BoxRec

some posters here think it is a tactic to hold and clinch and that it is within the rules, here is an article from hbo with Richard Steele giving the correct interpretation of the rule, Richard Steele was a world championship referee for many years

For some fighters, it's the difference between good strategy and bad, while some equate constant clinching with the mark of a cheater. Of course, everyone has an opinion on the rules of the game. Bill Dettloff dusts off the rule book...

A clear majority of fight observers will testify that the contests least pleasing to watch are not those between the unskilled laborers of the game, or the less gifted. Earnest effort and willing acceptance of risk will always beat out casual displays of technical acumen. Nor are the worst fights those between the strange geniuses whose talents lie in their knack for avoiding damage - even if witnessing the accumulation of damage is the principle reason we watch. Slick guys can be fun.

The worst fights are those that involve endless holding and clinching. Nothing brings an actively contested fight to a halt more readily than does a fighter who has decided that in the absence of a cohesive game plan, success at punching, or wind, he will get as close as he can to his opponent and stop him from punching by wrapping him in a bear hug. Not once, not twice, but as a repeated means of survival, of delay, even of eventual victory if his skill level or resoluteness is not up to the task otherwise.

As paying customers we watch a fight grind to a halt this way and wonder why it is allowed, why many referees appear to accept as part of a fight what we understand to be a foul. There must be rules around holding, right? It can't all be up to the whim of the referee, can it? When is holding permissible, and when isn't it?

"There's a real simple answer," said Harold Lederman, HBO's unofficial boxing judge. "If a guy gets punched in the jaw and gets hurt he's going to grab and hold so he doesn't get punched and hurt again. That's not illegal; that's human nature. You grab and hold so you don't fall down. There's nothing wrong with that and the referee has to understand that. The referee cannot say that that's not allowed."

As an example, Lederman cites the wild brawl in 1998 between Dana Rosenblatt and Terry Norris, in which Rosenblatt was badly hurt in the final round and made it to the bell only by grabbing Norris and holding on for dear life. Lederman and the two other judges scored the fight for Rosenblatt but wouldn't have been able to had the referee, Steve Smoger, disqualified Rosenblatt for excessive holding. The question becomes stickier when the fighter doing the holding does not appear to be hurt.

"It's the job of the referee to keep the fight moving and it's really a judgment call when to penalize a guy," Lederman said. "The referee has an obligation to keep the fight moving. He has to come to some sort of a decision: is it because he has to get his head on straight or is he looking to hold as some sort of ploy or to keep the other guy from doing something? That's the difference." In other words, it's not necessarily the amount of holding that determines if a fighter gets penalized, but the reason behind it.

Recently retired world class referee Richard Steele concurs. "You take points away when the fighter is affecting the fight and has stopped the other fighter from staying busy and not doing anything himself. He's committing a foul - which is too much holding."

And how much is too much?

"It's too much when there's no action, when nothing is going on other than holding - then it's a foul. If the fighter's tactic is holding, it's a foul. He's there as a professional fighter and it's his job to fight. And holding is not fighting. If he's not hurt and he's holding just to hold, as a tactic, then the referee has to penalize him. He's not doing what he's being paid to do. He's not giving the fans their money's worth," Steele said.

Holding clearly is strategy for some fighters. Former heavyweight belt holder John Ruiz is one of the more despised fighters of his era, despite credentials that include upset wins over several upper-tier heavyweights such as Evander Holyfield and Hasim Rahman. Not even the solid comeback he fashioned after an early-career disaster against thunderous-punching David Tua could rally fans to his corner.

There were reasons to dislike Ruiz: his abrasive manager, Norm Stone; the perception that he received preferential treatment from one of the sport's sanctioning bodies; and his penchant for what many believed was play-acting designed to evoke sympathy whenever a blow by an opponent ventured near the belt line.

But those things could be forgiven; there are no angels in the fight business, after all, and many of these same habits would be forgivable in other fighters. What the fans could not abide was his insistent and incessant clinching in every fight. Holding, mauling and wrestling were as important to Ruiz' offense (as well as his defense) as were his left jab and right cross - maybe more so. During his tenure as a top-10 heavyweight, his strategy was essentially to throw one or two punches and then clinch - over and over.

"Ruiz' tactic was to hit and hold," said Steele, who officiated Ruiz' August 2000 loss to Holyfield in their first fight. "That was his strategy. He got away with it for so long because referees, myself included, allowed him to do it too long and it got to become a habit. He couldn't break it because he didn't want to – it worked for him."

It wasn't until Ruiz met light heavyweight world champion Roy Jones in March 2003 that an official prevented him from mauling his way to victory. In the very first round, referee Jay Nady admonished Ruiz against holding and threatened to deduct points. Forced to fight on the outside for the remainder of the fight, Ruiz was no match for the quicker Jones and lost a one-sided decision. He complained about Nady afterward, telling the press, "The referee wouldn't let me fight my fight." One could not ask for a clearer admission that holding was an important part of his strategy. (To his credit, Ruiz employed a more fan-friendly style in recent fights with Nicolai Valuev and Ruslan Chagaev, but perhaps not coincidentally, lost both matches by decision.)

Would Ruiz have beaten Jones if allowed to fight his usual, mauling, clutching style? Probably not; Jones was a much better fighter. But clearly it would have been much more difficult for Jones to get his hands moving if he were tied up constantly by the bigger, heavier Ruiz.

The guy who's being held has to try to punch. Then the referee has to take points away. He doesn't have a choice.
Nady was involved in another fight whose outcome might have been different had he taken a different approach to holding. The August 2006 rematch between Oleg Maskaev and Rahman was going Rahman's way early. He was landing the stiffer, more damaging blows and every time Maskaev attempted to hold in order to shut down Rahman's offense and get into the later rounds, where he expected Rahman would tire, Nady warned him. Midway through the bout, Nady changed course and allowed Maskaev to clinch with impunity. Maskaev made it to the late rounds and stopped Rahman in the 12th.

A fighter's willingness to frequently hold is directly related to his comfort level in the ring and can vary fight by fight, according to the competition. World junior welterweight champion Ricky Hatton established himself as one of the most exciting fighters in the business when he was still on the way up. A fearless, straight-ahead puncher against second-tier opposition as a contender, Hatton has, in more recent fights against better competition, become a miniature Ruiz. Against Kostya Tszyu, Luis Collazo and Juan Urango, Hatton mauled and wrestled as much or more than he punched. So far, it hasn't hurt his popularity or his record.

Hatton is in good company. No less an icon than Muhammad Ali, especially as he aged, got away with holding more than most. In his biggest fights, against George Foreman, Ken Norton, and especially Joe Frazier, Ali held repeatedly, typically whenever the opponent got close enough to negate Ali's advantage in hand and foot speed.

"Ali, as great as he was, got away with a lot of holding - grabbing and holding behind the neck," said Steele. "It was because he was the favorite. Everyone loved him. No one wanted to take points away from Muhammad Ali. We should have stopped that, but we didn't. He was Ali."

It's not all bad news for the fans, or for the fighters getting held. There is a way to force the referee to penalize excessive holding: keep punching.

"I hate to take a point away from a guy for holding when the other guy is doing nothing to stop him from holding," said Steele. "I remember when I refereed the Leonard-Hagler fight and I kept telling Leonard, ‘Stop holding, stop holding.' I'd break them; Leonard would throw a 10-punch flurry and then hold again.

"I didn't penalize him because Hagler wasn't doing anything to stop him! If the guy who's being held tries to punch, tries to break out of the clinch, does whatever he can to show that he wants to punch, then he forces me to take action. He forces me to take points from the other guy. The guy who's being held has to try to punch. Then the referee has to take points away. He doesn't have a choice."

Let that be a lesson: when a fight is a bore because one of the fighters is holding, it's not entirely his fault; his opponent is letting him get away with it on some level, has made with him what trainer and broadcaster Teddy Atlas would call a silent agreement to allow himself to be held. The most exciting and frequently the most effective fighters are those who resist the temptation to take the little breaks that frequent clinches provide. And those are the fighters we most like to watch.

More than 5 clinches in a round from a fighter is too much.

I like to rank John Ruiz as the greatest heavyweight champ just too troll.

John Ruiz: great heavy weight champ or greatest heavyweight champ?

On a serious note, I only want to see a fighter engage a clinch when they use it as an effective survival tactic after getting rocked.

gilgamesh wrote:More than 5 clinches in a round from a fighter is too much.

Where did this number come from?

ikorolev wrote:

gilgamesh wrote:More than 5 clinches in a round from a fighter is too much.

Where did this number come from?

From years of watching Boxing and what I would deem a reasonable amount of holding without being excessive.

This is why many people say Wladimir Klitschko should have been disqualified against Povetin.

sounds like this was written a while back
and i miss wlad being mentioned. from
my perspective he clearly used clinching
in his bouts until the opponent became
stationary. then magically he stopped
and took him out.

asdfjkl wrote:This is why many people say Wladimir Klitschko should have been disqualified against Povetin.

He shouldn't have been DQ'd. He lost a point. He probably should've lost another one. I don't think you should ever be Disqualified for holding unless you just refuse to let go when the referee tries to break the clinch (See Jesse Ferguson vs Mike Tyson as an example of this)...other than that. I say take all the points you want away from a guy if he's holding a ridiculous amount of times, but holding is not an offense worthy of Disqualification in my eyes.

Most of the time you take a point away from a guy for holding, the holding is gonna either stop or at least become a whole lot less frequent.

gilgamesh wrote:

asdfjkl wrote:This is why many people say Wladimir Klitschko should have been disqualified against Povetin.

He shouldn't have been DQ'd. He lost a point. He probably should've lost another one. I don't think you should ever be Disqualified for holding unless you just refuse to let go when the referee tries to break the clinch (See Jesse Ferguson vs Mike Tyson as an example of this)...other than that. I say take all the points you want away from a guy if he's holding a ridiculous amount of times, but holding is not an offense worthy of Disqualification in my eyes.

Most of the time you take a point away from a guy for holding, the holding is gonna either stop or at least become a whole lot less frequent.

Well, I suggest you to watch the fight, Wlad should have lost at least 20, to 30 points I'm affraid.

asdfjkl wrote:

gilgamesh wrote:

asdfjkl wrote:This is why many people say Wladimir Klitschko should have been disqualified against Povetin.

He shouldn't have been DQ'd. He lost a point. He probably should've lost another one. I don't think you should ever be Disqualified for holding unless you just refuse to let go when the referee tries to break the clinch (See Jesse Ferguson vs Mike Tyson as an example of this)...other than that. I say take all the points you want away from a guy if he's holding a ridiculous amount of times, but holding is not an offense worthy of Disqualification in my eyes.

Most of the time you take a point away from a guy for holding, the holding is gonna either stop or at least become a whole lot less frequent.

Well, I suggest you to watch the fight, Wlad should have lost at least 20, to 30 points I'm affraid.

I did watch it. He did a lot of egregious holding. He lost 1 point, could've lost 2 or more, but it wouldn't have mattered. He won every single round and dropped Povetkin 4 times. You could've deducted 10 points and he'd have won.

gilgamesh wrote:

asdfjkl wrote:

gilgamesh wrote:
He shouldn't have been DQ'd. He lost a point. He probably should've lost another one. I don't think you should ever be Disqualified for holding unless you just refuse to let go when the referee tries to break the clinch (See Jesse Ferguson vs Mike Tyson as an example of this)...other than that. I say take all the points you want away from a guy if he's holding a ridiculous amount of times, but holding is not an offense worthy of Disqualification in my eyes.

Most of the time you take a point away from a guy for holding, the holding is gonna either stop or at least become a whole lot less frequent.

Well, I suggest you to watch the fight, Wlad should have lost at least 20, to 30 points I'm affraid.

I did watch it. He did a lot of egregious holding. He lost 1 point, could've lost 2 or more, but it wouldn't have mattered. He won every single round and dropped Povetkin 4 times. You could've deducted 10 points and he'd have won.

Yea, he won the rounds by punching once and then holding/wrestling for the rest of the round, Povetkin hasn't been on the ground for over two seconds in any drop, because there was no moment that made him dizzy during the whole fight.

@pureist
..interesting article, always good to know what rules the professionals, directly involved in the decision making process, go by...

I think the subject needed to be qualified, too many posters here seem to think it is perfectly OK to ruin fights with excessive holding, truth be known the refs ruin the fights by not enforcing the rules as they should in most cases, just as Steele said he and others did

i cant say 4,5 or 6 times in 1 rd is to much. simply if it is done consistantly over the course of the fight than it is to much. wlad, ward, floyd all did it to much, they should have been dq's or at least lost multiple points in some fights.

Akinwande vs Lewis, oooof! At least Lane did his job though

It depends on the ref, and the style of the fighters that may be causing it. For the most part, as long as the boxers break when told to, they are very rarely penalized, no matter how much they tie the other guy up.

Steele himself reffed some of the worst holders, and rarely if ever penalized them. Its one thing to tell us all about the rule, but another to follow it. The fact is, it does matter who is fighting, what their style is, what their opponent is doing, and most of course the ref's judgement. The fact is, Steele did not practice what he preached most of the time.

Pureist wrote:I think the subject needed to be qualified, too many posters here seem to think it is perfectly OK to ruin fights with excessive holding, truth be known the refs ruin the fights by not enforcing the rules as they should in most cases, just as Steele said he and others did

exactly. the ref can steer things very quickly
by signalling what he allows and what not.
in football (soccer for our american fans)
they stopped the strategic assaults on key
players by rigorous punishment. in boxing
if all refs in the first rounds stop the grabbers
by taking a point after the fifth intentional
punch blocking by grabbing without being
hurt, this whole issues goes away quickly.

it probably would have meant that wlad
and maybe lennox would have much less
successful careers to look at.

wlad is the worst example in history for me.
ali was bad as well, but ali was so great and
brave offensively plus able like crazy to take
a punch, that you forgive him. but wlad just
tired his man out i an unfair way until he was
no danger. with the exception of the pulev
fight.

povetkin was a disgrace. and dropping him
did not outweigh the excessive grabbing.

Badhusker wrote:It depends on the ref, and the style of the fighters that may be causing it. For the most part, as long as the boxers break when told to, they are very rarely penalized, no matter how much they tie the other guy up.

Steele himself reffed some of the worst holders, and rarely if ever penalized them. Its one thing to tell us all about the rule, but another to follow it. The fact is, it does matter who is fighting, what their style is, what their opponent is doing, and most of course the ref's judgement. The fact is, Steele did not practice what he preached most of the time.

Letting posters know that is actually a foul husker, some here think it's a legitimate tactic when in reality they couldn't be further from the truth, as I said the refs are the ones that ruin the fights by letting this crap go on, Australia has the best refs, they warn very quickly that it won't be tolerated

Its a funny one is the holding/clinching debate, its actually been a legitimate technique throughout boxing history and was considered a necessity in the early gloved days but obviously the modern game has changed and fans just don't appreciate any break in action these days, I don't think bringing in rules to abolish clinching will work and each case should be judged on its own merit which comes down to the ref deciding whether the boxer doing the holding is doing so out of necessity or just spoiling although some may argue that spoiling is a skill in itself employed by boxers to win fights they may not have throughout history, so to sum up its crap to watch but it ain't gonna stop anytime soon as its ingrained into the fabric of the sport, interestingly enough theres a thread over on the boxing history forum about John l Sullivans personal accounts of his career where he touches on what was then a new technique to see the final bell (spoiling for time) so its not a new thing at all.

Holding is illegal, period. Trouble is you can't deduct a point or DQ a guy for holding once. So it then becomes referee's descretion really.

Holding in itself is a skill, Floyd and Bhop for example used it masterfully. This is where the confusion for the fans comes in, they see guys like Floyd, Ward, Wlad, Hopkins etc do it, to great effect at the top of the game, and think that's an art-form.

I guess it is an art form... a mixed-martial art form; it's wrestling. Virgil Hunter has actively taught it to Khan. A skill he previously had no training in (because it's illegal), but you watch the Collazo fight, and Khan was pulling all kinds of old-school clinching methods to spoil Collazo on the inside and to protect himself.

Boxing needs to reign it in big time, warnings in rounds 1-3, points off in rounds 4-6, and DQ territory from 6-12 if a guy is still at it.

If you enjoy the art of wrestling and grappling, there are other sports for you to enjoy. Boxing is punching, footwork, head & lateral movement, etc.

asdfjkl wrote:This is why many people say Wladimir Klitschko should have been disqualified against Povetin.

Many who? Even most russians consider Povetkin as a disgrace.

Povetkin did exectly the same sh!t he did against Huck...lowered his head to opponent pants to avoid being hit. Huck tried to hit him and reduced point for hitting on back of the head...Klitchko even didn't hit him with his strong arm because that's was the fix before the fight...not to KO Povetkin
Even so, the Great Povetkin went down at every slap...

So it looked very ugly, naturally

gilgamesh wrote:

asdfjkl wrote:This is why many people say Wladimir Klitschko should have been disqualified against Povetin.

He shouldn't have been DQ'd. He lost a point. He probably should've lost another one. I don't think you should ever be Disqualified for holding unless you just refuse to let go when the referee tries to break the clinch (See Jesse Ferguson vs Mike Tyson as an example of this)...other than that. I say take all the points you want away from a guy if he's holding a ridiculous amount of times, but holding is not an offense worthy of Disqualification in my eyes.

Most of the time you take a point away from a guy for holding, the holding is gonna either stop or at least become a whole lot less frequent.

He should've lost a point in every round.

Seems to change with the decade.

Ali held like a Madman in the 1970s.

But if you watch films from the very early 1900s there was a lot of holding in the Corbett the Jack Johnson eras as well.

Of course most fans hate holding. I think if 1 of 4 hands are free, use it.

This very website lists boxing rules and not one of them lists a specific penalty for holding.

And, they are somewhat contradictory.

The very first rule mentions holding (among other things) as stuff you cannot do.

But no specific penalty is given- nothing is offered other than the general preface of being
warned, having a point deducted, or being DQed.

A few lines down, the sixth entry talks about hitting while holding. Different conversation.

The very next rule is the most important one to this conversation, IMO. it states:

When the referee breaks you from a clinch, you have to take a full step back; you cannot immediately hit your opponent--that's called "hitting on the break" and is illegal.

While it is also ostensibly a different conversation about a different foul, the fact that it begins
"when the referee breaks you from a clinch" implies that clinching itsef is a regular and common thing.

In other words, the rules take into account that a certain amount of holding is completely expected.

So much so, that there are rules that must be followed while engaging in it.

This would seem to confirm what most boxing folks in the know say about holding, which is this:

Holding is not illegal. Excessive holding is what can be penalized. And that is up to the referee's discretion.