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).