Are Pumpkins Healthy?

If I were to keep a food journal of everything I eat in the month of October, reading it would be like the scene in that movie, The Shining, where Wendy Torrance finally discovers her husband's manuscript and realizes just how far gone he is. I make some pretty terrible food choices this time of year. Candy corn and candy corn variants (harvest corn, mellowcreme pumpkins and those Brach's caramel apples) are part of my daily diet. I eat other candy too, long before the trick or treating begins. I love pumpkin spice EVERYTHING. Anything sweet you can make with pumpkin spice or any fall flavoring, I will eat or drink. Even a plain old cookie in the shape of a pumpkin or skull or anything seasonal usually will get consumed too. Of course there are also donuts, pie, cider and I could just keep on going but you probably get the point. And you also probably know that none of this stuff is healthy. 

But did you know that pumpkins themselves ARE actually quite healthy? It's true - they are low in calories but high in vitamins, minerals, antioxidants and other good stuff including:

• Vitamin A
• Vitamin C
• Vitamin E
• Riboflavin
• Potassium
• Copper
• Manganese
• Thiamin
• Vitamin B-6
• Folate
• Pantothenic Acid
• Niacin
• Iron
• Magnesium
• Phosphorus
• Beta Carotene
• Fiber

These promote eye, skin, heart and metabolic health. Eating pumpkin can also help reduce blood pressure, control diabetes. There are studies that even show how Beta Carotene, something pumpkins are rich in, can reduce your risk of cancer!

So does this mean that some part of my usual October diet actually has some nutritional value? Unfortunately no. Most things that are pumpkin spice-flavored contain little to no pumpkin. And even some things that do contain pumpkin more than cancel themselves out with sugar and other empty calories. Unless you are a big squash fan, eating pumpkin on its own is not particularly exciting. But there are plenty of recipes out there nowadays that are tasty and nutritious.

Then there are also pumpkin seeds, which are pretty rich in iron, zinc, magnesium, antioxidants and even some protein. Toasted and salted pumpkin seeds make for a pretty decent snack and since they do not exactly chew easily, they can be good option if you find yourself hungry but don't plan on eating your next meal for a while and don't want to snack on something unhealthy that you would consume quickly.

Thus, if you are looking to make some healthier food choices and wondering what you should do, give pumpkins a real shot this season. Or at least don't feel quite as bad about having a slice of pumpkin pie on Thanksgiving. And if you're like me and want to get generally back on track with your diet this month yet still keep the fall flavors going, pumpkin may be part of the solution!

What is the Punch Numbering System & Why Don't We Use it Exclusively?

If you've been to classes at our club, you may have occasionally heard us calling out a combination like, "Jab-cross-lead hook-cross" and then following it up with numbers - "1-2-3-2.” Or maybe you've trained somewhere that uses only numbers for punch combinations or heard them referenced in some other way.

It is true that many boxing gyms throughout the country and world use a number system to call for punches. So instead of saying "jab,” they would say "1" to call that punch. It's like a form of shorthand. Saying something with more syllables like "lead uppercut" takes longer to say than just "5.” Makes good sense, especially when training someone 1-on-1 or even a group of people starting with the same skill/experience level. For anything else, I find it less useful and there are several reasons.

First, it is not universal. Different gyms have different numbering systems. Probably the most common looks like this:

1 - jab

2 - cross

3 - lead hook

4 - rear hook

5 - lead uppercut

6 - rear uppercut

But I have seen a bit of variation here and not just from outlier gyms no one has ever heard of. Pedro Diaz, for example, has a system that looks like this:

1 - jab

2 - cross

3 - lead uppercut to the body

4 - rear uppercut to the body

5 - lead hook

6 - rear hook

(goes on to 12)

I have also seen systems where #4 is the rear uppercut, some where it is the overhand, some where #3 is a hook to the body and so on. But then there are also more than just 6 punches. What about the overhand? Any of those punches to the body? Specifically the liver shot? Some systems have separate numbers for all of them. Some just say something like "3 to the body,” which tends to defeat the purpose of the number system (brevity). And as the numbers go above 6, they vary even more widely. Cus D'amato's system apparently looked like this!

1 - lead hook

2 - rear hook

3 - lead uppercut

4 - rear uppercut

5- liver shot

6 - spleen punch

7 - jab

(and so on)

In any case, one doesn't necessarily need a universal number system. Can just be whatever your trainers and coaches like. But for learning, I like the idea of not being locked into something you can't take with you if you move, go to a different gym, whatever. It is true that some people might call a cross a "straight right hand" but for the most part, in English, punch names are universal.

Though the names themselves may not be the greatest names we could give each punch, I do like that many of them are somewhat self-descriptive. If you tell someone brand new to throw an uppercut, without any training or experience even watching boxing, most will assume that the punch comes at somewhat of an upward trajectory. "Upper,”  right? It's in the name. I often tell people that when they throw hooks, they are making their arm into a hook shape and in the case of the lead side, actually pulling their lower body weight back, like hooking something in. Overhand comes over the top, the liver shot goes to the liver, lead side is your front side, rear side is your back side, etc. Jab and cross aren't particularly descriptive but at least they are the only ones. And calling them 1 and 2 respectively brings to mind another numbering system some of us use for the bathroom.

Now if someone brand new has watched boxing or MMA or even seen a movie/show where they reference boxing or punching in some way, it is very possible that they have heard some of these terms before. Maybe they didn't pay a whole lot of attention but the words are floating around in their mind somewhere. By contrast, it is very unlikely that they have heard the numbering system referenced. Announcers will occasionally mention the numbers but most of the time, it is just the word. Probably about the closest thing your average layperson may have been exposed to is 'the ol' 1-2" referring to a jab-cross, although they may not realize what that means exactly.

The other thing with teaching people new to boxing the number system is that it generally means I have to teach them two things instead of one, right off the bat. So if I'm showing punches and say, "Alright, this punch is called the jab, you're going to blah blah blah (explaining and showing the jab), and we are going to refer to this punch as #1", that becomes two names for one thing. Now it is possible that I never say the word, "jab". It could just be the 1 so I am only teaching them one name for everything but I think that gets awkward in terms of class presentation. Again though, working with someone 1-on-1 or a group who all starts at the same time and will continue for the same time, I see how this can be worth doing.

So, having something more universal, more self-descriptive, with some potential previous awareness (however small) and limiting the amount of terminology to the absolutely minimum are reasons why I prefer to use punch names when calling for combinations and drills. As mentioned earlier, you will often hear me use numbers as well, for anyone familiar with those and to just get more experienced students familiar with them too.

None of this is meant to say that I think teaching people the numbering system is bad or coaches shouldn't do it. We all need to do what we think is best for our particular students in our particular teaching formats. What I would raise objection to is anyone who thinks the numbering system is something significantly better or more authentic. It is shorthand, that is all. An often faster way to call for punches. Anyone who tries to tell you that it is anything else, and that everyone should use it, and anyone who doesn't, sucks, is full of #2 (if you catch my drift).

The Punch That Doesn't Exist?

I have said before that the lead hook is the most dangerous punch in boxing because it is the punch you are the least likely to see coming, in my opinion. The rear hook, on the other hand (literally), is a different story. It is easier to see coming, takes longer to arrive at its target than a straight right and can mostly only land at close range.

Probably because of reasons like these, I have heard boxers and boxing coaches alike not only say that they don't ever throw the rear hook (to the head) but that it doesn't even exist! I doubt they mean it sincerely but nonetheless, people seemingly in the know continue to express this viewpoint. Maybe you've heard something like that too or read it on the internet. Even in some punch numbering systems, the rear hook doesn't appear in the #4 spot as it does in others.

Of course if you have ever watched a boxing card on TV and tried to pay attention to what punches are thrown, you will notice this is not true at all. You will see boxers throw hooks to the head with their dominant, power hand. It is true that they throw fewer rear hooks than many other punches but they certainly do happen. Especially in the clinch or close range scenarios.

And it's not just that we see them in fights, but some very high profile KOs, still talked about to this day, were rear hook KOs like:

• Rocky Marciano's famous "Sunday Punch" vs. Jersey Joe Walcott
• Manny Pacquiao's brutal KO of Ricky Hatton
• Then Manny Pacquiao was KO'd in even more brutal fashion by running into Juan Manuel Marquez' rear hook
• One of Canelo's greatest moment was his rear hook KO over James Kirkland
• Even Jake Paul landed one of the cleanest rear hooks you will ever see against Tyron Woodley

And there are plenty more. Yet sometimes the announcers are even a little complicit in this and refer to a rear hook punch as the overhand right, even when it has no overhand trajectory at all (some even coming slightly upwards). The fighters themselves will do this too. Jake Paul called his punch an overhand that took down Tyron Woodley immediately afterwards. Maybe you could argue that some of these shots are not pitch perfect, 90-degree angle rear hooks but such is the case with plenty of lead hooks too and you would NEVER hear an announcer or fighter refer to them any differently. 

So is there some conspiracy against calling a rear/right hook a "hook"? I am sure there isn't but this has always perplexed me. My guess is that it was one of those old boxing tenets that just kind of floated around for years and years but wasn't worth challenging out loud so people just fell into not acknowledging it at all. If you've heard some boxing coach say there are no rear hooks or you should never throw rear hooks, you may just simply be conditioned into not talking about them, despite what we you clearly see in the ring.

One thing I will acknowledge is that punches are thrown very fast and in the heat of the moment, it can be really hard to even tell what was thrown. We often have to watch a replay or two, especially when dissecting combinations. And as the rear hook is shorter, bent-arm punch, it is much harder to perceive than something like a jab. That can also be why it works in certain cases too. You're in close, punches are flying, your opponent sees your rear hand coming and braces for a cross but you come around their guard and hit them in the side of the jaw or temple area. The rear hook is often the most powerful punch that someone can throw. It doesn't need to be a haymaker like in the movies or a street fight. It can be short, explosive and powerful, travelling a little farther than a lead hook for more force and being on your dominant hand, potentially thrown with more coordination.

Then of course there are rear hooks to the body that are more commonly thrown and plenty effective . I feel like we should start acknowledging rear hooks and end the stigma that they are not useful or even more preposterous, don't exist at all. The next time you hear someone make a cavalier statement like this, tell them to watch a full boxing card, go to YouTube, or better yet, tell Ricky Hatton or Manny Pacquiao or James Kirkland or multiple Roy Jones Jr. opponents that the punch that knocked them out so brutally is not actually real.