BoxRec

Although I do recognize the difference between a skilled infighter (Miguel Cotto) and a rugged mauler (Matt Skelton) I must confess that I much prefer the spectacle of two boxers on their toes, fighting at range.

So accordingly I pose a question; if clinching, rabbit punching & arm-locking were penalized by automatic disqualification, what sort of impact would it have on the current P4P top 20?

Who would have their game taken away from them and who would prosper?

This of course is purely hypothetical because if they really did ban clinching altogether, I have a nasty feeling there would be a considerably higher volume of boxers getting seriously injured.

Everyone would go into MMA or stay in the amateurs. Fight viewership would also go down as there would be one too many DQ's for everyone's liking. At the end of the day, it is a fight.

You'd make a lot of boxers too similar as well. Gone would be the the brawler vs rangy boxer classics of yester year.

The heavyweights wouldn't know what to do.

tony3 wrote:This of course is purely hypothetical because if they really did ban clinching altogether, I have a nasty feeling there would be a considerably higher volume of boxers getting seriously injured.

I actually disagree with this. If you look at the vast majority of fights where a boxer gets seriously injured, it's due to taking prolonged beatings, rather than being 'cleanly' KO'ed in the early rounds. You can make a very strong case that clinching allows the boxer on the receiving end to stay in the fight longer and therefore accumulating more punishment. In that respect it 'articifically' prolongs the fight with the result that they become more vulnerable, not safer.

Hatton, Hopkins, Cory Spinks, Ruiz and Skeleton would all be hurt. Mayweather uses clinching but can adapt without them.

Spinks holding? He usually keeps his distance and gets accused of running because of being smart.