technique IS being fast. Not every punch needs to be but most do. It's like a pitch in baseball. It is meant to go generally fast. There are off-speed pitches for sure but the goal is to throw the ball fast enough so it's difficult for the batters to see and hit.
Throwing fast punches isn't just trying really, really hard to go fast, there is technique to it. You need to learn how to relax certain muscles completely while activating others quickly. You have to develop those fast-twitch muscle fibers and neural pathways. There is a whip timing effect that comes from snapping your hand back after the punch lands. This is all technique.
The same is often true for power in boxing as well. Punches are thrown with the intention to hurt your opponent. Boxing experts always like to tell you that not every punch has to be powerful and again, there is certainly truth to that statement but if the majority of strikes do not at least bother your opponent, they will walk right through you. Even if you are using throwaway punches to try and set up a power punch, you likely won't be able to get anyone to react to your set-up without giving them something they don't want to get hit with.
You also don't generate effective power by muscling it and just trying to punch hard. Throwing a punch properly is what gets you power, using effectively-coordinated body mechanics. Things like specific core rotation and leg drive. Breathing properly is very important too. It all must be learned and practiced. Some people find this more natural than others but that doesn't mean that there is no technique in their power. Are there fighters with a lot of power but generally sloppy technique? Yes. Sometimes this can compensate, sometimes it can't but in any case, the power puncher with sloppy technique would always be able to generate more power with better technique.
There is too often an all-or-nothing thinking when it comes to both speed and power. That throwing fast punches or really powerful punches must come at the expense of technique. This can be true but it is not inherently true, nor are these things inversely proportional. Just because you train to throw powerful punches or fast punches, doesn't mean that you are wild. Nor does it mean that you don't care as much about form and technique. You can throw explosive strikes with technique and once again, technique is part of what makes them explosive.
It could be said that you can throw faster punches with a shortened range-of-motion and harder punches with a little more range-of-motion than normal. Again, this is part of the technique and does not equal wild and out of control.
Going back to the beginning, does it make sense to learn the form slowly first before trying to go fast and hard? It certainly does and this is logical but it is an unrealistically oversimplified understanding of how one learns something in boxing. It assumes you can get the perfect technique down, then try to go faster/harder. But learning is not binary. I can teach someone how to throw a cross in slow motion for months and it is still not going to be perfect. And while we are training many of the muscles and mechanics, we are still not doing anything for the fast-twitch muscle fibers and neural pathways required to throw it at game speed. A slow motion cross isn't a cross at all. It is a body movement. What makes it a cross is that explosive burst of acceleration times mass, which is as much part of the technique as rotating your shoulders is.
That being said, if you are new to boxing and still unsure about the basic mechanics, absolutely slow things down at first. I have also seem some new folks, usually guys, who seem to go into Beast Mode when trying to throw a punch and are off-balance, wild and often sloppy. This is definitely the kind of person I would tell to slow down for a while and to avoid getting into a state where you are just trying to explode without thinking. Just make sure you learn how to add the explosiveness properly after slowing things down.
If I were to take a boxing or kickboxing class at any other gym, and the instructor/coach told me to do something that I 100% believed to be technically incorrect, I would still try to do it like they asked me to. Not just to be respectful to them but to actually give it a try and see what happens. It's been a while but I have been to other gyms in the last 5 years and this situation has come up. I did what I was told and asked the coach why they suggested doing it the way they did after the class was over.
There was a time when this probably wouldn't be true, where I would ignore a coach telling me to do something I thought was wrong or at least, not the way I would do it, thinking I knew better. But now that I have trained longer, coached longer, and spent many hours breaking down fights in film study, I am much more open to trying something different. Maybe it is still "wrong” but it is good to always evaluate and reevaluate. The sweet science is never settled. Once I learn something, it is not over. I look back and question it from time to time. Maybe because I might start to feel differently or maybe I will just better understand why I was right in the first place. Both are valuable but they do require an open mind, which can be hard to have when you have been training for a while.
This open mind is what I call a Beginner Mentality and it is important to maintain throughout your boxing journey. Many people, coaches in particular, tend to start believing that they know everything about a certain aspect of boxing (or whatever) and while maybe they do, there is always a possibility that they don't. When you approach things with that mindset, that you might not know everything, you greatly increase the chances that you will get better.
Does that mean you should question everything at all times and not believe there is any right way to do anything? Not necessarily. It's just a slight shift in mindset that allows for the possibility, however remote it may seem, that you could be wrong and should not be afraid to question anything.
Sometimes there also aren't right ways and wrong ways too. A good example is the wrist position of the lead hook. There are plenty of boxers out there who learned to throw the lead hook with their palm down and believe this is The Way. I learned to throw them with my palm in, however, and feel more comfortable and powerful with that. I've done both and that works better for me in my style. I also find that it is easier for people brand new to boxing hitting a heavy bag to throw hooks this way and still connect with their top two knuckles. But in any case, there is no one right way. One version of the hook is not inherently more powerful than another. At least, I am pretty sure of this through practice and understanding of body mechanics. Of course as mentioned earlier, I still reevaluate from time to time.
Another important thing about the Beginner Mentality is that what you think you are doing when you box may not be 100% exactly what you are doing. When coaches give cues sometimes, it can be very easy to tune them out. Especially when it's something you know very well and have been boxing for a while. Like if your coach says, "keep your non-punching hand guarding your face," you might think this isn't for you because of course you are keeping your non-punching hand guarding your face. This is not your first rodeo. You know what you are doing. You may even think you know more than the coach telling you this. And these things might even be true. But you STILL may not be keeping that non-punching hand up to guard your face. Maybe you have in the past but maybe you are not now.
Again, the key here is to question and reevaluate. Instead of hearing your coach give you a cue and thinking, "Yeah, yeah, I got it, buddy," think something more like, "Am I sure I am doing that? Let's check..."
There are also cases where you might be doing something more or less correct but that doesn't mean you can't do it better. Example, the coach tells me to get my hands back faster after throwing a punch and I think, "Of course I get my hands back fast after a punch!" But do I? Can I get them back even faster? Yes, I very likely can. Or at the very least, I should think about it and try.
This can all be summed up more succinctly by a quote from Shunryu Suzuki, a famous monk who helped popularize Zen Buddhism in the United States
When I saw that quote for the first time, I misunderstood it. I assumed that being an expert is good and few possibilities means better understanding. But again, I have learned, just from learning itself, that while I may be able to be an expert on something, I should always maintain the Beginner Mentality because when there are many possibilities, my potential for growth is boundless. I think Suzuki had a quote like that too. Of course everything sounds smarter when it is coming from a Zen Buddhist monk but I can tell you from my own experience, he is right on the money here.
I can also tell you that from watching others' experiences, those whose minds are less open because they think they've got it all figured out, that they rarely are able to take their boxing skills to the next level. If you are one of those people, don't take it as an insult. It is very natural, human behavior that we all exude on some level. I definitely see things in boxing, particularly online, that I wholeheartedly believe are totally wrong, total BS, etc. But I promise that I still consider them from all angles, with a curious mind and believe me, that little difference can make all the difference.
Listed on our club's website are classes labeled "Kickboxing," but oftentimes, those who attend the class might hear me refer to it as "Muay Thai." What is the difference, you may wonder? Are they one and the same?
The answer is “no’l but the differences between them can be a little less than clear, depending on how exactly one is referring to kickboxing. The word can be used very specifically to describe a sport with a certain set of rules, but also as an umbrella term for any ring fighting contest that involves kicks. It originally came from full-contact karate and other eastern martial arts. This started in Japan and as it spread to the rest of the world, particularly in America, the influence of western boxing became more prevalent. Kickboxing also drew inspiration from Muay Thai, which is a martial art/fighting system from Thailand.
Like Kickboxing, Muay Thai uses kicks and the punches are also very similar to those found in western boxing, but the main things that make Muay Thai combat different is that it uses the following techniques, not allowed in general kickboxing competitions.
Knee Strikes
Elbow Strikes
Clinching - holding on to someone while striking
Sweeps - taking someone to the ground by throwing and/or tripping
Catching Kicks/Grabbing and Trapping the Leg
Muay Thai also differs from the traditional Asian non-grappling martial arts - Karate, Kung Fu, Tae Kwon Do, and all of the offshoots - in several ways. Muay Thai punches are, again, similar to those in western boxing whereas those other styles have a completely different system of punches and fighting stance. While the traditional martial arts feature dozens of different kicks, especially Tae Kwon Do, Muay Thai fighters mainly throw only 2 kinds (yes, there are certainly more than 2 but over 95% of the kicks you will see in a Muay Thai fight are the round kick and the front kick). Then there are the aforementioned elbows, knees, clinch and clinch fighting techniques
Beyond the strikes themselves, there are philosophical differences between the other common martial arts. Muay Thai is made for practical ring fighting and while there is a certain spirituality to it, it is subtle and not at the forefront of technique like it is with Karate in particular. There is no performance aspect to Muay Thai either, no Katas or Poomsaes (pre-arranged sequences of movements as a demonstration of skill). As such, Muay Thai does not have a belt system.
So while Kickboxing did integrate western boxing techniques for punches, its kicking system and fighting stance stayed pretty much the same, originating from Karate and later incorporating Tae Kwon Do kicks as well. As Muay Thai gained more worldwide recognition during the 80s, we started to get this cross-discipline superfights, where Karate and American kickboxing champs would arrange for special fights against top level Muay Thai boxers. It was somewhat of a precursor to the UFC, that would come a few years later.
The tricky part was getting both parties to agree to a set of rules. Fighters coming from kickboxing and traditional Asian martial arts did not want to get hit by knees and elbows nor have to deal with the clinch, which was even more unfamiliar to them. They would rather keep it strictly a punching and kicking contest. Some of the Thais accepted these terms and probably the most significant event was when Rick Roufus, then PKC and ISKA kickboxing champion, undefeated in the ring, took on Changpuek Kiatsongrit, who was not a belt holder and had less professional experience. What Changpuek did have, however, was an extremely powerful left kick.
Despite not being allowed to use half of his weapons (elbows/knees/clinch), Changpuek was able to get the American to agree to one stipulation - low kicks. At the time, low kicks were also not allowed in American kickboxing or many other martial arts tournaments. All kicks had to go to the mid-section or higher but for the first time on any significant stage, lower kicks to the legs would be allowed. The fight took place in Las Vegas, Nevada in November of 1988 and it would change what we consider to be kickboxing forever. It's a pretty interesting fight too. As a matter of fact, if you are still reading, I highly recommend checking it out below right now!
The ending was completely unfathomable to most. How could a fight end with low kicks, with the other guy being unable to stand up? Lots of people don't even know how many fights end with body shots, let along low kicks. And to a really casual fan, it made no sense at all. It was just not something you saw in any ring outside of Thailand, nor in streetfights, movies, nothing.
While initially, both Rick and his brother Duke were sour grapes, with Duke saying famously that the low kick didn't take any real skill to throw and it was a cheap way to win, they would come around and change their tune, later incorporating it into their style. They also realized that the side stance, commonly used in Tae Kwon Do, would never work against a Thai fighter because of those round kicks and begin to switch to more of a consistent boxing/Muay Thai stance. This would spread to the entire of sport of kickboxing over time. Eventually, the sport would absorb knee strikes from Muay Thai as well.
This fight also put Muay Thai on a much more global stage. Its popularity increased all over the world (and grew significantly in Thailand too) . People from Europe and America in particular, started training in the sport. Even when new, bigger kickboxing leagues formed, a lot of the fighters came from a Muay Thai background.
Kickboxing would influence Muay Thai as well. Not so much with new techniques, but bringing back some of the older ones like spinning attacks (at least the spinning hammer/back-fist), Superman/Cobra punch, and occasional use of the side kick. And both disciplines began to start considering defending each other, which certainly had an effect.
Just like any sport, both Muay Thai and kickboxing are always evolving but to reiterate, if we are talking about specific rules, watching a competition labeled as kickboxing, means that punches, kicks, knees and backfists are all allowed. Clinching or holding an opponent for any length of time is not allowed, nor is tripping or throwing them to the ground, nor catching/grabbing an opponent's leg after a kick. All of these things are allowed in any Muay Thai competition, as well as the thrice-aforementioned knee and elbow strikes. Sometimes there are other differences, based on individual events but those are main ones. The classes that we refer to as kickboxing on our website are actually Muay Thai, as we include all strikes as well as how to defend them.
As a side note, another famous, hybrid-rules Muay Thai vs. Kickboxing super fight, also from 1988. Sagat vs. Pete "Sugarfoot" Cunningham. The fought twice, with each winning one. In the first fight however, Sagat was allowed to catch and trap the kicking leg of Cunningham. This makes a huge difference, especially against such a prolific kicker like Sugarfoot. Amazingly, I cannot find footage of their first fight on YouTube but here is a pretty good breakdown and Peter Cunningham deserves a lot of credit for taking fights with martial artists from all disciplines in the early days before that was a thing.
As you progress along your boxing journey, you may hear some different things from different coaches. Nowadays, there is also a ton of information available online, some of which may be conflicting or not in line with what you might have been taught.
Boxing technique has a little more defined, simple structure than other martial arts, but still, every coach is different, every fighter is different, and everyone has their own style.
The more and more I study boxers and break down fights, the more I realize that some of the conventional wisdom that most boxing coaches in America teach does not necessarily play out in the ring between two high-level boxers. Sure, there are plenty of fighters who are able to break the rules - like Muhammad Ali crossing his feet, Hagler's gazelle jab, etc. - and get away with it because of their unique talents and skill sets, but I am talking about more basic things that I see often in fights between a multitude of combatants.
There are also of just plain myths, oversimplifications and misconceptions about how to box out there and I want to address some of them. Not just to be a smartass or know-it-all, but because we can learn from it and hopefully train better, smarter, and generally strategize better too. Here is my list so far:
Thee Boxing Stance
It seems like the majority of boxing trainers will still teach their students to get into what I consider a bladed stance. This is where the front foot is turned inside anywhere from 10-90 degrees. And then if you were to draw a straight line from their front heel straight back, it would run into their back heel. This is a perfectly acceptable boxing stance but it is certainly not the only stance and there are different options, some of which I think are better to learn in. These boxing coaches will also invariably tell you that if you are more squared up - meaning that your front toe is pointed completely straight and if you were to draw a line straight back from your front heel, it would not touch your back heel or any part of the foot - you are too open and will take a lot of hits, particularly to the body.
There is logic to that theory and it is undeniable that the more square you are, the more of your body is turned forward and thus, more targets, but the idea that people who box in this stance are going to get hit more and dropped with body shots simply is not true in professional boxing. There are also more boxers who fight in the more squared stance than many people realize. Mike Tyson is the most obvious but guys like Roberto Duran, Julio Cesar Chavez, Canelo Alvarez and Naoya Inoue all spend a lot of time in a square stance, to name a few, and I have not seen one of them take a hard body shot ever. There are other ways to defend and head movement is actually easier in a squared vs. bladed stance. I think more and more fighters are are adopting this in the modern days.
It really comes down to personal preference and fighting style. I like the open stance for myself and I think it is better in which to learn proper boxing mechanics, but plenty may prefer to the bladed stance. Again, the issue is just hearing a lot of coaches say that the more bladed stance is THE proper boxing stance and not really exploring it any deeper is the problem.
Also, as a very general note, I have hear so many coaches, fighters and just internet commenters say things like, "if you do this, then that will happen." The problem being that it is drastically oversimplified and pre-supposes other things. And just like in non-sweet science, everything must be questioned and analyzed and hold up to scrutiny.
The Rear Hook/Overhand Conspiracy
When you are watching a boxing match in real time and trying to call out the action, it can be very difficult to tell what punch exactly someone throws with their rear hand. Often it is somewhat of a hybrid, in part because the punch has further to travel so there is more time to adjust it to a different angle if necessary. But, somehow, someway, a very strange idea has entered the boxing collective unconscious. This is the notion that the rear hook is not a real punch or at least, not a punch you should be throwing. It's definitely not something that all boxers believe, maybe not even half of them believe it, but a sizeable enough percentage does and it absolutely does not play out in the ring. Certain punches are thrown a LOT more than others but you would be hard pressed to watch a single fight that lasts more than a few rounds where the rear hook is never thrown.
So why do people say this? I am not 100% sure. The rear hook can be a risky punch as it is very close range, easy to spot coming, and takes longer to reach the target than a right straight. But there are plenty of times that boxers get into immediately close range and if one of them has their hands up in front of their face, the rear hook may be the best tool for that job. It should also be noted that I am talking about rear hooks to the head. I don't think anyone disputes the existence of a rear hook to the body.
But it gets stranger. The rear overhand punch can appear similar to the rear hook, it just comes at a downward angle. You will hear announcers refer to a punch as the overhand, even if it has no downward trajectory at all. They will not call it a hook, despite the punch being a textbook example of what a hook actually is. Conversely, any circular punch on the lead side will always be referred to as a hook. Even if it travels on a completely downward trajectory. Announcers will never call this an overhand, if it's on the lead side, but almost always call it an overhand if it comes from the rear side. I have seen/heard this over and over again and once again, I wish I had a good explanation as to why this is. I have to assume there is some great conspiracy at work, I just don't know for what reason. Yet.
Overhands Are Not Thrown a Lot
We have had people come to our club that have boxed for years at a multitude of gyms, from all over the country, that have never been taught the overhand punch. This is strange to me, because the more you break down fights, the more you see it thrown (and no, I am not including rear hooks here). I can understand not wanting to overload a new student with too many different punching options at first but anyone who has trained for more than a couple months should learn this punch because again, it is thrown a lot! By pretty much all boxers and particularly in fight finishes.
There was one guy who came in and told me that the overhand is more of an MMA thing. It's definitely thrown a lot in MMA too, for sure, but ever since the days of Jack Johnson, boxers have been throwing and landing the overhand frequently and with good success.
As another general note, if there is something you would be doing in competition, you should be practicing it when you train. It makes no sense to not throw overhands on the heavy bags or mitts when you are going to throw it in the ring. This isn't just limited to overhands either. Most every thing I list here will fall into this category.
There are some coaches out there who consider overhands just another version of the cross. Or liver shots just a variation of the left hook to the body. That is okay, if they don't want to categorize but are they having their boxers throw those variations? Whether you give every punch a name or not, it is still its own thing that can be improved through practice.
Certain Combinations, Particularly Longer Ones, Are Not Realistic
It is undeniable that simple, short combinations (e.g. the jab-cross) are thrown more than longer, more complex combos. There are some boxers who barely even throw combos at all, in favor of single shots and counterpunches, except in situations where they might have someone hurt and are trying to finish the fight. It also makes sense that for training, you are going to spend a lot more time working on the basic, most common scenarios you would find in a fight.
But again, when you break down a boxing match between two, top-level combatants, you are going to see crazy combinations that you might never think to practice. Like a jab, followed by 4 lead uppercuts, then a right hook and right uppercut. I can't imagine anyone in a gym throwing this combo on the heavy bag or mitts but it is important to practice throwing any punch off of any punch instead of just the same thing over and over.
You will also see longer combinations from time to time than you may expect, some of them seemingly making no sense at all. The reality is that there is no such thing as an "unrealistic combo." There are combos that are thrown far more often than others, but at any point you may need to throw any punch after any other punch as the fight dictates.
Thus, I think it make sure there is time dedicated to throwing different combinations than the same old staples. Besides preparing you for reality, it helps you to get out of being a totally autopilot boxer and forces your brain to work a little more. Longer combos help with this too and teach better fluidity between the punches.
Everything Starts With the Jab
Another case that is true a lot, just not all the time. There are many good reasons to throw the jab and it is undoubtedly the most important punch in boxing. When you watch a fight, any fight, you will almost always see far more jabs than anything else and often to start a combination.
Just like with throwing different combinations, it is good for our training to also practice starting combos off with something other than jab. It definitely happens in fights and you may be able to catch your opponent off-guard.
Keep Your Hands Up At All Times
This is a tough one because I really stress this to anyone learning boxing and plenty of boxers do it but in this day and age, there are now plenty of boxers who do not do it or do not always. There are different styles of boxing guard and that includes having one hand down as well as both hands down. Having your hands can down allow you to move your head faster and evade punches as well as potentially surprise your opponent with punches coming from unexpected angles. The down side is that you leave some portion of your head wide open.
I do think it is best to learn boxing with a normal guard, with both hands up in front of your cheeks. Not only do you protect your head but you also learn to start and end every punch from the same place, which gives you more reps to really nail down those mechanics. But as you might start to develop your own style, it is possible that you may want to change your guard to a hands-down version- at least sometimes- or a hybrid like the long guard or Philly Shell. You also may decide to go with an even higher guard à la Mike Tyson or Winky Wright. You shouldn't force this though. The dudes who come in on Day 1 with the Philly Shell and are ready to start shoulder rolling punches are doing themselves a disservice. It might look cool but it will hold you back from learning the basics as well as truly finding out what kind of boxer you are.
A Hands-Down Jab is Faster Than Hands-Up
This is more of just a myth. I have heard many people, some pro boxers and coaches, try to make a case that you can actually throw faster punches from a hands-down guard. If these are punches to the head, this is scientifically impossible. The shorter distance a punch has to travel, the faster it can get there. Take a tape measure some time and see how far your hand has to travel from a down position, by your hips, to your opponent's head/target vs. how far it has to travel from a hands-up position, by your cheek. The hand must travel further from a lower position by a significant margin. So all things being equal, there is nothing inherently faster about throwing punches to the face, even the jab, from a hands-down position. Quite the opposite in fact.
But people say this for a reason and I believe it is this - those who throw their jabs from a hands-down position generally have fast hands. You have to have to fast hands and fast reflexes to box in this guard. So their jabs may appear faster because they are just faster. And because the punch has to travel further, it is easier to see coming so if they don't really go fast, not only may they not land the punch but they might get hit before they even get a chance to land it.
All Punches to the Thorax
This is a training mistake I see a lot of experienced boxers make when hitting the heavy bag. Instead of targeting their opponent's head (assuming their opponent is close to as tall as them and not exceptionally short), all of their punches kind of land in thorax area. This can be okay for straight punches and uppercuts but not for hooks. Punching someone in the arm or shoulder is not going to be effective. It doesn't really hurt that much, it shouldn't score points (though sometimes it probably does), and it makes it really easy for them to defend punches when they have less area to defend so you will have trouble landing body shots when your head shots are naturally low.
So why do people do it? For new boxers, it is usually just a technical error and maybe they are tired as it takes more energy to bring your elbow up higher on a hook. For experienced boxers, I am not 100% sure but I have a theory: especially when it comes to hooks, they are afraid to miss. They don't want their opponent to duck under their hook so they throw it naturally a little low. If they end up punching someone in the shoulder, at least they didn't whiff. People who do a lot of sparring or even amateur boxing can fall into this habit.
The problem is, this does translate well to high-level competition. You need precision and to be able to target as much of your opponent as possible. If someone is not really targeting your head, you have a major advantage not just because you don't have to worry as much about their punches but you can also attack their head and trade punches more favorably. It can also just lead to bad mechanics and what I lovingly call, "punch mush.” If you watch a fight, you are going to see plenty of head shots. I have heard people say that George Foreman generally threw his punches lower, from his chest level and he was certainly an effective striker but George was also 6'4 and rarely fought anybody his own height so it makes sense that he might want to practice differently. There are certainly edge cases of course but for the most part, you should be training to fight someone close to your own height and practice striking the different targets properly.
All Body Shots on the Inside
Another thing I see from experienced boxers from time to time is that their default body shot is more of an inside punch, closer to an uppercut than a hook to the body. That in itself is not really bad thing as this is certainly a strike you throw, but body shots can come from multiple angles and more often than not, you see the more circular (like hooks) body shots landing successfully, going around an opponent's elbow.
Like everything else, it is important to practice all of the different angles so that you develop with balanced skills. It makes no sense to me that people would do something in a fight and not practice that thing in training. Boxing is the only sport I know where this very thing happens. People throw punches they don't practice individually on their own. The whole point of training.
For those who just box for exercise, this is valuable too as it uses different muscle groups differently, as well as adds some variety to the workout.
Sub-Maximal Power
Yep, once again I am going to call out those experienced boxers or competitive athletes in other combat sports like MMA and kickboxing. They train on the heavy bag and they throw a lot of sub-maximal punches. Sub-max power and sub-max speed. What is the point of doing this on a heavy bag? To really refine technique? Okay, but part of the technique is throwing fast, powerful punches that hurt your opponent? But not ALL punches are particularly fast and powerful. Some are throwaway punches, used to set some up, some are just rhythm punches. Sure, but most punches in a fight between two skilled, well-conditioned combatants are at least supposed to be strong and fast. They will certainly not go all-out all the time but very few throw a high-number of feather punches and a much smaller percentage who do are actually successful.
The heavy bag is the best tool we have for training how to throw powerful punches. Even speed too. You will see superfast mittwork sometimes but that is often both the holder and the puncher trying to go fast, which is not often realistic and technical. So why not use the heavy bag to really develop power? Because you are worried that loading up for power will lead to you missing your punches? Because you will get tired too early and not conserve energy for the later rounds? Both of those can be fixed with better training. If you practice throwing your power punches like Mike Tyson in the 80s and you up your overall training intensity, you will be able to better avoid those things. Just accepting them as a given is not a strategy that will take anyone's boxing (or workout) to the next level.
Sometimes people who do a lot of sparring develop bad habits like this. For the most part, you don't want to be going 100% consistently with your sparring partner. That is not the goal of that exercise, which is fine. But when training on the heavy bag or even mitts, that is your chance to practice going 100% but a lot of fighters just remain stuck in first gear.
As yet another general note for you here, never assume that people who fight competitively are inherently more technical boxers, with more speed and power than conditioning that people who train boxing for fitness and fun. Having watched plenty of both, I can assure you that this is 100% not true. People who fight competitively may have a level of toughness and presence of mind to stay cool under fire that other folks do not, that is for sure, but they are not necessarily better punchers with better technique. Oftentimes, they are very sloppy and full of technical mistakes. If they are good enough, they can get away with it in the ring. I always believe though, that the for the most part, improving things like technique, speed, power, footwork, etc. will always lead to better results in competition than not.
You Must Step When You Roll
One of our members went to another club where they told them this that you always take a step when you roll. My first thought was, "has this person actually watched a boxing match?" because there are times fighters roll under punches as they take a step, and plenty of times where they do not. Then I noticed some people doing it in training and have heard this said in other forums.
Besides just being objectively untrue, I would also never want to teach someone to do this all the time because it is often a crutch. If you feel like you have to step when you roll, that means something is wrong with your technique and balance and I would want to fix that. Like anything else, you should be able to control when you step, when you don't step, etc. at all times.
Lots Of Social Media Stuff
I could go on and on about this and often have. You see boxing training online that doesn't really translate to anything you would do in the ring or even get you a better workout. Here is a video I made on the subject covering some of it but it is not at all an exhaustive list:
In closing, I will say something that I often say to anyone reading this and thinking, "Well, I don't fight competitively, I'm not gonna fight competitively, so none of this stuff really matters to me. What difference does it make if I train authentically or not?"
First of all, why NOT be authentic in your training. Why not try to learn the proper form and technique for everything? It certainly gives you more room to grow, more things to learn, and keeps things fresh. Is it challenging? Yes. And challenging is a good thing! Does training inauthentically benefit you in any way? Not really. Might make things a little easier at first, depending on what you're doing, but there is not room to grow your fitness and your skills. The more you learn how to properly throw punches, move your head, move your feet, box, the better your workout is going to be. Plus, you will feel better in general. Learning any skill, particularly something dynamic like boxing, boosts our confidence and overall mood.
For the first 4 months of 2025, our boxing club took a legendary fighter from boxing's past and present, then spent a week emulating their specific style, movements, combos, etc. Besides doing a lot of film study research, I also took a deeper dive into the training methods of each boxer.
We all know that anyone who competes at a high level in any sport trains hard and that the best of the best generally train the hardest, but I don't think we understand exactly what that means. Maybe on some level, intellectually, we can say, "wow, that guy really works hard" but the focus, intensity, and effort they put in is beyond the comprehension of a normal human.
I am not sure there is any way to easily communicate this level of training. In books and movies, the hero is almost always "The Chosen One." They were made for whatever heroic duty they perform. Luke Skywalker, Harry Potter, any superhero or mythological hero. Characters like James Bond, Sherlock Holmes, Indiana Jones, without any magical powers at all, still just seem born this way. We never really see a hero, magical or non-magical, who accomplishes amazing things through visceral amounts of work and perseverance.
Even real-life heroes or people who have achieved highest-level greatness rarely are depicted as putting in that next level of work. In a movie like "Bohemian Rhapsody", which tells the story of the rock band, Queen, almost portrays them like a bunch of upstarts whose youthful, rebellious exuberance is what carried them to stardom. To me, this is insulting. Every great musician has natural talent, but the great ones who become true virtuosos work like nobody else. They work every day, from morning until night, when any ordinary person would have given up long ago. They do the same things over and over and over again, not until it's good enough but until it is absolutely perfect, and perfect in a way that only the best can be perfect. I know this is how Queen approached the process. I've seen a documentary on the band recording one of their classic albums, "A Day at the Races" and I wish the movie could have given me some of that.
I love a good cop drama or spy thriller too, but it's also always bugged me that they never show the cops or spies doing any training. They just get into fights, kick the bad guys' asses, and don't have to do anything to maintain their skills. Of course I know that most other people probably don't care abut this and I am just a nerd and the answer that probably any artist would give me is that it is boring to just show people practicing or training. It's just not going to be as interesting on the screen or even the page.
I am not sure that I agree though. I think we undervalue the true beauty of labor and underestimate our abilities to bring it to life on screen. I think seeing the work that elite level practitioners put into their craft is interesting and gives me more respect for that person and their work. Just being blessed with skills and talent is not nearly as aspirational or impressive.
In rare instances where someone has been able to show what real hardcore training looks like, it has been pretty awesome. Going back to movies about music, one of my all-time favorite films is "Whiplash," is a fictional story about a guy who plays drums in a top level music school jazz band. I neither knew anything about, or cared much about, jazz drumming before I saw the movie, but it blew me away as they managed to convey the blood, sweat, tears and overall kinesis of what it takes to be the very best. Now of course, Whiplash does not show this in a traditionally positive manner and is, to some degree, about abuse, but no one has ever made anything that comes close in terms of the points I mention.
Then, there are the Rocky (and Creed) movies. Rocky I started the tradition of the great training montage scene. Showing him getting into final shape before the fight, culminating with a physical task that he couldn't do at the very beginning. Combined with that series' music, these scenes are awesome and left an indelible mark in our culture. They also definitely demonstrate some of the hard work as well as mental and physical toughness it takes to be great.
But I think the very first day they show Rocky training in the first film actually captures some of what I am talking about better. There is no fanfare. Rocky wakes up way too early, it's completely dark outside, chugs down 5 raw eggs for some reason, goes outside and runs along the lonely streets in the darkness. No one is there, no one cares, and it sucks. Rocky barely makes his way up the famous steps in Philadelphia.
My guess is that this scene is put in to show the transition of what Rocky becomes in his later, famous montage, but I think it says more than that to me. That is what dedication looks like. It is not always fun, it is not always pleasant, you don't want to do it and nobody is going to be there to reward or validate your effort. It's a grind. But you embrace the grind because you want to make yourself stronger.
This scene should serve as a reminder to all of us that while we may not have magical powers or be Chosen Ones, we must have grit and determination and perseverance, even against all odds. We can all embrace the grind. And that the hard work we put in is beautiful. It is what the real, heroic, best-of-the-best do.
There is an author, motivational speaker. educator and pastor named Eric Thomas who became famous years ago after larger audiences starting hearing him speak on YouTube. One of the speeches he is probably best known for is referred to as "How Bad Do You Want It" and probably the best known quote from that best-known speech is:
"When you want to succeed as bad as you want to breathe, then you'll be successful."
It isn't particularly original, as most motivational quotes are not, but but based on my life experiences and many I have heard from others, it is a pretty accurate statement. Particularly when it comes to our own health and fitness, which is what I am going to focus on here.
Of course health and fitness is somewhat relative to the individual, their age, the point they are at in their lives. Being successful in health and fitness was certainly different for me at age 25 than it is at age 50. But most people want to feel generally "in shape" where they can perform activities of daily life without feeling particularly winded or weak
So for that very general, vague definition, how can someone be successful there? Diet and exercise, right? (Sleep is also a component that is starting to get more and more recognition as the years go by). Given that, if someone is able to simply improve their diet, improve the quality and quantity of their exercise, and get better sleep/recovery, they should at the very least be a lot more successful when it comes to health and fitness. Maybe not right away but for most (not all, as there are medical reason that may be prohibitive), they will at least see some progress in the first few months.
So if it really is that simple, why are there not more healthy, fit people walking around? Why don't more of us feel successful in that part of our lives? Because it's hard. It's really, really hard and that is where the Eric Thomas quote comes in. Most people seem to want to be healthy or at least healthier, but how bad do they want it? Do they want it as much as they want (need) to breathe?
For many of us, the answer is probably no. There are varying degrees for sure. Everybody has a threshold. Like they will tolerate X-amount of inconvenience (making the time for exercise, pushing themselves to work harder, eating healthier even if it doesn't taste good) in exchange for Y-amount of health and fitness but there is a limit as to how much time they can spend and effort they can expend. And that X is based on how bad they want it. There are plenty of people I have encountered who I feel like want to want it. Meaning that they feel like they should want it but aren't willing to get too uncomfortable to get there.
I have mentioned previously that a common thing I hear from clients and potential clients is that they struggle to find the time for fitness in their lives. Whenever someone says the F-word- "find-" I know they don't want it that bad. At least not yet. Because we as modern humans don't really "find" time, by and large. If you want something, fitness or whatever, you have to make time for it. You have to make it a priority. This can be really hard though. Many of us are very busy - work, kids, family, friends, maintaining order in our lives - it is a lot of stuff. To suddenly add in a new hour of the day when we already feel completely overwhelmed seems impossible. Yet plenty of folks still do this. How? Because they want it more and instead of trying to fit it into their schedule, they fit their schedule around it.
To compound the problem, the time that you make won't necessarily be easy time. Whether it is for diet or exercise, it will require more of you. More focus, more energy, more work. So that can be difficult to get up for, even if you believe in the value of your work. Your own brain will naturally start working on plenty of valid excuses as to why you can't do the work. At least not today.
The diet and fitness industries has capitalized on this and continues to grow every year. Social media has had a huge impact as well. This is not inherently a bad thing and I have nothing against someone who wants to sell healthier foods or start a small boxing gym to help their fellow man. But a lot of information out there is also BS, in my opinion. And you can usually spot this pretty easily. As soon as someone starts talking about something that sounds like a shortcut or at least sounds like an easier, less invasive way to get the results you want to get, my guess is that they are selling snake oil. I have talked a bit about this in some earlier posts -
There really aren't any shortcuts or hacks. There are ways to train smarter and eat smarter but I think if you are looking to make it easier on yourself with these things, that is the wrong mindset. Whatever option you go with to improve your health and fitness is going to require work. Work to start and even more work to maintain. It will not be easy and comfortable and painless. The people who are most successful in this arena are those who embrace the grind. Those who look for a loophole in the system, generally are not, or at least not as, successful. But most importantly, the people who are most successful are the ones who value their health and fitness the most. They need it as much as they need to breathe.
I will leave you with one final quote, this one is from me (I think) and it is not particularly original either but sums up what I have said:
"Those who are really serious about their health and fitness will find a way to get healthy and fit. Those who are not serious enough, will find a way to make an excuse."
...Come to class! As in- come to our boxing classes at TITLE Boxing Club in Pittsford. Okay, maybe not ALL of your problems but certainly those that relate to learning boxing.
As I will continue to say for the rest of my life - boxing is hard. It is not a natural thing to learn. Consciously or subconsciously, I've found that many people tend to think otherwise. They think that boxing is natural because fighting is natural or because a natural athlete would be able to learn it easily (not true) or because movies and TV show make it look easy or they think it's like taking any ol' group exercise class or God knows what. No matter what you have done before in life, no matter how many sports you have mastered, no matter how many street fights you have won, learning boxing technique is going to be awkward and unnatural at first. It's a brand new way to move, as well as a new language.
When someone tries their first boxing class, they never ace it. Some people take to certain things more than others, but nobody just kind of clicks right away. It requires time and practice to learn and really, the better you get, the more you realize that there are things to learn. That being said, I have noticed that if someone trains consistently, like at least twice a week, there will almost always be a pretty big change in the first month. The movements and terminology start becoming a little more comfortable and class kind of slows down for them, in a way.
This learning curve can be frustrating to some and I definitely understand that. As I have also talked about many times before, it is hard to be uncomfortable and feel like you're not getting it. Some people feel like if they don't get something right away, something is wrong and must be fixed. That is pretty natural. There are many ways to learn and "fix" things but I can tell you that 99.9% will be fixed if you keep coming to class consistently, listen to the coaches, and be willing to try.
Thus, you WILL pick this up over time, you just have to be consistent. If you train sporadically, coming once in a while, you may very likely continue to struggle. When someone comes to me and says they are not getting it, I of course try to help them with the specific issues they are having, but also repeat what I am saying here, that if they keep coming consistently and paying attention, they will get it. I have never had a person train consistently and earnestly for more than a month or two and not show significant improvement. Not one person. Again, no one becomes an expert in that short of time, but things start to click.
Another thing I tell people to do is this: if/when they are struggling with a particular punch or movement or general technique in class, make a mental note of it. At the end of every class, I tell people to come to me with any questions they may have and this is the perfect time to bring up what you had the most trouble with. Maybe you are brand new and feel like EVERYTHING was tough. That is normal too, but I would suggest focusing on one thing in particular . Maybe whatever gave you the most trouble or something you want to get good at. Or just pick something at random. We'll focus on that one thing and if you keep coming to class, it will get better and better.
It really is that simple. Be patient, be consistent, be mindful. Even if you are an experienced boxer, looking to level something up, remember that it is not going to necessarily happen in one day. I often compare learning boxing technique to gardening - as coaches we plant seeds in our student and water them consistently. Over time, they grow. Even when people intellectually know what to do, getting their bodies to actually do the thing is a different story. For instance, on Day 1, I tell everybody new to boxing that every punch and defensive movement involves shifting weight from one foot to another. That is the key to boxing. The seed has been planted. Then when class starts, almost never does somebody actually do this. I cue them multiple times throughout class, I walk over and show them what I mean, watering the seed, but still, it is very unlikely that someone new to boxing will be able to get this on their first day. Again, they understand what I am telling them, it's just getting the body to respond. So we keep watering and watering and after more classes- voila! They start shifting their weight from one foot to another and a beautiful flower blooms!!!
In the last 20 years, a much larger demographic of people have taken up boxing training. It used to be pretty limited to folks who wanted to box in the ring competitively but that has changed a lot and many do it nowadays primarily for training. Some because they really wanted to learn the sport but plenty of others who were just looking for a new way to exercise, burn calories, tone up, get some stress out, have more fun with their workout, look cool, etc.
As I have said thousands of times, no matter what the reason or combination of reasons, learning proper boxing form is critical because it helps with everything: better workout, burns more calories, tones you up more, gets more stress out because you are hitting hard with more efficiency, is more fun because you feel good about yourself getting better at something and of course you look cooler the better you box!
Besides just proper form, there is a more to understanding boxing. The biggest thing is what I kind of lump into one big category called "The Why." Why do we do the things that we do in boxing? What is the point of it all? Starting from there can give you the best path forward to understanding The How and The What.
There are many layers to this and it starts with the most basic - why do we throw punches? It's not just an exercise, even if you do it for just exercise. We generally throw punches in boxing to hurt our opponent (or set them up for a punch that does hurt them). We want to hurt our opponent because they are going to hurt us if we don't. When you start looking at punches like that on the heavy bag, it can change everything. Good form will inherently give you more power but attitude and understanding will help a lot too. Throw punches with bad intentions. You want to break somebody's face, break their ribs, break their spirit. Yes, I know that's very violent and you may be a nice person but you can still think of your punches in this mean, violent way.
If you are just tapping the bag and moving your arms, that's not really going to benefit you very much. Another thing I say all the time is that I would much rather people threw fewer better, harder, more explosive punches than just non-stop lackluster punches. Throwing non-stop lackluster punches is like jogging - steady state cardio. But that's not what boxing is. It is a series of quick, anaerobic explosions like mini-sprints. I guarantee you the workout will go through the roof once you start approaching things like this.
Even beyond the punches, imagine your boxing workout is a real fight. If you were standing in a ring with someone who wants to hurt you, you wouldn't break posture or be flat footed with your hands down. You probably wouldn't just stand there either after you were done punching because very likely, that opponent was going to punch you back! So you would be moving around because you don't want to get hit. You might be tired but it's better to be tired than take punches (mostly). If you dodge a punch, it can't be lazy and slow or you wouldn't be able to dodge it. Again, understand The Why. When we do something like roll, you are ducking down under a fast punch that is trying to take your head off. So duck down fast! And if you are quick enough to dodge it, don't waste any time in countering or countering with a weak punch of your own. Someone just tried to take your head off! You don't want that happening again. So go get 'em! Once again, with this approach, everything you do during your boxing workout gets better.
You can take this much deeper too. Understanding The Why behind combinations and strategy can make a much bigger difference than you might think. When you throw something like a basic jab-cross-hook, what exactly are you doing? Where are you striking exactly and how might someone react? What if they bring their gloves together to block the jab and cross but you sneak the hook around their guard and hit them right in the jaw? Think of it that way and it will change the way you punch. What I see sometimes is people throwing punches as if it were just a random sequence of movements they have to memorize. It's like dancing but just doing the steps without ever feeling the music or getting the spirit of the dance. Or better yet, maybe more like acting. You don't just want to memorize lines. You want to become the character, understand what they are feeling and why they are feeling that way.
I know the punch sequences can be difficult to remember but understanding The Why may actually help you here too. Like, why are we throwing 2 punches to the head and one to the body? How are we setting someone up? Oftentimes, we explain this during class but you might tune out if you think that understanding The Why isn't important. When these punches take on more meaning and have a certain logic to them, they become much easier to remember.
So how do you better understand The Why? Well for one, as I just mentioned, listen when we talk about it during classes and/or ask us questions about anything any time! Also, during class, visualize the heavy bag as a real opponent. Think about where your punches are landing and always imagine punches coming back. You can always take a deeper dive into boxing online too. Besides our wonderful youtube channel filled with focus points of the week and midweek musings - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLN0PPf0o8X6X1Te2zEgHrqy-BtyI-RAg3 - there are plenty of other good resources out there who do in depth fight breakdowns like The Modern Martial Artist.
And always remember, no matter what your reason for boxing training is, whether you give a damn about the sport or not, understanding The Why will help every aspect of your training. The more you know, the better everything gets, even in ways you may not be able to imagine.
