BoxRec

CURTIS COKES

Quotes from Cokes' book:

The Complete Book of Boxing
by Curtis Cokes with Hugh Kayser
1980, ETC Publications, Palm Springs, Calif.

On page 45 Cokes writes:

"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."

On page 88 Cokes writes of Ali:

"Many fighters and most spectators fail to realize what he is doing. When in a clinch Ali leans on his opponent, grabbing him behind the neck with his left hand and forcing his head downward. After a few rounds of this, the opponent becomes weary and cannot continue to fight effectively. He also leans on his opponent and wears him out by placing his right glove on his adversary's shoulder as he continues to pull the neck down with his left glove."

I'm not sure if this is the right thread. But does anybody have any Curtis Cokes quotes about Ali? I'm like, sooooooooooo interested.

...right hooks...right on!!!!! i've been saying this for years.

i even wrote to "ellery queen" when in one of his stories he traps the so-called fight manager because he referred to a right hook...and ellery said "there is no such thing as a right hook." and i wrote and said no where in the story did it say if the fighter in question was orthodox or southpaw..so the clue was ambiguous.

jaclem2 wrote:...right hooks...right on!!!!! i've been saying this for years.

i even wrote to "ellery queen" when in one of his stories he traps the so-called fight manager because he referred to a right hook...and ellery said "there is no such thing as a right hook." and i wrote and said no where in the story did it say if the fighter in question was orthodox or southpaw..so the clue was ambiguous.

Obviously a regular stance fighter cannot have a right hook--
a southpaw cannot have a left hook.

granberry wrote:

jaclem2 wrote:...right hooks...right on!!!!! i've been saying this for years.

i even wrote to "ellery queen" when in one of his stories he traps the so-called fight manager because he referred to a right hook...and ellery said "there is no such thing as a right hook." and i wrote and said no where in the story did it say if the fighter in question was orthodox or southpaw..so the clue was ambiguous.

Obviously a regular stance fighter cannot have a right hook--
a southpaw cannot have a left hook.

Now your cookin with gas! Our earlier mix up was all about the way the info was presented. I agree with this completely. But did not understand based on your earlier presentation.

However when a fighter chooses to switche his stance, as some fighters on occasion will do, one must be prepared to reverse terminology based on the stance at the time of the delivered punch.

As someone who has boxed for years, a orthodox fighter can most certainly throw a right hook, particularly when they are more squared up on the inside. Whether a right hook would be a true hook or a more looping shot depends on the turn of the hips/legs as that person throws it and how quick they can turn it.

Cokes is just plain wrong on this one.

dempseyfire wrote:As someone who has boxed for years, a orthodox fighter can most certainly throw a right hook, particularly when they are more squared up on the inside. Whether a right hook would be a true hook or a more looping shot depends on the turn of the hips/legs as that person throws it and how quick they can turn it.

Cokes is just plain wrong on this one.

You are just plain wrong on this one.

READ what you wrote:

"when they are more squared up on the inside"

When they have their feet parallel on the inside they are not in an orthodox left foot in front stance.

Their left foot is no longer in front.

Cokes is talking about a fighter in his stance at long range.

A fighter "squared up" on the inside is not in an orthodox stance.

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.

You can still be in the inside with your left foot forward, your feet will just be closer together. Your quote from Cokes says nothing about it having to be from long range.

This is a stupid argument. A hook by any normal person's definition involves bending the elbow and shifting your weight to produce a 'hooking' punch. A boxer can definitely throw a right hook from an orthodox stance. It will not always be a roundhouse or looping shot, although of course it will always take longer to get there than a lead hook.

dempseyfire wrote:You can still be in the inside with your left foot forward, your feet will just be closer together. Your quote from Cokes says nothing about it having to be from long range.

This is a stupid argument. A hook by any normal person's definition involves bending the elbow and shifting your weight to produce a 'hooking' punch. A boxer can definitely throw a right hook from an orthodox stance. It will not always be a roundhouse or looping shot, although of course it will always take longer to get there than a lead hook.

Definitely, a long-range right swing from orthodox is better described as just that: a swing, or looping right, and in most cases won't be a terribly effective punch. At close range, (and I think you more or less need to be leaning on each other's chest to throw it) a swinging right punch with the elbow close to 90-100 degrees is best described as a right hook. To argue differently is just to argue semantics.

Semantics Granberry believes distinguishes him as some sort of pugilistic know-it-the-fvck-all

There are is such thing as a right hook from an orthodox stance? What the !?!?....Well what the fvck do you call a hooking punch from the right hand? Just because an ex pug writes a book, and on page 45 decides to make a rash claim and use a subjective argument, it is gospel? And is worthy of this thread?

It is a bitter ex fighter arguing semantics to try and gain respect and authority, a hooking right hand from an orthodox stance is what it is, no matter what you call it!

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet, Granberry.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Semantics Granberry believes distinguishes him as some sort of pugilistic know-it-the-fvck-all

Hyterical irene knows more about boxing than welterweight champion Curtis Cokes.

Par for the course on these sites where the clueless smirk and gleefully post that they know more than a world champion.

dberry wrote:There are is such thing as a right hook from an orthodox stance? What the !?!?....Well what the fvck do you call a hooking punch from the right hand? Just because an ex pug writes a book, and on page 45 decides to make a rash claim and use a subjective argument, it is gospel? And is worthy of this thread?

It is a bitter ex fighter arguing semantics to try and gain respect and authority, a hooking right hand from an orthodox stance is what it is, no matter what you call it!

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet, Granberry.

Boxing 'expert' [and internet poster] dberry knows more about boxing than Curtis Cokes.

His posting some words on an internet site proves that.

At least in his own mind.

LOL

I notice you pick and chose your fights, Granberry

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:I'm not sure if this is the right thread. But does anybody have any Curtis Cokes quotes about Ali? I'm like, sooooooooooo interested.

You should be interested. Curtis Cokes was a hell of a fighter. And he was intelligent, a good conversationalist, and had an abundant knowledge about boxing.

granberry. does this qualifies as a right hook?

I am surprised at the cluelesness displayed by some of you here who claim boxing backgrounds.

THE POINT IS

if you tried a looping, circular right hand from long range against a

Joe Gans, Benny Leonard, Harold Johnson--
they would take your head off with a STRAIGHT right hand that would get there while your incompetent circular "punch" was only 1/5 started on its way.

granberry wrote:I am surprised at the cluelesness displayed by some of you here who claim boxing backgrounds.

THE POINT IS

if you tried a looping, circular right hand from long range against a

Joe Gans, Benny Leonard, Harold Johnson--
they would take your head off with a STRAIGHT right hand that would get there while your incompetent circular "punch" was only 1/5 started on its way.

nobody is saying throwing wide punches is a good thing, though, are they? I mean there is nobody on this thread campaigning for wide looping rear-hand punches to become staples of the boxer's skillset, a second jab, or whatever.

they are just saying it isn't a physical impossibility to throw them.

double

raylawpc wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:I'm not sure if this is the right thread. But does anybody have any Curtis Cokes quotes about Ali? I'm like, sooooooooooo interested.

You should be interested. Curtis Cokes was a hell of a fighter. And he was intelligent, a good conversationalist, and had an abundant knowledge about boxing.

I am also beyond interested in what you have to say. maybe you can reply in all 85 threads this dimwit started on the topic. You make a great team.

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.

A wild, sweeping right from a distance is just a looping right to me. However I do think that one can throw a "right hook" from the right-handed stance in close, I've seen many (orthodox) boxers describe their punches as right hooks.

A big right hand that you could probably call either a looping right or a right hook depending on your own definition:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OhVi7cH-LaQ
Replay at 0:25 shows the punch better

An example of an orthodox fighter squaring up and briefly throwing right hooks from the southpaw stance:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_Plk85qE8c
9:20

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.

Good luck with that. You quoted a swipe at the thread starter, not Curtis cokes. But I'm sure you already know that.

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?