Talk:Boxing/Archive 1

Poor Structure
Wow, huge article but poor on structure, and sometimes inconsistent. This is not my area of expertise, but I have some suggestions nonetheless:
 * Amateur boxing is often called olympic boxing by practicioners, since in modern usage, "amateur" carries connotations of low skill.
 * The noblemen who used fist-fights as a form of duelling can be seen as inspiration for the amateur boxing tradition, as opposed to the prize fights which were the origins of professional boxing. Actually, the differences between the two styles are so big it might be worth separating them into different articles.
 * Damages and controvercies should be separated under a heading of its own. A factoid that may be interesting is that professional boxing is illegal in many countries, because of the prevalence of 'chronic concussion' and the long-term effects of boxing. Other things that should be mentioned is "punch-drunk syndrome", and that all knockouts are in fact severe concussions.
 * head protectors give some protection against cuts, but relatively little against concussion, since wrapping an egg in cotton won't protect the yolk if you give it a shake, so to say.
 * The protective nature of gloves, and that different types are used in olympic vs. professional. I've read that the introduction of gloves into pugilism actually brutalized the sport because participants could now strike to the head with less risk of hand injury. If this can be verified it might be worth a mention.
 * In olympic boxing, 1 - 4 % of all fights end in knockouts, according to an article by McCunney & Russo, 1984. I don't have verified numbers for professional boxing, but I've read that it's about one third. (People who watch boxing could perhaps verify or refute this figure). Bear in mind that knockouts are defined rather differently in the two sports, although we are probably still talking about concussion even in O.B.

Boxing champ.

Removed the British view of boxing
Well I was shocked to read the sub heading on personalities. It was nothing but a British view. Some Northern Irish guy and a Scottish fellow and English chaps winning in some obscure fights are mentioned like they were the "Rumble in the Jungle". And there was no mention of Rocky Marciano, Joe Louis, Sugar Ray Leonard, Mike Tyson. There was only a passing reference to Mohd. Ali which says "Other countries have their fighters too" and talks in just one paragraph about him and the rest of the world.

naturally being the wikipedian i've i changed it to better reflect the actual world. this isnt' the British encycopedia on British boxing. I wonder how it's been missed by many people. Or is it that many reading encyclopedias don't read articles on boxing. it was glaringly obvious that the previous versions were basically saying that Britain was and si the only place boxing is going on. ridiculous. Anyway, it's done and dusted.

Some NPOV issues under "Personalities" (e.g., the Tyson paragraph). This is Wikipedia, not an pay-per-view ad. blahpers 02:15, 2005 May 3 (UTC)

Actually there was a HUMUNGOUS bias towards the British boxers before I edited it, and the POV of the entire article needs a little toning down since its obvious the previous version was culled from a book on british boxing. Well I've tried to improve the NPOV in personalities a bit. Generally you give a bit more time to the latest fighters, especially if that person happens to really be one of the all time nasty figures in boxing. Mike Tyson has done all criminal/illegal acts like rape, assault and battery, biting an opponent's ear, talking the trashiest pre box talk ever, being jailed twice, barred from boxing, earning the highest paycheck and going bankrupt to conversion to islam. All this while he was rated in a survey as the one possessing the deadliest right hand punch of the century while being one of the shortest contemporary boxers. I suppose some personalities hog a little more sentences that others. Maybe the tone could be different without losing his "acts". Someone can do a better job here, please do so. That's the spirit of Wikipedia. :)--Idleguy 05:50, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

Injuries
Like pointed out back in October by Vinterman this article lacks any information about the injuries often sustained in professional boxing. Can anyone make a brief summary of what the most common injuries are, how they're handled and what impact it's had on the sport? It's about the only thing missing from this article at the moment.

Peter Isotalo 21:35, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

I have put the cleanup flag since the personalities sections appears twice, and there is some repetition of content. PatGallacher 02:21, 2005 July 29 (UTC)

"Impact of Boxing on the English Language"
I don't think "Going down swinging" is from boxing, but rather from baseball as the batter can "go down swinging" or "get caught looking" at the ball. Meaning he strikes out swinging or strikes out looking at a strike but thinking it's a ball. In boxing if you're going down you're typically not swinging, it's the other guy doing the swinging at your head and that's why you're going down.

"ring down the curtain" - a boxing phrase ? I've heard 'bring down the curtain' - an obvious theatrical phrase for the end of a performance.

The OED supports this by defining an entry for dropping/falling cutains maning the ending of a performance or action.

Because of this I'm deleting the wiki entry for 'ring down the curtain' as I believe it is a corruption of 'bring down the curtain' and not a boxing term

"down for the count" - the OED defines this as being defeated, so I'll amend the entry in the entry in this section to reflect this

Do you think "show you the ropes" is derived from boxing? Someone teaching you a technique is said to be showing you the ropes. Perhaps that's a boating term, but ropes on boats are called "lines" so that leaves me thinking it's from boxing.

Boxing Gloves
These gloves' purpose is to protect the knuckles.

The stated purpose of boxing gloves is to protect the fighters' knuckles, but in various competitions the padding requirements vary wildly. The ~8oz. open-fingered gloves used in UFC and Pride are very lightly padded, whereas boxing and K-1 use heavily padded gloves. I haven't heard of many more knuckle injuries in MMA than in boxing -- and it seems a lot easier to achieve a knockout in UFC or Pride than in K-1 or boxing. Mightn't the "gloves of fair size" rule actually exist foremost to protect the opponent from easy KO (and thereby force some extra strategy above and beyond brute force) rather than to (just) protect the fighter's knuckles?

The boxers wore "mufflers" (padded gloves)

The fact that gloves were previously called mufflers (muffle means to stifle or repress) pretty much supports this.

Gloves Don't Diminish # of KOs
The fact is, boxing gloves, especially the small professional 8 or 10 gloves, make it easier to hit harder. Oates discusses this in 'On Boxing' and Anasi in 'The Gloves.' One of the main reasons the fights could go on for so long in the bare-knuckle days is that fighters couldn't hit with full strength without breaking their hands. A simple experiment: Try punching a wall with ten ounce gloves, then try doing it with your fist alone. Guess which hurts your hand more. The note in the gloves section connects to an article that makes no comment on gloves preventing KOs.Mumblio 04:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

An idea
If you look at a film's page (take Goldfinger for example) you will see at the end that it contains the text Goldfinger (1964) at the Internet Movie Database,. This is created from the syntax.

Now, as far as I'm concerned, Boxrec is the Internet Movie Database (IMBD) of the boxing world. Could we have a similar bit of syntax (if that is the right word) for individual boxers' pages, linking to their profile? Any suggestions?
 * Ahkayah cuarenta y siete 22:26, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

1867? I'm being pedantic. but ...
"'Boxing' as distinct from any other form of fist fighting can be dated from 1867, when John Chambers drafted new rules."

Codified rules of boxing aside, people were referring to organised fist-fights (formal or infomal) before then. Consider "Tom Brown's Schooldays" by Thomas Hughes, Chapter 5, published in 1857:

" Learn to box then, as you learn to play cricket and football. Not one of you will be the worse, but very much the better for learning to box well."

The chapter describes a fight between Tom Brown and "Slogger" Williams, both attended by seconds. Tom's second, Harry East, is armed with a wet sponge to refresh Tom in between rounds. Although there is a discussion about whether wrestling throws are legal, the fight sounds very much like an organised boxing match, with references to a "timekeeper" and a "ring", suggesting that there was some notion of boxing as a codified sport or martial art, or at the very least, that there was some sporting basis to what is, in essence, a playground scrap.

Boxing Historian as a Hobby
I am a writing teacher at a small university in Northern MN as well as an Boxing History Hobbiest. I think that this article has a great amount of information to start, but there is barely any structure aside from the headings. I think it would be fun to totally overhaul this article, beginning at the ground and working my way up. I'll take into account all the things that have been mentioned here, including some of the information that I have uncovered in my own readings about the sport and see what happens. This is only a fraction of the work that I intend to do with this article and others in this wikipedia.

I'm no expert but a boxing enthusiast with a masochistic streak for textual accuracy. I will edit this article in bits starting with its structure and basic facts like history and techniques. So that our work does not interfere, let's keep the communication alive. Tarkovsky

It would be a good idea to allow someone else, such as this writing teacher to rework the article. There is some basic information worth saving but it is not very scholarly. As a USA Boxing coach I also want to add that some of the sections are not really accurate such as styles, which seems quite redundant ie.listing swarmers,brawlers, and infighters which in reality are all the same thing but with slight variations, Mickey Ward being an example, as well as Arturo Gatti. The skill, natural talent and versatility of the fighter is the decisive factor. Most coaches train for a variety of conditions. But at any rate this is a noble first run but should be rewritten toward a more academic bent. JWPhilo

Training?
Why not include a section about the lengthy training regime a boxer will undertake which includes using the jump rope, punch bag, weights, sparring etc...

I agree. and also..... people who do boxing training just for fitness

Time Periods - History of the Legends
I have added time periods to the Boxing Legends section (previously Great Personalities of Boxing) in single decade intervals. My hope is that the 'Legends of British Boxing' section as well as the legends from other parts of the world will be absorbed into this section. That way, we can view boxing personalities in terms of their place in boxing history rather than belonging to the British history of boxing or the American one, etc. What do you think?

Tarkovsky

I will when I get the time, I'm actually in training at the moment for the english amatuer season (got 2-3 more bouts) after than I may have the time to. baddlydrummedboy@gmail.com

Techniques
Boxing coaches train a wide variety of different ways to throw a punch or stop a punch, so the techniques section will be extremely varied. I understand this problem, but there are absolutely incorrect bits of info that I have found in the techniques section. For example, it is not entirely correct to say that the jab "does not leave the boxer open to attack." It is easily counterable with a slip and a jab or a slip and a lead hook. I wonder how many people contributing to the article actually have boxed? How many know the sport from just watching it? I would like to get a conversation going with people who regularly practice the sport so that we can really clean up the techniques + regulations. Boneheadmx 13:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I am a boxer. "Open" here refers to the exposure of the body the moment a punch is thrown. What I meant was: you do not need to lower your defenses to throw a jab, not that a jab negates counter-punching. Even so, the evasive examples you describe (slip & jab, lead hook) involve moving around the jab ie. there are no 'holes' readily available to exploit in the static structure of the jab itself (roughly speaking). This is unlike the cross which bobs your head forward and exposes the right flank or the hook which tends to opens the torso. Anyone who has boxed before will feel structurally vulnerable on those last two punches I described; the jab is a far 'safer' punch in terms of body alignment, commitment, weight distribution and positioning. Saying that the jab "does not leave the boxer open to attack" is not entirely correct in the wholistic fighting context of the sport but I am not discussing the complete strategic consequences of techniques in this section, simply describing the punches in terms of their structure. Perhaps we could re-word this sentence or delete it completely Tarkovsky

Is the cross the biggest knockout punch?
'The cross is the most powerful punch and is responsible for the majority of knockouts'

My trainer insists that it is in fact the hook that claims the most knockouts. What's everyone else's opinion on this? Tarkovsky


 * Yeah, it seems to be hooks, at least for me. I've gotten my share of getting hit in the chin with all sorts of punches, but what really hurts is the hook. I've almost been knocked out in sparring by an uppercut, but that was my fault since I was tired, had my chin up and mouth open. I guess it depends. Some coaches seem to teach left hooks and right crosses only, stating that a right cross is kind of like a faster hook because of the rotation of the lower body and that right hooks are a bit slow. I've always learned to do body combos with left hooks and right crosses, for example. So I guess in that context, a right cross is like a hook anyway. For the article, I think it would be best to omit that bit for right now since we have no evidence other than anecdotal to support the claim that crosses cause the most KOs. I personally would agree with hooks/uppercuts, but I think I'm just going to take out that sentence. By the way, thanks for cleaning up the techniques section, Tarkovsky. Things are looking way better.
 * PS: Perhaps we can talk about the possible reasons why there is a higher rate of KOs in pro boxing? 10 rounds or so is really tough, and it is clear by even watching the fighters that they get tired. Tiredness = lowering the guard and/or panting (not biting down on the mouthpiece) and/or not tucking the chin in, which = a higher chance of getting a concussion.
 * PPS: I was thinking also that someone should take some pictures of boxers throwing some clean punches as examples for the techniques.
 * Boneheadmx 11:36, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks mate, just doing my bit! I think another factor for the higher KO rate in Professional boxing is that they wear lighter gloves. The heavier gloves of Amateur boxing slow the punches down and make hard, KO-worthy hits difficult to achieve. It is more economical, under these conditions, to conserve energy for winning points. So an Amateur game plan is structured around winning points under equipment restrictions while the Professional fighter goes for the KO. That's my take on it.

As for the hook, I was at a bar watching a feature called "100 Greatest Knockouts of All Time" and to my amazement, 90% of the KOs were from body shots, rips to the stomach. My explanation is: while the head is a prized target, it is encased in bone. The stomach, however, has no such protection. Also, the hook and the uppercut approach from outside the eye's main field of vision which might make it harder to detect.

Yeah, pictures for the punches would be great, perhaps someone could work on this.

Tarkovsky I believe some of the reasons for the higher knockout rate in professional versus amateur is 1. the maturity of the boxer, both physically and mentally; 2. the head gear and gloves; 3. the duration of the bout, there is just not enough time to cause the damage needed; 4. the lower ranks of pro fighting are not as good technically as amateurs both offensively and defensively, at least this is my observation as a coach.JWPhilo

The strongest punch differs from person to person. With Tyson it was the uppercuts, Cooney the left hooks, Hearns the right hand. Its the way the person throws it also has a factor. Its not like a weak cross cannot rival a devastating uppercut. Maya Levy 13:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

RE: HOOKS I was always of the opinion that the old boxing maxim, 'It's the one that you don't see that hurts you' was silly. However...As a southpaw the power punch that hit me the most was the right cross or straight right hand. I almost never got hit with hooks, mostly because it's easy for a southpaw to tuck his chin and take hooks on the shoulder. Yet the few hooks that did catch me flush were easily the most devastating and memorable I felt. I think this is in large part due to the fact that I never saw those hooks and wasn't able to roll with them; out of nowhere, the side of my head would explode. These hooks were thrown from close range and actually spent most of their trajectory outside my peripheral vision. I think that's the reason why the hook is such a devastating KO punch - even though it's not thrown in most cases with a fighter's dominant hand.Mumblio 03:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Photos of Boxing
Boxing has a rich photographic history from the past century and there are so many photos floating around on the internet; it would be shame if they went to waste. I am currently trawling around for photos to put into the article (properly referenced of course), preferably high-quality, artfully-framed shots that portray the unique, brutal character of the sport. I'm avoiding too many photos which show boxers from the same country or photos which show a boxer dominating or badly pummelling the other (for NPOV purposes).

Well, this should be real fun :) Tarkovsky

Ok, there are now seven photos in the article. I have tried very hard not to over-present American boxers and have included other nationalities: Britain, Cuba, Australia, Jamaica, Phillippines, Mexico, Thailand. All photos are fairly recent (past two years) and, hopefully, do the sport justice.

I chose Louis vs Marciano 1951 as the header photograph because of the legendary status of both boxers and the smouldering, contrasting nature of the shot which captures boxing perfectly.

Tarkovsky

Vote to merge section Boxing Legends/British Boxing Legends with category "History of Boxing"
I noticed that there is a separate category History of Boxing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:History_of_boxing). Perhaps we should merge the information in section Boxing Legends and also British Boxing Legends with this? This way the Boxing article can be about the origins/techniques of the sport with the history in a separate article.

I'm new to Wikipedia, I don't know how this is done! Someone please step in now and do the good stuff :) Tarkovsky

Maybe we should give a brief paragraph about each part of the history and have a link like for the main article click... Andman8

What does everyone think of this? It's a good idea since it reduces the number of sub-categories and there are far too many. Tarkovsky

We need more refernces
This entire huge article only has one reference! We need to site our information to add credibility. Andman8

Medical Concerns
I think the medical concerns section as it stood was POV. You can't just have a one sided opinion saying that boxing should be illegal because of medical concerns. You should atleast have some arguments in there for why boxing shouldn't be banned.- Dec 21 05
 * Source your comments and I'll leave them in. As it is, the text you entered (which I have deleted again) is original research and does not belong. | Klaw ¡digame! 22:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

"Many who support the ban proposal consider its main reason is not the fact that boxing is a dangerous sport, but the fact that the goal of the sport is to cause injury to the opponent." There's no source to this statement, why isn't this removed? Obvious double standard. I will look for sources, but until then I'm marking that section POV. -Dec 21 05


 * The sentence that perturbed you has now been sourced, and the pov tag is gone. Unlike the text you're adding, the sentence in question was not original reseach. Furthermore, please sign your posts on talk pages. | Klaw ¡digame! 03:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Should the red herring really be in this section. I don't think anyone seriously claims boxing causes lots of deaths. Boxing causes lots of brain injury, which in turn causes mental retardation and other problems. Look at Riddick Bowe, or more importantly listen to him. He talks so slowly and slurred. So many older boxers are like this. I think the medical community is more concerned with these destructive aspects, the permanent damage caused, not the fact that the boxers are causing pain upon each other. (Though I am sure some people have problems with that as well) The whole section comes off rather slanted to me. If the red herring has to stay, it certainly shouldn't be first, that kind of biases things to have a red herring counter claim before the actual claim (CHF 09:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC))

Notable Fights by Year
are there wikipedia articles on the best or most noteworthy fights by year? Streamless 19:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC) okjgjrpa

Amatuer/Olympic amount of rounds
I edited slightly, The Olympics and Commonwealth games do 4 rounds. A normal sanctioned amatuer fight will only have 3 rounds. I gotta admit despite having an amatuer card I don't know the specific body its for (I say ABA but that may only be the national championships) regardless xlub fights and regional and national tornys are all 3 minutes.

Scoring System Spin-Off
A spin-off page for the "10-point must" scoring system perhaps? Would be usable in the UFC article as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UFC 208.197.234.251 20:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Why is Boxing labled as a
European Martial art? --Vehgah 04:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Presumably because it is a Martial Art which originated in Europe. -- Synapse 04:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

But they said it orginated in Egypt --Vehgah 04:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see where it is labeled as a European martial art. It is included in the list of European Martial Arts, which means it is 'associated' with Europe, whatever that means. I don't really see a problem with that, since boxing is indeed widely practiced in Europe. I suppose, you can also add it to the list of international martial arts, if you feel like it. :) --CasualFighter 20:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

It thinks it's reasonable to assume that humans have been boxing since some cavemen fighting over a cavewoman discovered that hitting with one's fist makes the other guy fall over and go boom. It's a global practice.ShadowTao 00:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

question
um...can anyone explain why boxers hug eachother during the game - it looks very strange to someone not familiar with the sport —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.131.244 (talk • contribs)


 * Boxers typically "clinch" when they're tired, to hold up their opponent and give themselves a rest. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boxing#Defense

-- Gleemonex

Corruption
Are there any places where the rampant corruption in pro boxing is discussed? It doesn't seem appropriate in this article, but belongs somewhere.

Corbett first gloved Champion?
I believe Sullivan fought under the Queesbury rules and was named the first gloved champ, and Corbett won the title from him, making him the second gloved champ.

tomato can
my dad used this term about about boxer with no shot of winning a fight, does anyone know if this originated in boxing and where it came from...if its a boxing term it should be added to effects in american language--Norton112200 04:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Tomato Can is a term used for a boxer who is a trial horse or a journeyman. These fighters are used to pad higher level fighters' records. The term is used in reference to bleeding: a tomato can is filled with a substance with the consistency and appearance of blood, and journeymen often bleed a lot in fights.

confusing intro
The intro says that the legal area is on the front of the body, above the waistline. it also says that the head and torso are especially valuable....Where could you punch above the waistline that would not be part of the head or torso? I mean, you cant punch someone in the neck can you? I dont know anything about boxing, so please lemme know whats up...--Atticus2020 01:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

You could punch in the stomach.

Torso denotes upper chest in this context, I think. 203.10.77.190

nice job
wow 18 pages...pretty detailed...must be longest subject on wikipedia

Boxer-punchers = hybrid fighters?
Fighters like Thomas Hearns, Alexis Arguello are power punchers with precision and skill. If they face a person with a good chin and body, they resort to box the opponent. Maya Levy 13:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

weight classes
i didn't catch any weight class division explanations or breakdowns. i think it'd be a welcome addition.

Theseus
I just changed the Theseus bit in the article. For one thing, he was a mythical figure. I have no idea where the original author got that 900 B.C. date either. And Theseus couldn't have invented boxing if it had previously been done in North Africa and Crete.Mumblio 00:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Bad Idea
is it just me, or is removing a lot of content and moving it to this Professional Boxing article a VERY bad idea!!! --Too Cool 08:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

GA Failing
Firstly lots of things still need citation, thats the major one. Also the popular culture section is enormous and contains entries that don't have articles, it's the greatest sport in the world, of course there's gonna be tons of pop culture appearances; stick to major ones (Rocky, When we were Kings) or fold the whole thing back into the article.

(The Bread 06:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC))

Gloves and Knockouts
The article suggests that gloves make knockouts more difficult. Nothing is further from the truth. Gloves protect hands not heads, since the bones in the hands are much more delicate than skulls, and mean fighters can hit harder without fear of breaking their hands. There are plenty of sources to back this up. Unless I get some feedback to the contrary I'm going to delete that.Mumblio 06:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Way too many external links
There are way too many external links at the bottom of this article. I don't know which ones to remove, as I know nothing about boxing. Someone who does should prune out about half of these. Wikipedia is not google, we don't list links to every boxing webpage in existence. --Xyzzyplugh 20:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * well, by the looks of this article ill be looking after it and improving it as much as possible for next days, until everything is perfect and okay! i stopped checking this article for only a few couple of days and now it seems to me like a disaster --Too Cool 09:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Too many external links?
hmm, i see a lot of people are complaining on why there are so many external links on the article. well, its cuz boxing aint like all other fight sports, cuz they each have a company and organization controlling the (majority of the) industrty, for pro-wrestling theres WWE, for kickboxing therse K-1, for MMA theres PRIDE FC, etc, but boxing  it aint like that, cuz there arent any boxing promotions that control the industry, there are different sanctioning organizations who just have some championship titles and are willing to put boxers names in their title histories, thats all, thney dont hold their own fights and events, and almost any person on earth can hold a sanctioned title fight, if one can pay the required sabctioning fee he may hold a fight, and there are hundreds-and-thousands of promoters out there, and if you search for boxing on google we get like  74,500,000  hits. but no ones puttin that much websites on the article, only the most important websites should be there. boxing is on all corners of the earth, and we should put the most notable websites that cover different regions on the article, so the the links that are already there are pretty much ok, i would say. --Too Cool 15:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I have removed them and restored the previous links to boxing associations (which a spammer had removed with a comment: "Every boxing website on one page NO others needed !"). - Mike Rosoft 22:39, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Referees?
Maybe list some of boxing more notable referees such as Mills Lane or Jay Nady? Also get this on to the Sports portal. Just an idea or two.Creightn

Two and three pro rounds
There are not many, but man, there are some and that would be cool to collect them all and simply create new link just for them. I received some emails from some boxing historians, they gave me some links, i found some, but there are more, i know there are many 3 rounders and sometimes there are 3 rounds boxed today, but i wonder how many 2 rounds are there?

One round pro bout
I did not believe my own eyes, as long as a round is 3 minutes, it's pro, that's what I know, I received an email today, wow, indicating there are 1 pro rounds AND THIS ONE WAS WELL INTO 20TH CENTURY... PRETTY AMAZING! http://boxrec.com/show_display.php?show_id=186311

Punches
I have to take issue with the section on punches. The section on hooks says "From the guard position, the elbow is drawn back with a horizontal fist (knuckles pointing forward) and the elbow bent." I don't accept this as the elbow is not really "drawn back". A right hook can be thrown from the guard position without the elbow being "drawn back". Also the left hook is thrown not so much with the elbow being drawn back, but the focus being on dropping / turning the right shoulder to give power to the subsequent shift in bodyweight from the leading foot to rear foot (in an orthodox fighter, of course).

Also, the section on uppercuts reads like an uppercut can only be thrown with the rear hand; this is not the case. Even though many fighters may throw most uppercuts with the rear hand, uppercuts with the lead hand are perfectly legitimate and could not possibly be excluded from a section on uppercuts, as if lead hand uppercuts did not exist. If nobody disputes these comments I will return and edit these sections. --Guardian sickness 23:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)