BoxRec

raylawpc wrote:I give a sh*t about the thread starter.

I don't understand how you take a swipe at the thread starter by making a derogatory comment about Curtis Cokes.

raylawpc wrote:I give a sh*t about the thread starter.

I don't understand how you take a swipe at the thread starter by making a derogatory comment about Curtis Cokes.

Collins2000 wrote:

raylawpc wrote:I don't care about the dimwit who started this thread. I have him on ignore.

I am more fascinated by dimwits who think they know more about boxing than Curtis Cokes.

So is Cokes right in this case?

raylawpc wrote:

Collins2000 wrote:

raylawpc wrote:I don't care about the dimwit who started this thread. I have him on ignore.

I am more fascinated by dimwits who think they know more about boxing than Curtis Cokes.

So is Cokes right in this case?

I don't know Collins. I have Granberry on ignore. I don't know exactly what Granberry wrote originally.

Collins2000 wrote:

raylawpc wrote:I give a sh*t about the thread starter.

I don't understand how you take a swipe at the thread starter by making a derogatory comment about Curtis Cokes.

Another bad day Tom?

So was Cokes right bout hooks?

John Galt wrote:To me, a left hook from a right handed fighter involves pivoting with the front (left) foot, turning the hips, and shifting weight backward to the right foot. If the left hand is in front of the left eye, just low enough to see over it, with the elbow straight down the fighter needs to flip the elbow up (at an angle that will hit the opponent) as he pivots, turns his hips, and shifts his weight backward. IMO, that is a hook, but I've seen hooks taught a lot of different ways.
Some people call about anything thrown with the left hand that is not a jab, a hook. Some people put little weight behind the hook and make it a wide arm punch. I don't consider that a hook, but some do.
As to whether anything thrown with the right hand by a right handed fighter can be called a hook, it's probably a matter of semantics. A right hand can't be thrown by a right handed fighter in a right handed stance using the technique above, but if you consider a wide punch with a bent elbow a hook, then it is possible.

raylawpc wrote:

Collins2000 wrote:

raylawpc wrote:I give a sh*t about the thread starter.

I don't understand how you take a swipe at the thread starter by making a derogatory comment about Curtis Cokes.

Another bad day Tom?

So was Cokes right bout hooks?

Actually, yeah, Collins. My Dad died on Wednesday and we buried him on Saturday. So, actually, the whole week has sucked. Any more questions?

jaclem2 wrote:..john galt has the best definition of hooks on this thread his writing is clear and to the point.


tell me john, how come you think and write so well and yet you've chosen your user name from that coo coo woman's novel, one of the worst ever written in the english language?

granberry wrote:

jaclem2 wrote:..john galt has the best definition of hooks on this thread his writing is clear and to the point.


tell me john, how come you think and write so well and yet you've chosen your user name from that coo coo woman's novel, one of the worst ever written in the english language?

Curtis Cokes has the best definition

and by a billion times over the most experience of anyone posting here.

dempseyfire wrote:There is no 'punch you can never throw' in boxing.

An orthordox fighter from midrange can certainly bend down, step in and pivot their body to produce a clear 'right hook' shot. Sure it's a risky punch but it can land . . .for guys with world class speed and athleticism you can often get away with what some decry as 'boxing no nos.' I mean hell by technical terms the bolo punch should never be effective vs a skilled fighter but how many elite guys have been caught by that punch? Quite a few. There is no fighter who ever got their possible counters off 100% of the time.

granberry wrote:As poster GreatA has pointed out

Curtis Cokes stopped Luis Manuel Rodriguez

on a 15 round TKO in an eliminator for Emile Griffith's vacated welterweight title.

That is quite a feat--something Griffith was never able to do.

Cokes had reached the point where he could no longer make the welterweight limit when he lost twice to Napoles.

In his very next fight after fighting Napoles Cokes weighed 160.

The same thing happened to Dick Tiger against Emile Griffith

and to Jake LaMotta in his last fight with Robinson.

In fact that happened to Griffith and was the reason he vacated the welterweight title.

In his last title defense at welterweight Griffith had to be carried from the ring after winning because he was so dehydrated from making the weight and then fighting 15 rounds his legs wouldn't function.

That is also why Napoles' win over Griffith means nothing, because Napoles insisted Griffith fight him at 147--a weight Griffith had moved away from and not fought at for years.

granberry wrote:
"During the recent series of the United States Championship Boxing Matches on ABC, several of the ring announcers described looping right hand blows as right hooks. There are no such punches as right hooks for the right-handed fighter and those who really know boxing understand that those alleged right hooks are round house rights or sweeping right hands that usually leave the aggressor wide open and vulnerable to counter punches."

jaclem2 wrote:....an orthodox fighter can throw a right hook ONLY if he shifts his feet to the left hand stance. this is how bob fitzsimmons threw his "solar plexus punch to jim corbett.


while we are here :
7+8= 15
the earth revolves around the sun, not the other way around.
the equator is warmer than the north pole.

these, like the comment on right hooks, are facts, not opinions.

granberry wrote:"During the recent series of the United States Championship Boxing Matches on ABC, several of the ring announcers described looping right hand blows as right hooks. There are no such punches as right hooks for the right-handed fighter and those who really know boxing understand that those alleged right hooks are round house rights or sweeping right hands."

dempseyfire wrote:You can SNAP a short right hook with your lead leg being your left. THAT IS A FRIKKIN' RIGHT HOOK. It's not a looping shot, it's a fast compact HOOK.

How are people saying it's "impossible to throw" them??? That is simply not true. Look up 'hook' in wikipedia or brittanica or wherever . . you can 'hook' with either hand in the conventional stance. I don't even get why this argument is happening.