Boogeyman & Steph's Boxing Lingo

Boxing is very much it's own language. Every punch, every defensive maneuver, pretty much every movement has a specific name and we generally don't use these names for anything else of a similar context in our daily lives. Learning boxing is learning a sport AND a new language. 

Beyond the basic terminology, there is somewhat of a shorthand we use in classes at our club. This is to make things more efficient but also reinforce some of the basic principles. It's funny because writing this all out, it seems very complicated but most everyone who comes to our club more than a couple of times, tends to get it down without even really thinking about. So maybe it's a mistake to put it all in writing? Oh well, I guess I have already started...

Default Settings

These are the things that one should assume are always true unless we say otherwise. 

Every punch defaults to the head - if we call out a jab, cross, hook, uppercut, whatever, this means the punch is intended to go to the head of our opponent, who we also assume is as tall as we are, by default. If we intend for you to throw the punch to the midsection, we would add the word "body" or "low". Jab to the body, lead hook to the body, cross low, etc. 

So that also means that unless we say "body" or "low", all of your punches should land at roughly the same area. Different angles for all different punches but for instance, if the combo was a jab-cross-lead hook-rear uppercut, none of those strikes would ultimately land any lower or higher than each other. Oftentimes we will see people throw their jabs and crosses pretty close to the face of their default opponent but hooks and uppercuts are noticeably lower. This should never be the default.

Slips and Rolls - Which Way? - According to our basic laws of weight-shifting, you would always slip or roll to the side you just threw a punch from. For instance, if your last punch was a left hook, you would slip or roll to the left side first. You would also counter with a punch from that side too. So if you slipped to the left, your next punch would be on that left side. "Jab-cross-lead hook-slip-lead-hook" is how we might say it. If the last punch before a slip or roll was on the right side, you would default to slipping or rolling to the right, and then throwing another counterpunch from the right side too. Besides just learning how to dodge punches, this also reinforces the concept that just about everything we do is shift our lower body weight from one side to the other.

For more information on our basic laws of weight-shifting, check out this wonderful video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAkKqbNX3Fs

Pulls - Which Way? - The pull defensive move is a little simpler because you would almost always want to pull over your back foot and shift your weight there. This is for balance and to load a powerful counterpunch on that side. You certainly can pull over your lead side but you will be off-balance. To dodge a punch, you've got to do what you've got to do to avoid getting hit but again, the default pull is to your rear side. Here is another (wonderful) video about pulls - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHyIfQ_dZw0

Overhand - This is always going to be the rear (dominant) hand. So if you are right-handed, it is the right hand, left-handed, the left hand. Overhand punches with the lead hand can happen but are pretty rare and in the cases that we throw them in class, they are called out very specifically. We also often short the word "overhand" to "over". So we might say, "double-jab-over" when calling out the combination.

Liver Shot - For an orthodox boxer  (right-handed stance), the liver shot is a diagonal body punch with the left hand, which targets the liver specifically. For southpaw (left-handed) stance, it is kind of lie. The lefty would throw the same punch but with their lead/right hand. This does not target the liver but the spleen instead. Yet we still refer to it as a "liver shot". We could call it something more universal, like "lead shovel body hook" but I like saying "liver!" and since a punch that hits the spleen has a similar effect to a punch that hits the liver, I feel like it is okay and clear enough. Just like on overhands, we usually shorten this by saying "liver". So an overhand-liver shot burnout would just be called "over-liver".

Burnout vs. Combos -  Speaking of burnouts, a burnout is non-stop, rapid fire punching with no pauses between strikes at any point. It can be slow, it can be fast, but it must continuously flow, whereas combos involve a series of punches that flow together, with an implied break in between. We do burnouts for several reasons. Some people think they are for cardio but that is not necessarily the reason. At least for me, I find them most valuable at teaching a flow between punches as well as an opportunity to focus on one type of punch as opposed to remembering a specific combo, using footwork and head movement, etc.

Burnout Callouts - Oftentimes in burnouts, we like to call things out, whether they be other punches, a change in intensity, a defensive move, or footwork. The idea is that you will do that one thing and then go back to the previous burnout. So if you are throwing a jab-cross burnout and we call out "Hook!", you would throw a single hook (or however many we say) and then go back to jab-crosses as soon as you finish throwing that single hook.

Mostly Default Settings

These are almost default settings but not quite. Sometimes they can vary but we will almost always explain that clearly.

Left-Right Alternating Punches - Oftentimes, we will call out a combo without specifying which hooks, uppercuts and body shots are from the lead side or the rear side. The default here is that it the punches alternate hands so "Jab-cross-hook-hook" is going to always be jab-cross-lead-hook-rear hook. If it were 2 lead hooks, or meant to be a rear hook after the cross, we would clearly specify this in how we call it out. 

BUT, of course, good boxing combinations are not always left-right-left-right-etc.. We often throw multiple punches on the same side, particularly the lead hand. We always try to be very clear about this when calling out combos, reiterating that it in this case we are throwing 2 (or more) punches on the same hand. We often use the word "reload" in these cases too, to indicate that not only are you throwing another punch on the same hand, but you need to bring back your body weight to that side before throwing the next punch.

"Body" on its own is a hook to the body - Rather than say "body hook" or "body shot", we often just say "body" and the default is that it is a hook to the body. If it were a liver shot or cross to the body or whatever, we would say so. And just like above, "Body-body" means alternating hooks to the body - So if you were going to throw multiple, alternating (left-right or right-left) body hooks, we will often say "body-body" to imply this. So for instance, "jab-cross-body-body" = jab-cross-lead body hook-rear body hook.

And "Head" is generally a hook to the head - This is almost always used when throwing multiple punches to the body to set up a punch to the head. So like, "body-body-head" would mean 2 hooks to the body and one hook to the head (and since there was no indication on lead or rear side, you would assume that it is just left-right-left, or potentially right-left-right).

"Hook" is usually the lead hook - This is another thing to save time but also illustrate that the vast majority of hooks you would throw in classic boxing combinations are lead side hooks. So if we were to call out a "hook-cross" or a "jab-cross-hook", we would be referring to the lead hook. Throwing a jab-cross-rear hook would be a strange thing - not necessarily a bad thing, just something not done as often - and if we were to do it in a class, we would call a lot of attention to this being different and accentuate the rear hook a lot.

"Uppercut" is oftentimes the rear uppercut - This one is definitely not as common as the "Hook" above. For me, this is more often than not when I call out a "jab-cross-hook-uppercut", and I am referring to a jab-cross-lead hook-rear uppercut. But, I have also noticed many many people always defaulting to a rear uppercut, even when I specifically refer to it as a lead uppercut. So make sure to always keep an ear out for the "L" word. 

"Left" and "Right' apply to a right-handed person - So this is a tricky one that I have gone back and forth on. Initially, the idea was that I would never say "left" or "right" when talking about which hand we punch with. That we would always refer to them as "lead hand/side" (non-dominant hand that is closest to the back) and "rear hand/side" (dominant hand that is farthest away). This way, I can use the same language for people who box in a right-handed, orthodox, stance as I do with people who box in a left-handed, southpaw, stance.

The problem I felt like we ran into is that newer folks to boxing really struggled understanding the concept of a lead and rear side. Since there are sometimes classes in which we have no left-handed people, I started saying "left" and "right" at times and it did seem to help.

But this does make it trickier for the southpaws because for them, the sides are reversed. I.e. their left hand is their rear hand and their right hand is their lead hand. And I started to let this leak into classes with lefties. Usually, these people figure things out pretty quickly and I have tried using lead/rear more recently but the basic takeaway is that if you hear me say "left" or "right", I am referring to someone in an orthodox, right-handed stance and if you are a southpaw, just reverse it. I apologize in advance to all you left-handers out there, it is nothing personal, I promise. Both of my children are left-handed too and believe me, I love them more than anything. It's just when trying to get a group of people of varying levels to learn boxing, I have to generally err on the side of the majority.

If not specifically-stated otherwise, combos begin with the lead side - this doesn't mean that we rarely start combos with a rear side punch, we do, but it is always called out as such. If we were to just say something like "Upper-upper-hook" without any other identifying words, you would assume that we start with the lead side, as that is more common.

Things That Only We Say

While most of the above is pretty common in boxing gyms across the country, there are some things we say in our classes that no else does so if you repeat them anywhere else, people will think you are crazy.

HOT SAUCE!!! - This is where you quickly hop to your rear side, changing angles, and then throw a powerful punch on the rear side, usually a cross. Optional: yell out "Hot Sauce!' and perhaps an "Ooooh-weee!" as you do it.

Torpedo Cross - The Torpedo Cross begins as a cross to the body. You start to rotate the hips and shoulder while dropping down but once the once the cross hand passes you, you stand up as you continue to rotate and extend the cross hand. This can be used for deception - make them start to defend a cross to the body and then you suddenly bring it up to the head - or as even a way to generate power - by pushing into the ground and lifting up as you rotate through the cross can transfer some of that leg drive into the power of the punch. Optional: make sonar pings right before you throw it.

Note that this is something that boxers occasionally do, I didn't just make it up, but as far as I know, no one has a name for it and I doubt anybody practices it. It just can come up over the course of a fight.

Gazelle Punch/"Gazelle" Noises - The gazelle punch is a standard term, though not something people tend to throw in traditional boxing gyms, despite it also being something that many of the greatest boxers of all time (Dempsey, Marciano, Patterson, Ali, Frazier, Hagler, Tyson, Roy Jones Jr.) have had in their repertoire but one thing I am pretty sure that no one has ever done in the history of time was made a gazelle noise to signify throwing a gazelle punch. The thing is though, I have no idea what a gazelle sounds like or if they even make a noise at all but I made something up that sounds like I high-pitched laugh. If you ever here me do it, throw a gazelle punch. Oh, and a gazelle punch is a leaping lead hook.

Rooster Punch/Rooster Noises - This is much less common but a punch Roy Jones Jr. was known for. It is just like a gazelle punch except it is more of a leaping lead uppercut, loaded up by twisting and dipping to the lead side. Roy Jones said he got the idea for it watching roosters fight on his family farm and famously knocked down James Toney with it after putting his hands behind his back and dancing back and forth like a chicken. So there are other people who refer to this as a "rooster punch" but yet again, I will occasionally make rooster noises to signify throwing it instead of just saying "rooster punch." In this case, I do know what a rooster sounds like and think my impression is pretty solid so if you ever hear me doing it, leap forward and throw a lead uppercut on the bag.

Other Weird Names For Punches - this is far less important and if I ever say this during a class, I will explain it too but I have occasionally referred to my rear hook as "Candyman" (because the titular character in the Candyman movies had a hook for his right hand), the lead hook as "Uncle Louie" (because people sometimes refer to taking a left turn as a "louie"), the lead uppercut as "Johnny Rocket", and most recently, the double-jab as "Snappy Tom".

Steph has some of her known names as well but again, do not concern yourself with actually thinking about this too hard, I am just putting it in writing in case it ever pops out.

As I mentioned earlier, eventually this stuff just starts making sense to you if you keep on boxing. If it's all a little alarming at first, don't worry. As always, there is no penalty for slipping to "wrong" side or using a different hand or throwing a different punch than when we intend. I would rather everyone learn how to properly throw punches above all else, even if they are not what we call out. And I would rather everyone have fun so don't get too bogged down in anything, the lingo or otherwise.

What Can You Get Better At in the New Year?

 

A great thing about boxing is that you never get perfect at it. But you can always get better at everything all the time. Every time you train, you should be getting at least 1% better at at least one thing. Even if you have been training for years and years, you should still be getting better. Even if you're older and starting to slow down, you can still get better. Anyone who thinks they have gotten as good as they are going to get at every facet is holding themselves back.

Besides just having a positive attitude, one thing that will make it a lot easier is to pick something to get better at and focus on it specifically. At our club, we have weekly focus points with this in mind, but there is no reason you can't incorporate your own personal, longer-term focus point.

So what would you like to get better at? It could be something you feel like you are struggling with, could be something you just really want to be good at, could even be something you already feel pretty good with but want to get better still, could be ANYTHING!

But here is the key: It needs to be specific. You could just say something like, "I want to get better at the jab" and pay attention to the cues we give you in classes and practice at home but you will have more success if you get a little deeper So instead you could say, "I want to be able to get my hand back faster after throwing a jab" or, "I want my left shoulder to not feel so tired when I throw jabs" or "I want to be able to throw my jab while moving and not feel so awkward" or anything that refers to specific parts of a jab (or whatever you pick) so that it is easier to observe and measure.

Then the next time you train, pay special attention to that component and see how you are doing. Remember to check in multiple times, too. Like you might be getting that jab hand back lightning fast in the first couple of rounds but what about later, when you are tired?

Another thing you could and should do is mention this to your coach. Tell me what you want to try and improve and I will definitely give you a tip or 3, as well as observe your progress. Even if you don't know what you want to get better at, you could ask your coach what they think. I will always be glad to give you a suggestion or 3. You could also just even come up with something at random.

One thing you can do when picking something to get better at - whether it is in boxing or life in general - is stop having limiting thoughts:

"I can't learn to punch harder because I am small, and weak and older and not really a boxer anyway so who cares?" 

"I can't get up early in the morning to exercise (or do anything) because I am not a morning person"

"I can't get any better at footwork because I have bad knees"

There are a million of them and again, this relates to pretty much anything in life. Some are silly but plenty of them are logical and make perfect sense. But that doesn't mean they are 100% correct. There may be ways to accomplish things that you haven't considered. If you say something to yourself like, “I am not a morning person,” it is limiting. Maybe you don't love getting up early in the morning. But don't just reject all possibilities by defining yourself that way. It's that classic mindset of thinking about how you can do something as opposed to thinking about all the ways you can't do something. The instant you start looking at life and boxing from the can standpoint, as opposed to the can't, I guarantee you that your boxing - and really your life!- will get better.

Of course you don't have to start with anything big either, unless you are really in the mood for a big life overhaul. Just pick one specific thing about boxing and start from there!

Hello, my name is Alex and I am STILL an alcoholic

Back in 2022, I wrote a blog post about my battles with alcohol and addiction -
 https://theboxingmanifesto.blogspot.com/2022/12/hello-my-name-is-alex-and-i-am-alcoholic.html

It had been 3 years since I had a drink when I wrote it. Now, in 2025, 3 years later, I am happy to say that I am still holding strong. Not one sip since December of 2019. But that doesn't mean that I did it- that I beat my addiction. Even if I can continue to hold on for another 30 years, I still won't have beaten it. Because you never really beat any serious addiction as long as you are alive. It is an ongoing battle. Just like the Terminator, Alcoholism will never stop chasing after me. It won't get tired or give up, it will wait patiently, year after year, looking for that one crack in my armor that it can slip through.

Does not drinking get easier over time, though? Yes, it definitely does, but that can be a problem too. Getting too comfortable can lead to dropping your guard. When I first went to outpatient rehab and met the rest of the group, there was a guy who mentioned that he had quit drinking for 5 years but then fell off the wagon. When I asked him why he started drinking again after all that time, he just told me that life was going too good for him. He got too comfortable and thought that he could certainly handle a drink or two and be just fine. For serious alcoholics, this is a trap.

It’s not a trap because you have one drink then everything just falls apart again. It's because you have one drink or maybe two drinks and it's just fine. You do it again and it's still just fine. You are mindful about it and moderate and think "Hey, I can manage this!" and then you just continue to fall deeper and deeper into addiction quicksand.

I am sure there are people who have been able to actually manage this and avoid falling back into their old ways, but they are a lucky minority. Many of us true alcoholics cannot or at least, should not even try. That is my approach. I'm not even going to open that door again.

What I should say, actually, is that I am not going to open that door today. It's kind of a slight variation on the whole one-day-at-a-time concept. My goal is not to never drink again for the rest of my life. It is to not drink today. Who knows what tomorrow may bring, but it ain't happening today. It sounds simple- it is very simple- but it has really been another helpful way to approach things.

As you might be able to surmise from the first paragraph, I also like to look at alcoholism and addiction in general as a separate entity. An evil and powerful enemy who wants to get me. This might sound silly or like I am not taking responsibility for my own actions but I think anyone who has suffered through serious addition - or been very close to someone dealing with it - may understand.

Something I think that a lot of men in particular have trouble with, is thinking that they should be able to just stand up to their addictions and beat them on their own. And that not being able to do this is a weakness. That if they were just strong enough, they could defeat any addiction they have with sheer willpower and discipline. When that doesn't happen, they either spiral into helpless depression or deny to themselves that there is a big problem that must be solved.

This is a pretty natural instinct for generally strong people, but I think it is the absolute wrong way to look at it. As I said earlier, Alcoholism, is just like The Terminator for me. An unstoppable machine. None of my weapons will work and every time I think I finally destroy it, it just gets back up slowly and keeps coming for me. It is not a fair fight and it never was. 

I feel no shame in having lost to The Terminator. I fought it for years and it decisively kicked my ass. I am not a wimp or a weakling. I am a strong person and have survived a lot in my life. I was able to stop smoking cigarettes, stop doing other drugs, but when it came to booze, I could not win. It was my personal kryptonite.

And I'm not the only one. Alcoholism and other addiction have taken down plenty of great people. Strong people, powerful people, brilliant people. It has chewed them up and spit them out. Has taken everything they love away from them, including their lives. It is a beast. It is a demon from Hell and it cheats. All I can do is tip my cap and say, "You win, Booze. You got me" and try to be like The Terminator myself- staying vigilant. As my addiction always stalks me, I will always keep my eye on it and never let my guard down.

You may be thinking that I sound overdramatic here, personifying and even glorifying this addiction. But that is really what it is like for me and many people who go through this. You may not have this problem and I really hope you don't. It certainly didn't start off for me that way at all, but over the years, I felt myself going from happy, social drinking - even with the occasional binge drinking - to something darker that I no longer had any control of.

If it starts to become darker for you or for someone you are very close to, I will say again what I said 3 years ago, you/they will almost definitely need some help. And you should get it right away. Help can come in many forms. Don't get locked into thinking you have only one or even two options. Do not, and I repeat, do not be afraid to ask for help. It doesn't make you weaker, or less-than, or anything bad. You are a person who has a real disease. If you had any other disease, you would likely seek treatment.

If you know someone who is going through this and are close to them, I think it is important to know that they have a disease and need treatment too. They are not allowing themselves to be consumed by alcohol just to be a jerk and hurt you. They certainly may be a jerk and hurt you, but that is not why they are drinking or why they refuse to stop long-term. You also may not be the one to help them and that is okay. Doesn't reflect badly on you or anything. It also does not necessarily mean that they don't love you enough to quit drinking on their own.

The reason I have shared this story and am now sharing it again is not to preach about the dangers of alcohol (as well as other serious, dangerous addictions) but just because maybe someone else out there is going through something similar or maybe loves someone who is. It can be helpful to hear another perspective. It can also be helpful to hear that you are not the only one. Of course we all know it intellectually but it's different when you actually hear personal stories. This is one reason that group sessions in rehab and things like Alcoholics Anonymous can be incredibly useful to breaking very deep addiction.

And speaking of which, if anyone dealing with addiction in their lives wants to talk to me personally about this stuff, my door is open.

Punching Power is Something You are Born With, Right?

I know I like to talk about punching power a lot on this very blog, during classes, in person, etc. I also really like to throw powerful punches on the heavy bag. It's fun, it's good for me, it feels good and as I have said many times, the heavy bag is absolutely the best tool for developing punching power. I was not originally a power puncher though. Even when I learned more technique, I would not describe myself as a heavy hitter. In fact, I was not a natural boxer at all. It didn't just take practice for me to get better and hit harder, it took learning. Learning how the human body works so I could better understand how to convert that into more powerful strikes.

Something I have heard boxers, boxing commentators and even boxing coaches say is that power, as in punching power, is something you are born with. That you are either a power puncher or you're not. It cannot be taught. Sure, we can teach people how to throw a punch but whether it has knockout power is based on you, the individual. It's almost like magic really.

Is there any truth to this? No! At least, not on its face. It is a myth that has been around for a long time and despite modern science and training methodologies- which have advanced other sports-  this antiquated thinking still persists in plenty of modern-day boxing training.

What I think is the problem - and this is just an educated guess because I can't really know for sure - is that a lot of boxing coaches and boxers don't have a real strong grasp of anatomy and biomechanics. To throw a punch, or really perform any athletic movement, muscles must work together quickly to produce force at a specific angle and follow a kinetic chain of some sort. How well you transfer energy through that chain and what muscles you recruit for this in one way will make that movement more explosive - more powerful. Then there many physiological factors, like the stretch-shortening mechanic and skeletal alignment, that dramatically affect punching power.

It is true that some boxers are more naturally able to execute these mechanics. We are all different from each other. Certain people have more natural ability in all things than others. Just even the control and awareness of our own bodies is different for everyone. But this still does not make it magic. All of the biomechanics of throwing more powerful punches can be broken down, taught, learned and developed. Some may struggle with them more than others but there is nothing physically preventing an average person from getting it. The boxer and coach just have to understand the science and usually, they do not, so it gets chalked up to being magic/something you are born with.

Oftentimes, punching power is coupled with size. If you are a big, strong person, you must be able to throw big, strong punches vs someone who is smaller. Once again, there can be some truth to this but it is not at all inherent. Force = Mass x Acceleration/Velocity so the more mass someone has, the more they add to that equation. Except it is not that simple. Because you can have mass but if it's not effective mass, it is not significantly relevant to your ability to throw powerful punches.  For example, if a 300-pound person throws a hook but does not know how to shift his weight into that punch, it will produce less force than a 150-pound person who is able to shift the majority of his weight into a punch. Just like before, it comes down to biomechanics. Mass by itself only gives you the potential to put more force into your punches. It doesn't naturally give you more force.

Some boxing trainers may not be motivated to delve too far into the science as there is a common fear that trying to teach your boxers to throw more powerful punches means that it will come at the expense of something else. Usually, that it will leave you more open to counter punches. This can be true if you are generating the power through extra range-of-motion. More range-of-motion, generally means that the punch travels a longer distance and continues to accelerate. But ROM is only one factor. There are ways to develop punching power with shorter, sharper punches so it is not accurate to say that simply throwing more powerful punches mean you will be more open to counters.

There is also the erroneous belief that throwing powerful punches also automatically equals being sloppy, not strategic and off-balance. Once again, this is not inherent. It can be, if the puncher is not technical and disciplined, and sometimes boxers like that tend to fight in a slugger style, but these things are not mutually inclusive.

People (boxers, boxing coaches, enthusiasts) also love to tell you that not every punch needs to be powerful. This makes them seem wise, as it may challenge conventional thinking. And they are not necessarily wrong either. Not every punch needs to be powerful but all things being equal, it is far more advantageous to strike hard, strike fast, no mercy. If you can punch just as fast, remain just as balanced. just as ready to defend or react any way and have the conditioning to pull it off, there is no reason not to throw a more powerful strike. Yes, there are such things as throwaway punches but this is not the main offensive strategy of successful fighters.

From a fitness point of view, throwing more powerful punches is certainly advantageous too. Recruiting more muscles in the kinetic chain, speeding up the stretch-shortening cycle, shifting more mass into the punch that must be "caught" on the side you shift it to, this all takes extra work. Extra work means extra rewards. More strength, more cardio, more calories burned. It also builds skills like coordination, balance, agility and reaction time.

So yes, I am going to keep on beating the drum of power punching because it's good for me, it's good for you and it seems to be largely misunderstood by others. Now get in here and hit it hard!!!

Boxing - Why So Serious?

When Muhammad Ali arrived on the scene in the early 1960s (then Cassius Clay), it was pretty clear that he was a different cat. Not just in terms of his boxing skills, but also his personality. He was a character. There was a lot of boxing bravado, but there was also an element of silliness to him that I don't think we had seen from a fighter before. Boxers were (and are still) pretty serious dudes. There are many possible, logical reasons for this. Maybe because it is such a dangerous sport, a tough way to make a living, generally participated in by people from tough backgrounds, has such an air of toughness to it and is also quite lonely- without the same camaraderie you might get in team sports. This has been the case for over a hundred years without too many exceptions. Ali was certainly an outlier. And even he was still serious at times.

Another outlier, some 20 years later, was Hector 'Macho' Camacho. He definitely brought a fun, infectious and flamboyant spirit into boxing. Of course he was on a lot of drugs at the time, too, but his joyous attitude felt totally honest and authentic. Some guys had done elaborate ring walks before, trying to look cool and show off. In Hector's case, I don't think it was either of those things. I think he just found it fun. He would often enter the ring wearing a costume - bullfighter, Roman Centurion, Native American, Fireman, Puerto Rican Superhero - to name a few, and it never felt like anything that was meant to inspire fear in his opponents or make him look like a badass at all. He usually did silly dances along with the music too. As a kid/young adult watching him, I thought that was so cool. He wasn't trying to be a clown or a joke either. He backed it all up in the ring. It was just an element of fun that no one else seems to be having.

Plenty of other boxers have been nice, friendly, and charming and even flamboyant but the fun and silliness we got from Macho Camacho never really caught on with anybody at the top. Someone like Prince Naseem Hamad definitely had the flair, being taken into the ring on a magic carpet and doing a backflip over the ropes, then fighting in an equally flamboyant style. Emanuel Augustus would dance in the middle of the fight, early and often, even using it strategically to land and avoid punches. I still wouldn't consider anything they did particularly silly or fun. Their demeanor always appeared serious with this just being an act to appear cocky and interesting.

The stereotype of an old school boxing gym certainly isn't fun or silly. It's quite the opposite. Some of them want very much to appear this way so that only people who are really serious would want to train there. Some are in inner city areas where silly and funny aren't exactly the vibe of the streets.

And that's all fine and good, I suppose. But I think the mistake people make is that they equate a certain type of attitude and vibe with boxing gyms, boxers and boxing as a sport and then assume that anything that doesn't fit that mold is considered somewhat less legitimate. Like it's not "real" boxing if you are having fun, being silly or better yet, have a bunch of crazy Halloween decorations in your boxing gym. 

The two things aren't mutually exclusive though. Someone can be a great boxer and/or boxing coach and be a total goofball. Just because we haven't seen much of that before does not mean it isn't possible. I've mentioned before that I started at a very stereotypical kickboxing gym where a lot of fighters trained at a dingy warehouse in a bad neighborhood of San Jose, CA. In the 9 months I trained there, no one really taught me anything much about how to throw strikes, how to defend strikes, why we throw certain strikes, etc., etc. If someone were to come to my kickboxing class, I would teach them far more in the first 5 minutes than everything I learned at the other place. And if it were in the month of October, I would do this while standing next to a skeleton DJ, underneath an archway of pumpkins, surrounded by Halloween lights, various decorations and Michael Myers. This does not make the information I am providing any less legit or useful or insightful. It also doesn't mean that I take the sport, learning about the sport, and teaching the sport any less seriously than anything else. Or just kind of have a flippant attitude about it. Quite the contrary.

So does everybody just need to loosen up and be like me, The Boogeyman? No, not at all. The problem, as it is for so many things in life, is thinking that boxing (or anything) has to be a certain way. That by not conforming to the prevailing style means that it is somehow less than or less legitimate. I will say this though, and I have certainly said it before, boxing is a sport mired in the past and seems somewhat stuck on several levels. A lot of the coaching and even training hasn't evolved like the other sports.

Breaking out of these molds has several advantages. For one, certain people may perform better when they are having more fun, but it also will lead to more advancement in training, strategy, etc., as I have talked about before. As soon as people start to approach boxing from a new angle and not just blindly accept something because it has been the way boxing has always been, they will be able to take the sport to new levels. 

We have seen this happen with other sports for sure, with very positive results. For instance, modern technology has been used in baseball and football to analyze a swing or a throw in a way to better maximize our biomechanical capabilities. Boxing has pretty much nothing like this to develop punch mechanics. It might seem like I am veering off topic here (and maybe I am) but the overarching point is that whether you are trying to bring fun, silliness, a skeleton DJ and modern technology into your boxing training, this does not mean you are not taking said boxing training seriously or is it any less legit.

Hand Position For the Hook Punch - 2 Schools of Thought

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!

Was Boxing Better in the 1960s?

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.

I Did An 8-Week Hip Mobility & Flexibility Program. Here Is What Happened...

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!!

Slow down to get it right? Yes, but...

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.

The Beginner Mentality

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.

Kickboxing vs. Muay Thai - What's 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.