Clinching/holding in boxing should be banned

[Humean]

Yeh Wlad really resembled Ali tonight? Tell me, do you think Wlads clinching tonight was excessive. If you had reffed tonight's fight, at what point if any would you have begun to deduct points for holding?

In his holding Klitschko did resemble Ali, that was what I said.

It is excessive 'maintaining' of a clinch, or in other words holding that is illegal. Because of Klitschko's way of clinching, where he grabs around the back and leans over his opponent the referee is under no obligation to warn or take points because of the manner in which the clinch is maintained. This is the advantage a big guy can gain in these situations and Klitschko, like Ali, takes great advantage of it. In most clinches the arms are being held differently and the ref can warn against maintaining the clinches, i.e. because the fighter is holding his opponent. The Klitschko scenario is different because his opponents are bent down underneath him, hence the apparent leniency of the ref. What the referee could have warned and taken a point from was Klitschko actively pushing Povetkin's head/neck down. That is what he should have had at least one point taken for, not the holding.

[sugarsmosley]

Once again, huge overreaction on NSB.

[Barry Halls]

Imagine if a boxer couldnt hold or clinch it its an automatic point deduction
.

funny suggestion given the fighter in your avatar.

[LOWBLOW_CHAMP]

fighters like jonathan stanks and clinchko practice it in camp and bring it into the arsonal, never have i seen someone hold so damn much besides carlos molina

[lewishamboy]

In his holding Klitschko did resemble Ali, that was what I said.

It is excessive 'maintaining' of a clinch, or in other words holding that is illegal. Because of Klitschko's way of clinching, where he grabs around the back and leans over his opponent the referee is under no obligation to warn or take points because of the manner in which the clinch is maintained. This is the advantage a big guy can gain in these situations and Klitschko, like Ali, takes great advantage of it. In most clinches the arms are being held differently and the ref can warn against maintaining the clinches, i.e. because the fighter is holding his opponent. The Klitschko scenario is different because his opponents are bent down underneath him, hence the apparent leniency of the ref. What the referee could have warned and taken a point from was Klitschko actively pushing Povetkin's head/neck down. That is what he should have had at least one point taken for, not the holding.

Interesting take on it. Heres some quotes on clinching from Richard Steele

"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."

"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,"

It seems Richard Steele and many other world class referees disagree with your interpretation of the rules

[Humean]

Interesting take on it. Heres some quotes on clinching from Richard Steele

"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."

"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,"


Nothing here mentions the "maintaining" of a clinch. It seems Richard Steele and many other world class referred disagree with your interpretation of the rules

You quoted one referee, not any more than one, and Richard Steele, who I agree was a world class referee, is not the rule book.

The WBC rules that you can find online do say "Excessive holding the opponent or maintaining a clinch".

Your quoting of Steele doesn't actually contradict what I said. Klitschko was fighting and clinching, lots of fighters do the same thing. It is fairly rare actually for fighters to get points deducted for holding. If Klitschko was only clinching then he should have been warned. It is however a fine line.

[lewishamboy]

You quoted one referee, not any more than one, and Richard Steele, who I agree was a world class referee, is not the rule book.

The WBC rules that you can find online do say "Excessive holding the opponent or maintaining a clinch".

Your quoting of Steele doesn't actually contradict what I said. Klitschko was fighting and clinching, lots of fighters do the same thing. It is fairly rare actually for fighters to get points deducted for holding. If Klitschko was only clinching then he should have been warned. It is however a fine line.

There are more similar quotes from various sources though of course it's a far from a black and white issue. My view is that Wlads holding in this fight was most definitely excessive and I would've started docking points as early as the first half of the fight. Watched it with my father who was a boxer in the 50's and he agreed also.

[Humean]

There are more similar quotes from various sources though of course it's a far from a black and white issue. My view is that Wlads holding in this fight was most definitely excessive and I would've started docking points as early as the first half of the fight. Watched it with my father who was a boxer in the 50's and he agreed also.

If an opponent moves forward into you, coming in low, should you not be allowed to clinch to defend yourself? The rules essentially allow that, the question of excessive 'maintaining a clinch' or excessive holding essentially pertains to whether it is essentially preventing any action from occuring at all. I understand people thinking that with the amount of clinching that Klitschko was doing in this fight that he shold have at least been warned but I can understand the referee's position on this. The reality is that Povetkin did himself no favours and has to take a share of the blame because of the way he went towards Klitschko and didn't have the skill to land punches by either moving back or to the side when Klitschko went to clinch, or move his hands to avoid being clinched, or indeed simply try and do something to signal to the referee that he was wanting to fight close but that Klitschko was preventing it. As I said it is a fine line.

[Mr.Fantastic]

Imagine if a boxer couldnt hold or clinch it its an automatic point deduction
.

I totally agree 100000%, even if it's my favorite boxers doing it. Everyone should get penalized for that shit.

[ßringer]

Absolutely not. Clinching is part of the game.

HOWEVER, referees need to start being more forceful in taking points away from faggots who make a habit out of abusing it and end up clinching more than punching.

I used to be a big Hopkins fan until he started making a habit out of constant clinching and being a spoiling ****.

A lot of NSB ******s apparently love that sort of "fighting" (and I use that term very loosely) and routinely attack any fan that doesn't think it takes "mad skillz" to routinely reach your arm out and hug your opponent round after round, but I lose interest anytime a boxing match becomes a hug-a-thon.

Guys like Mayweather use it perfectly : Just enough to frustrate your opponent and keep him from doing what he wants to do, but not enough to put the whole ****ing audience to sleep.