It is common place to watch fighters hold and for the ref to shout verbal warnings to these fighters to let the go. This continues for the entire fight and the referee has never penalized the fighter for his flagarant holding. If you were the referee in a fight like this would you begin taking points away after continued verbal warnings and cautions on top of proper warnings. I would like to see the flagrant holding stopped, I think it would liven the sport in the publics eyes. So your the referee and this fighter is constantly holding, do you take the point..............Rockin'

Nady is the man at break ups, I think he handles it well but he is also a big guy.

To much holding has to be illegal, I am not accurate on the rule books but I would treat it like a baseball game. 3 strikes and your out.

If you hold 3 times during the first half, I would take a point 3 more in the late and I take another point.

But it also depends on the holding, if the fighter is in trouble then by all means to save himself a knockdown I would let the holding. But if it was a Ruiz hold to sneak in a few cheap shots no his ass would get deducted points.

hell yea example ruiz

If it's John Ruiz style holding then yes I will take points away.

But it also depends on the holding, if the fighter is in trouble then by all means to save himself a knockdown I would let the holding. But if it was a Ruiz hold to sneak in a few cheap shots no his ass would get deducted points.

Yes there are certain situations where fighters are going to hold that refs should let go with just breaking them up like they usually do. For example if both fighters are going to war toe to toe you have to expect some holding during the second half of the fight. I wouldn't penalize that.

Of course...

if the fighter is in trouble then by all means to save himself a knockdown I would let the holding. But if it was a Ruiz hold to sneak in a few cheap shots no his ass would get deducted points.
letting a fighter hold when he is hurt to save himself is taking away from the fighter trying to stop him.

If they are both content with the holding and clinching and just laying there at the time, I say just break them. If one man is getting bombed and holds the man who is still trying to fight, I say warn him and if it coninues start taking points at the proper time.............Rockin'

Absolutely. Holding should not be a tactic. Holding should be allowed as others have said when a fighter is in danger. But excessive holding, no matter the circumstances, should get a warning, a stern warning, and then a penalty. Maybe you could throw an extra warning in two. But I agree that Jay Nady is the man at not letting people hold. He should ref every Ruiz fight. The mexicans have the right idea about holding. Holding is for pu$$ies. You both can stand there with your head on the other guys shoulder working on the inside. If there is a little clinching in the mix that is okay. But it should be minimal.

letting a fighter hold when he is hurt to save himself is taking away from the fighter trying to stop him.

If they are both content with the holding and clinching and just laying there at the time, I say just break them. If one man is getting bombed and holds the man who is still trying to fight, I say warn him and if it coninues start taking points at the proper time.............Rockin'

I agree with this. I would allow the hurt fighter to hold on once to regain composure, but if it keeps happening I would take a point or call the fight since it seems like he is getting messed up!

When they are hurt is exactly when a referee should not allow them to hold. That fighter would be gaining an advantage while clearly breaking the rules. I know this is far fetched, but if a hurt fighter is allowed to hold than should the fighter trying to drop him be allowed to maybe use his elbow in a punch. Both are against the rules..............Rockin'

yes points deductions would be necessary, if a fighter is hurt and grabs on, i would quickly seperate and give him a warning, and see if the other fighter can finish. IF he is getting tagged good and holds again i would take a point.

When they are hurt is exactly when a referee should not allow them to hold. That fighter would be gaining an advantage while clearly breaking the rules. I know this is far fetched, but if a hurt fighter is allowed to hold than should the fighter trying to drop him be allowed to maybe use his elbow in a punch. Both are against the rules..............Rockin'

I see your point, and I guess I would enforce the holding rule the same whether he was hurt or not. You get a warning, a 2nd, possibly a third and then a deduction.

But my question to you is what happens when they both want to hold on the inside? I see it all the time. One guy is rushing in with his head low the other guy grabs his head, the head rush guy grabs the other guy. It can get real messy. Do you penalize them both?

But my question to you is what happens when they both want to hold on the inside? I see it all the time. One guy is rushing in with his head low the other guy grabs his head, the head rush guy grabs the other guy. It can get real messy. Do you penalize them both?


Thats a good one. I'll have to think about that one for a bit.............Rockin'

Like I said I am not familiar with the rule books, but I agree with your points.

I would let holding go on for a minimum, although if a fighter is taking more than 10 shots with no signs of fighting back or protecting himself, I would clearly stop the fight.