BoxRec

Long story short I haven't had much success trying to find a official definition and/or understanding of a rabbit punch. Maybe someone else will have better luck.
I've resorted to Boxrec's glossary of terms, not sure how authoritative the source is but it's something to go off.

According to Boxrec a rabbit punch is:
'A punch delivered by a boxer to the back of the neck of his opponent. It is illegal to use because of the potential for serious injury it can cause. It is derived from the blow used by a rabbit hunter to kill the animal': https://boxrec.com/media/index.php/Rabbit_punch

Now I have more questions.

We have the definition but how does it apply to a real boxing match.

A punch delivered by a boxer to the back of the neck of his opponent,
It could be understood to mean ,the punch is intended to hit the back of neck. The boxer delivered the punch deliberately aiming for the back of the neck.

Another way to read this would more literally - that it's simply a punch that landed on the back of the neck.

In terms of 'back of the neck'. I don't think this warrants discussion, it's clearly out of date and would really mean back of the neck and back of the head.


As for Fury Wilder II:

Fury lined up a nice one two. Wilder threw his left arm out and moved away defensively almost turning side on to Fury. Fury's punch lands on the side to back portion of the head mainly because Wilder was turning.

This stuff happened in split seconds. Fury threw a traditional punch, a one two. Wilder attempted to get out of the way, Fury would have made a split second adjustment, mid punch, reflexively without conscious thought and bang, Wilder goes down.

I think It would be ridiculous if a fighter got in trouble for hitting a boxer who turned completely around in a defensive manoeuvre mid flurry and got hit in the back.

My take is, Fury threw a normal and legal punch, due to split second movements from his opponent, the punch landed in a damaging area that could be a bordeline rabbit punch if you had thrown the punches intending to damage the back of the head or neck. But it's still a borderline case as it landed more so on the side then the back of the head directly.

My opinion only, the punch was legal and makes sense to be legal in terms of boxing in general. You can't control where your opponents head is and you shouldn't be afraid to throw traditional punches, from traditional angles, just in case they may go into that rabbit punch region. It's however different if you intend to hit that region.

Anyone have a different take?

Protect your self at all times. Turning the back of the head does not fit that description.

I think rabbit punches are more common in the clinch.

Sometimes they might happen if the opponent bends way down. Then there might not be another place to hit available.

Povetkin vs Huck comes to mind.

I posted this on another thread, but it is more relevant here:

I guess it could be considered a rabbit punch in a similar fashion to the one that caused the first knock down in the first fight.

Then, Fury was rolling under Wilder's punches and Wilder was punching down at Fury,l. Except here, Wilder was straight up turning his head away from Fury as he threw his jab, after Fury's left landed.

Personally after watching the video playback slowed down I think the other problem was the shot didn't actually land cleanly on the back of Wilder's head: it hit him at best behind the ear, forced across his traps by Wilder's lead shoulder, then slid up to the back of his neck.

Bit of a stretch to suggest it was an illegal blow, as fighters get warned for turning their backs on opponents to stop this from happening. If it was on the back of the head, it was due to Wilder's own actions by turning away.

Actually I'm probably being harsh on Wilder, the momentum of Fury's left may have caused wilder to turn his head, so I shouldn't acscribe intent to turn away to Wilder in such a fast exchange. I can't say for certain, it was probably more instinctive. But the main point stands.

Finkel wrote: ↑24 Feb 2020, 01:45 I posted this on another thread, but it is more relevant here:

I guess it could be considered a rabbit punch in a similar fashion to the one that caused the first knock down in the first fight.

Then, Fury was rolling under Wilder's punches and Wilder was punching down at Fury,l. Except here, Wilder was straight up turning his head away from Fury as he threw his jab, after Fury's left landed.

Personally after watching the video playback slowed down I think the other problem was the shot didn't actually land cleanly on the back of Wilder's head: it hit him at best behind the ear, forced across his traps by Wilder's lead shoulder, then slid up to the back of his neck.

Bit of a stretch to suggest it was an illegal blow, as fighters get warned for turning their backs on opponents to stop this from happening. If it was on the back of the head, it was due to Wilder's own actions by turning away.

Actually I'm probably being harsh on Wilder, the momentum of Fury's left may have caused wilder to turn his head, so I shouldn't acscribe intent to turn away to Wilder in such a fast exchange. I can't say for certain, it was probably more instinctive. But the main point stands.

Interesting that you brought up the first fight, I guess they are one all with borderline rabbit punch area punches but as you say, and I agree, both are not illegal in my opinion.

Landed just behind the ear as Wilder was ducking his head. Clean punch.

Even if it had landed straight on the back of the head, if a guy is ducking his head into the blow. It's his fault, not the guy that's throwing the punch.

gilgamesh wrote: ↑24 Feb 2020, 03:42 Landed just behind the ear as Wilder was ducking his head. Clean punch.

Even if it had landed straight on the back of the head, if a guy is ducking his head into the blow. It's his fault, not the guy that's throwing the punch.

Yep. Wilder did the same for the first KD in their first fight

Technically speaking a rabbit punch is only considered an illegal blow when a fighter intentionally punches their opponent at the back of the head or the base of the skull.

The punch isn’t considered illegal when the person on the receiving end of the blow turns their head to the side, whilst their opponent is in the midst of throwing their shots.

We saw Wilder repeatedly turn his head to the side after taking the jab during Fury’s one-two combos (and not just for the first knockdown either), which meant the Brits’ crosses regularly connected to the side or back of Deontay’s head.

Wilder has novice tendencies, because he's done this against other opponents also.

Fighters are supposed to always keep their eyes on their opponents at all times, since a punch cannot be avoided or blocked if it’s unseen, but Wilder instinctively turns his face away from shots when they land, like most crude and clumsy white-collar boxers do.

What is abundantly clear is that Fury never intentionally threw a rabbit punch, but he did throw a lot of one-two combos.

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑24 Feb 2020, 05:06 Technically speaking a rabbit punch is only considered an illegal blow when a fighter intentionally punches their opponent at the back of the head or the base of the skull.

Thanks for the info. Can you let me know where you sourced that? Was having trouble finding a clear definition.

lazboy wrote: ↑24 Feb 2020, 05:28

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑24 Feb 2020, 05:06 Technically speaking a rabbit punch is only considered an illegal blow when a fighter intentionally punches their opponent at the back of the head or the base of the skull.

Thanks for the info. Can you let me know where you sourced that? Was having trouble finding a clear definition.

Don’t tell me you made this up you cheeky bugger.

Was a legal ear shot that then glanced to Wilder's back

lazboy wrote: ↑24 Feb 2020, 15:54

lazboy wrote: ↑24 Feb 2020, 05:28

Thanks for the info. Can you let me know where you sourced that? Was having trouble finding a clear definition.

Don’t tell me you made this up you cheeky bugger.

I mean I can't give you any source, but as far as I know he was indeed right about what constitutes a Rabbit punch.

Turning your head to your opponent, and getting hit on the back of the head makes it your fault, not his.

If you went to throw a clean body punch, and the guy jumped in the air, and you hit him in the balls. Who's fault is it?

Same thing here.

If it was a rabbit punch it was the worst one ever.

Completely missed the back of his head and hit him on the ear causing a cut inside.

gilgamesh wrote: ↑24 Feb 2020, 15:57

lazboy wrote: ↑24 Feb 2020, 15:54

Don’t tell me you made this up you cheeky bugger.

I mean I can't give you any source, but as far as I know he was indeed right about what constitutes a Rabbit punch.

Turning your head to your opponent, and getting hit on the back of the head makes it your fault, not his.

If you went to throw a clean body punch, and the guy jumped in the air, and you hit him in the balls. Who's fault is it?

Same thing here.

I definitely agree with what you are saying and what he was saying - I had said the same thing. I was more interested in the specific words and whether the word intention was present. If the word intention is present then it makes it without question a legal punch.

ewenhay wrote: ↑24 Feb 2020, 15:58 If it was a rabbit punch it was the worst one ever.

Completely missed the back of his head and hit him on the ear causing a cut inside.

Yea I agree...a few people had said it was illegal for some reason. I just wanted to explore the rule...

lazboy wrote: ↑24 Feb 2020, 16:03

ewenhay wrote: ↑24 Feb 2020, 15:58 If it was a rabbit punch it was the worst one ever.

Completely missed the back of his head and hit him on the ear causing a cut inside.

Yea I agree...a few people had said it was illegal for some reason. I just wanted to explore the rule...

Probably the same people citing the mythical burst eardrum.

Whether it was a rabbit punch is one question.

Another question is what a ref supposed to do when UNINTENTIONAL punch on a back of the head/neck lands and hurts a fighter.

ewenhay wrote: ↑24 Feb 2020, 16:05

lazboy wrote: ↑24 Feb 2020, 16:03

Yea I agree...a few people had said it was illegal for some reason. I just wanted to explore the rule...

Probably the same people citing the mythical burst eardrum.

To be fair it's pretty understandable why they'd think that when the guy had blood spewing from his ear and was all over the place, don't think that one is some anti-Fury stuff

boxing_rocks wrote: ↑24 Feb 2020, 16:06 Whether it was a rabbit punch is one question.

Another question is what a ref supposed to do when UNINTENTIONAL punch on a back of the head/neck lands and hurts a fighter.

It hit him in the ear.

You've gone down the wrong burrow with all this rabbit talk

ewenhay wrote: ↑24 Feb 2020, 16:05

lazboy wrote: ↑24 Feb 2020, 16:03

Yea I agree...a few people had said it was illegal for some reason. I just wanted to explore the rule...

Probably the same people citing the mythical burst eardrum.

Please don’t forgot Wilders ring entrance outfit was very heavy and fatiguing...

ewenhay wrote: ↑24 Feb 2020, 16:07

boxing_rocks wrote: ↑24 Feb 2020, 16:06 Whether it was a rabbit punch is one question.

Another question is what a ref supposed to do when UNINTENTIONAL punch on a back of the head/neck lands and hurts a fighter.

It hit him in the ear.

You've gone down the wrong burrow with all this rabbit talk

My question is not on that particular punch, but on rules in general.

margaret thatcher wrote: ↑24 Feb 2020, 16:07

ewenhay wrote: ↑24 Feb 2020, 16:05

Probably the same people citing the mythical burst eardrum.

To be fair it's pretty understandable why they'd think that when the guy had blood spewing from his ear and was all over the place, don't think that one is some anti-Fury stuff

Just folk trying to look for reasons to explain away why the guy they've invested in got beat up relatively easily

lazboy wrote: ↑24 Feb 2020, 16:08

ewenhay wrote: ↑24 Feb 2020, 16:05

Probably the same people citing the mythical burst eardrum.

Please don’t forgot Wilders ring entrance outfit was very heavy and fatiguing...

The Wilder excuse checklist

Busted Hand
Sprained Fingers
Messed Wrist
Gimpy Elbow
Flu
Too Light
Too Heavy
Too Many Clothes

ewenhay wrote: ↑24 Feb 2020, 16:08

margaret thatcher wrote: ↑24 Feb 2020, 16:07

To be fair it's pretty understandable why they'd think that when the guy had blood spewing from his ear and was all over the place, don't think that one is some anti-Fury stuff

Just folk trying to look for reasons to explain away why the guy they've invested in got beat up relatively easily

Some for sure, but it's easy to think he had his ear drum bursted. An ear cut seems less intuitive

margaret thatcher wrote: ↑24 Feb 2020, 16:09

lazboy wrote: ↑24 Feb 2020, 16:08

Please don’t forgot Wilders ring entrance outfit was very heavy and fatiguing...

The Wilder excuse checklist

Busted Hand
Sprained Fingers
Messed Wrist
Gimpy Elbow
Flu
Too Light
Too Heavy
Too Many Clothes

And too limited

margaret thatcher wrote: ↑24 Feb 2020, 16:09

lazboy wrote: ↑24 Feb 2020, 16:08

Please don’t forgot Wilders ring entrance outfit was very heavy and fatiguing...

The Wilder excuse checklist

Busted Hand
Sprained Fingers
Messed Wrist
Gimpy Elbow
Flu
Too Light
Too Heavy
Too Many Clothes