BoxRec

I have to mention three fights (Klitschko-Povetkin, Brook-Porter and Ward-Kovalev) where the winners were wrestling, clinching and holding.
What do you think about ? Should the judges/refs have penalized Klitschko, Brook and Ward ?
Point deduction ? DQ ?

I actually believe any holding / hugging / tying up should be against the rules and result in a warning or two then points off. That would soon change how fighters work on the inside.

Ps all this talk about fighters 'not being able to work in the inside' if holding is banned is nonsense.

Holding and tying up ruin an inside fighter's game.

ValMar wrote:I have to mention three fights (Klitschko-Povetkin, Brook-Porter and Ward-Kovalev) where the winners were wrestling, clinching and holding.
What do you think about ? Should the judges/refs have penalized Klitschko, Brook and Ward ?
Point deduction ? DQ ?

Rather than making assumptions, why don't you read the rules?

It's abundantly clear that it's technically legal to a certain degree, because we see the same tactics employed in many fights.

There has always been holding a clinching in boxing.
If holding was illegal Ali would of lost numerous fights.

But where it gets to the point that that's all you see.
It should result in dq.... perfect example Klitschko Povetkin. Klit held more than he hit.

But banning it all together would never work

Enlightened-One wrote:

ValMar wrote:I have to mention three fights (Klitschko-Povetkin, Brook-Porter and Ward-Kovalev) where the winners were wrestling, clinching and holding.
What do you think about ? Should the judges/refs have penalized Klitschko, Brook and Ward ?
Point deduction ? DQ ?

Rather than making assumptions, why don't you read the rules?

It's abundantly clear that it's technically legal to a certain degree, because we see the same tactics employed in many fights.

I don't know where the allowed "certain degree" is becoming forbidden.....And, I really haven't got enough spare time to read the rules....

its simple, there is no debating. its in the rules book of boxing. no excessive clinching allowed, so yes point d or dq at the end

ValMar wrote:

Enlightened-One wrote:

ValMar wrote:I have to mention three fights (Klitschko-Povetkin, Brook-Porter and Ward-Kovalev) where the winners were wrestling, clinching and holding.
What do you think about ? Should the judges/refs have penalized Klitschko, Brook and Ward ?
Point deduction ? DQ ?

Rather than making assumptions, why don't you read the rules?

It's abundantly clear that it's technically legal to a certain degree, because we see the same tactics employed in many fights.

I don't know where the allowed "certain degree" is becoming forbidden.....And, I really haven't got enough spare time to read the rules....

holding clinching wrestling is okay. doing it exceissvly, like to many times, this is forbidden. thats why klischko, floyd, ward lost some fight in my book.

ValMar wrote:

Enlightened-One wrote:

ValMar wrote:I have to mention three fights (Klitschko-Povetkin, Brook-Porter and Ward-Kovalev) where the winners were wrestling, clinching and holding.
What do you think about ? Should the judges/refs have penalized Klitschko, Brook and Ward ?
Point deduction ? DQ ?

Rather than making assumptions, why don't you read the rules?

It's abundantly clear that it's technically legal to a certain degree, because we see the same tactics employed in many fights.

I don't know where the allowed "certain degree" is becoming forbidden.....And, I really haven't got enough spare time to read the rules....

Excessively holding the opponent or maintaining a clinch for too long is technically considered a foul, but the operative word that holds significance and is open to interpretation is “excessive”.

Therefore, the rules themselves are subjective in nature, which means that different referees may enforce the same rules inconsistently.

Clinching an opponent should not be penalised if the tactic is executed in a positive manner. What I mean is this… if you’re able to use effective defence to implement offence, such as punching your opponent before or after the clinch. Basically, you make sure your shots connect, whilst grabbing hold of your opponent to smother and neutralise their attacks.

We’ve seen Floyd Mayweather and Virgil Hunter’s fighters exploit opportunities when they themselves throw a punch that fails to land, by using the same extended arm, to hold or push their opponents to prevent counters and also move their rival out of position.

If you’re an outside fighter and your opponent insists on fighting on the inside, you have every right to "defend yourself at all times" by controlling your rivals' arm(s) and positioning to prevent yourself from needlessly taking inside shots, such as hooks and uppercuts… as long as the defensive manoeuvre is executed briefly and ultimately results in some form of offence being employed. We saw Sergey Kovalev do this against Andre Ward during the early stages of their bout.

The Emanuel Steward strategy that Klitschko employed against Povetkin was excessively used, but perhaps not as much as casuals believe. Lennox Lewis used the same tactic against Tyson, which was to throw a punch or two, grab your foe, lean all your weight on your shorter opponent whilst you’re clinching to wear them down and then push them away to create distance. This strategy may have been deeply unpleasant to watch, but the tactic itself was positive in nature, because the fighter employing it was looking to make their opponent miss and then make them pay.

Additionally, if a fighter is in deep trouble, as a result of being rocked from being on the receiving end of severe punishment, you should be allowed to "defend yourself at all times" by holding your opponent in order to recover. The ref has every right to break the clinch, but the fighter that is in distress who is being defensively responsible, should not be penalised for looking for respite.

In my opinion, holding and clinching should only be illegal when it becomes the main tactic, where nothing positive results from it and it also hinders the action taking place inside the ring. For instance, the bout becomes a seemingly endless cycle where your opponent throws a punch, you hold, the referee breaks the clinch… lather, rinse, repeat etc.

Top athletes always ignore the spirit and letter of the rules and just try and get away with as much they can. There are good reasons to try and limit it, but in truth it's going to some extent be part of pretty much any combat.

Maybe make it so excessive holding is judged to always be clinging on, and thus often make it a round loser.

There is virtually no limit. The way that the rules are generally enforced is that you have to clinch 300 times before a point is taken away, and you have to have sex with the referee's wife for him to take a second point away. Disqualification occurs never.

ValMar wrote:I have to mention three fights (Klitschko-Povetkin, Brook-Porter and Ward-Kovalev) where the winners were wrestling, clinching and holding.
What do you think about ? Should the judges/refs have penalized Klitschko, Brook and Ward ?
Point deduction ? DQ ?

Ward vs Kovalev wasn't anywhere close to Klitschko vs Povetkin to say nothing about Ward vs Kessler. Besides, the winner (Kovalev) was already harshly penalized with the robbery.

ValMar wrote:I have to mention three fights (Klitschko-Povetkin, Brook-Porter and Ward-Kovalev) where the winners were wrestling, clinching and holding.
What do you think about ? Should the judges/refs have penalized Klitschko, Brook and Ward ?
Point deduction ? DQ ?

When referees yell "NO HOLDING" they don't mean "SOME HOLDING" do they??? ... It's a foul to hold so treat it as such... The Queensberry rules do not allow holding, wrestling, pushing, butting, elbowing, biting, hitting on the break, hitting low, or hitting on the back of the head or the back. Amir Khan was deducted points for flagrant pushing and people got exercised about that.. If It's a foul.. and it's deliberate.. TAKE POINTS!!

After you tell the boxers NOT to hold you need to stop the fight and start issuing formal warnings... I hate it when one fighter is being dirty and the referee tells both boxers to "Keep it clean gentleman." In effect he's telling the guy who just got fouled not to retaliate.. What often happens is the same guy keeps fouling and the referee ignores it for the most part.. The worst case of flagrant holding was the 1st round of Ali-Foreman where Ali clinched 20 times during that round, including doing a lot of wrestling and pushing Foreman's head down..

Wlad Klitschko got penalized a point in his Jennings fight for far less holding, and good for Michael Griffin.. Henry Akinwande got DQ'd by Mills Lane for constantly holding Lennox Lewis -- and there should be many more rulings like that.. What often happens is a guy fouls like crazy and actually wins the fight because he's a good fouler.

In my opinion, referees seem to be more motivated to enforce the “excessive holding” rule by penalising fighters that frequently clinch their opponent in order to take a breather or to prevent their opponents from throwing meaningful shots, since their approach is very negative.

However, refs are less inclined to penalise fighters for using effective defensive manoeuvres, such as hitting and holding, if it also employs offence, since they’re simply adhering to the main principle of boxing, which is to “hit and not get hit.”

So when you’re watching a fight and you notice one of the fighters not being punished by the ref for regularly initiating clinches, you need to ask yourself one simple question… “Are they getting away with all their holding because they’re making their opponent miss and then making them pay?”

I think the rules were written for the combatants rather than the spectators, which is why it’s always frustrating to see fighters use holding tactics, regardless the reasons.

I think that there's a difference between a fighter using the clinch as an offensive weapon and a fighter using the clinch as a response to boxers bull rushing their way in with their head and elbows (Margarito, Angulo, Chavez Jr).

If boxing started to penalize ALL holding and wrestling strictly and from the opening bell then you would see a huge shift in effective boxing styles. No longer would the Terrance Crawfords or Errol Spence Jr's beautiful boxing style be tops in the sport. Now the advantage inside the ring would go to the less skilled, dirty, charging forward fighter who's object is to make a fight ugly. That's exactly what Boxing doesn't need.

But, in a fight like Floyd/Manny where both guys are highly technical, Floyd utilized multiple blatant lunging hugs to avoid exchanges on the ropes. I stopped counting at 15 while watching the fight with not so much as a warning for Floyd. If Floyd was penalized in that fight, we may have ended up seeing a fight that was half as good as we expected.

Refs & judges = evil, cancer, death for boxing. Something should be done, or boxing will lose majority of fans. Sad but true.

Lackeos wrote:There is virtually no limit. The way that the rules are generally enforced is that you have to clinch 300 times before a point is taken away, and you have to have sex with the referee's wife for him to take a second point away. Disqualification occurs never.

Remember Akinwande

I'd say 3 times a round, every time you continue to clinch and the ref needs to split you, you can lose a point. If both clinch, it counts for both.

If boxers are taught to fight out of a clinch, it wouldn't be much of an issue.....or an excuse for losing.

If you are Andre Ward fighting in California then that is the limit his opponents better not try the same thing though or will get a DQ

Noxy wrote:

Lackeos wrote:There is virtually no limit. The way that the rules are generally enforced is that you have to clinch 300 times before a point is taken away, and you have to have sex with the referee's wife for him to take a second point away. Disqualification occurs never.

Remember Akinwande

Well done. You found an example from back in 1997. I guess it happens pretty regularly, then.

Boxers who are tagged as inside fighters nowadays arnt in-fighters. Infighting is basically a lost art. Long gone are the days of seeing immensely skilled inside fights like for example Duran-Palomino which is a shame.