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.
No comments:
Post a Comment