User:Tmm113/sandbox
Original stub: One-two combo
One-two combo[edit]
In boxing, the "one-two combo" is the name given to the combination consisting of two common punches found in boxing - a jab (thrown with the lead hand) followed by the cross (thrown with the back hand). [1] In boxing parlance, fundamental punches are commonly assigned numbers by trainers and in this case there is the jab (#1) and the cross (#2). [1]
Boxers begin practicing the basics starting with offense and generally learn punches starting with the fundamentals - the jab (#1), the cross (#2), then onward to more complex punches such as the lead hook (#3), right uppercut (#4), and left uppercut (#5). [1] As boxers learn the fundamentals they begin to learn how to incorporate these punches together in a variety of combinations. The "one-two combo" is the first combination a boxer will learn from their coach that utilizes different punches, this is because the one-two combo consist of two fundamental punches first learned as a beginner. It is one of the most commonly used combinations in boxing. [2]
In a one-two combo, the objective is to get in range and land a power-punch. [3] In this situation, both the jab and cross have different purposes. Naturally, the boxing stance has the lead hand in front, closer to the opponent while the dominant hand is in the back, further from the opponent. In this combo, the jab (lead hand) is designed as a range finder to close the distance between a fighter and their opponent to set up a power-punch (back hand). In a one-two combo the cross is the power punch due to the torque and rotation of the body required when using this technique. [3] While throwing this combo, the jab is thrown while stepping forward into range and is followed by the cross as the jab is retracted back to guard.
When this combination lands successfully, the boxer's jab is used to lift their opponent's head in order to expose their chin for their cross - resulting in the one-two combo. [3]
References[edit]
- ^ a b c 1970-, Halbert, Christy Lynn, (2003). The ultimate boxer : understanding the sport and skills of boxing. Brentwood, Tenn.: ISI Pub. ISBN 0963096850. OCLC 57553179.
{{cite book}}:|last=has numeric name (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ^ https://d36m266ykvepgv.cloudfront.net/uploads/media/U3ycXujQ3J/o/the-sweet-science-101.pdf
- ^ a b c 1950-, Werner, Doug, (2000). Fighting fit : boxing workouts, techniques and sparring. Lachica, Alan. (1st ed ed.). San Diego, Calif.: Tracks Pub. ISBN 1884654460. OCLC 646833127.
{{cite book}}:|edition=has extra text (help);|last=has numeric name (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
Article Evaluation: Computer-mediated communication[edit]
- Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
Everything in the article was relevant to the topic and building upon its central focus on Computer-mediated communication. The only thing that distracted me was the thought of updates in technology in ordinance to CMC. Have they been updated or represented? - Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
Under the talk pages there was some information that was out-of-date that could have been updated in terms of how the technology operates and technical aspects of how devices work. - What else could be improved?
There's a heavy emphasis of positive outcomes and this article tends to lean that way, maybe there can be more contributions to a different point of view where there are more negative outcomes represented. - Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
Not entirely neutral, but for the the most part. It just tends to focus more on the beneficial than the negatives. I feel in this topic there could be a lot of negatives that could be drawn out in terms of psychological thinking and societal thinking but it may start to detract from the main focus. - Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
Negative viewpoints of this topic are underrepresented but may be because of how influential and positive CMC has been. - Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
Articles seem to check out and support the claims made on the page. - Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?
Some facts were referenced from books but some of the internet sources were neutral and covered both sides. - What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic
Some people are talking about covering different mediums and how accurately interpreted it is between communicators. Also there is talk about the examples being too broad or doesn't correspond to the actual topic of the article, instead the article should focus on how electronics are used to communicate. - How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
This article is rated C-Class High importance for 2 WikiProjects and C-Class for another WikiProject. - How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
Wikipedia discusses this topic in a more narrowed fashion to make sure everything in the article has its purpose. At the same time, it tries to bring in many aspects of the same topic but ultimately narrowing it down to its most efficient state.
 | This is a user sandbox of Tmm113. You can use it for testing or practicing edits. This is not the sandbox where you should draft your assigned article for a dashboard.wikiedu.org course. To find the right sandbox for your assignment, visit your Dashboard course page and follow the Sandbox Draft link for your assigned article in the My Articles section. |