Should clinching be banned from boxing altogether?

[AlexKid]

It make sit less entertaining and these guys are supposed to be strikers not grapplers!

Why not have a 0 tolerance on clinching, you can only block and use the usual defensive measures and punch thats it.

If you clinch just once you get a point deducted.

This whole hanging on thing is effective, has become popular lately, and it is boring gay and un entertaining.

[AlexKid]

Remember Tyson vs Botha or Tyson vs Lennox Lewis or Mayweather vs pac man, all these clinching fighters tried to destroy the excitement by hugging and leaning on Tyson because they are inferior strikers but are superior grapplers.

Fortunately Tyson laid one on Botha, but he very well could have prevented that exciting outcome with all the hugging.

[MindBat]

It make sit less entertaining and these guys are supposed to be strikers not grapplers!

Why not have a 0 tolerance on clinching, you can only black and use the usual defensive measures and punch thats it.

If you clinch just once you get a point deducted.

This whole hanging on thing is effective, has become popular lately, and it is boring gay and un entertaining.

If it's because Pacman lost to a "clincher ", no.

But if it's because Pacman can't compete with "clinchers", no again.

.

[Doggy Tang]

Simple answer, no

[Mike D]

I think it should be strongly regulated against, yeah.

Of course there's going to be natural occurrences where 2 fighters will hold, and I also don't mind a fighter going to a hold a time or two if he's hurt, but it can't be utilized as a loophole for defense. For example when a fighter goes to a hold/clinch as soon as his opponent gets near him -- there needs to be a zero tolerance rule on that ****. Issue an immediate warning and then take points after that. Nobody pays/watches to see clinches. One of the main arguments I hear from casual or non-boxing fans is how so many fights are clinch fests. Dudes jabbing and clinching for 12 lackluster rounds. That type of **** pulls the sport down.

[LittleMacAttack]

It's pretty clear that the penalty for clinching is too lax. Maybe they should up it to something more reasonable like an instant point deduction or death by firing squad.

[!! Shawn]

It should be an immediate point deduction, no warnings. No discretion from referee. You hold you lose a point. Thats how it should be.

[Doggy Tang]

The thing is in a clinch you can still work out of it cause you have a free hand. Holding is where a fighter has you all wrapped up. Big difference.

[Mike D]

If it's because Pacman lost to a "clincher ", no.

But if it's because Pacman can't compete with "clinchers", no again.

.

Personally last night's fight wasn't even on my radar as far as that goes. I mean yeah Floyd holds. He does. But last night wasn't an extreme example.

An extreme example that comes to my mind is Khan/Collazo. Khan went to a hold every time Collazo got within 100 yards of him. And then he would reset, throw at range, and then Collazo would get near him and Khan would immediately go to the hold again. It was a wash, rinse, and repeat of that for the entire duration of that fight. Fighters should get DQ'd for **** like that.

[deathofaclown]

Was it just me who thought Floyd hardly held at all?

I mean, he did clinch a few times but really Manny was very rarely at a distance where Floyd could clinch.