should clinching be taken more seriously?

[Madison Boxing]

And here is where you show your limited boxing knowledge. Holding is what you do when hurt. There is a difference between holding and clinching. You can work in a clinch and a lot of guys do inside work that way. A hold is literally hugging your opponents body with no intent to let go until the ref comes in to break it up, which is what you do to buy time when you're hurt...or you're Wladimir Klitschko

its the same ****, holding/clinching/grabbing, ward doesnt do good work on the inside apart from with his head so i guessyou'd consider it holding.

[New England]

it's a judgement call. if a fighter is hurt you have to let him clinch. that's pro boxing. if a fighter is getting a little grabby on the inside but he's making it work for him and keeping his other hand free to punch you should allow him to continue. if he's blatantly holding on with one hand and hitting with the other you should call it.


if a guy is holding regularly and trying to get the ref to break the fighters and set them up on the outside it should be called a foul, and eventually points should be taken away. think wladimir klitschko. if a fighter just won't stop holding i guess you can think about calling a DQ, but i think that's honestly excessive in most situations where a fighter is clinching habitually. unless a guy is running away with a fight you can have a serious impact on a guy's tendencies just by taking a point. i generally only like ot see DQ's in situations where guys are flagrantly fouling, like hitting a guy when he's clearly down, after the bell, after several low blows, intentional and repeated head butts, etc.

[Kigali]

Alfredo Angulo knows how to refuse a clinch.

[Kigali]

its the same ****, holding/clinching/grabbing, ward doesnt do good work on the inside apart from with his head so i guessyou'd consider it holding.

Sounds like Vlad.

[daggum]

it's a judgement call. if a fighter is hurt you have to let him clinch. that's pro boxing. if a fighter is getting a little grabby on the inside but he's making it work for him and keeping his other hand free to punch you should allow him to continue. if he's blatantly holding on with one hand and hitting with the other you should call it.


if a guy is holding regularly and trying to get the ref to break the fighters and set them up on the outside it should be called a foul, and eventually points should be taken away. think wladimir klitschko. if a fighter just won't stop holding i guess you can think about calling a DQ, but i think that's honestly excessive in most situations where a fighter is clinching habitually. unless a guy is running away with a fight you can have a serious impact on a guy's tendencies just by taking a point. i generally only like ot see DQ's in situations where guys are flagrantly fouling, like hitting a guy when he's clearly down, after the bell, after several low blows, intentional and repeated head butts, etc.

and the difference between blantantly grabbing and gettign a little grabby is? sounds like a weak subjective defense so you can defend clinchers like ward. how about just follow the rules ? says no clinching. says no holding and hitting. easy. lets not try to make up things because we like certain guys

[Mequetrefe]

If clinching/holding was taken seriously, Ward, Brook, Klitschko and Hatton wouldve never been champions. Did I miss a clincher?

[Rip Chudd]

its the same ****, holding/clinching/grabbing, ward doesnt do good work on the inside apart from with his head so i guessyou'd consider it holding.

Except it's actually not the same thing.

Why are all you fools getting more nervous the closer the Ward vs Kov fight gets? Keep seeing the same Ward threads

[HanzGruber]

A brook fan complaining about clinching? All he wanted to do was clinch when he faced real welterweights

[Larry the boss]

Aren't you a Klitscko fan? We all know this a stab at Ward by the way....

lol..............

[New England]

and the difference between blantantly grabbing and gettign a little grabby is? sounds like a weak subjective defense so you can defend clinchers like ward. how about just follow the rules ? says no clinching. says no holding and hitting. easy. lets not try to make up things because we like certain guys

i'm not making up anything, you scorned woman . i know that ward's blackness and americanness rules your life and dictates what you'll post each day, but let's try and come with grown up material if you want to expect any attention and further response from a big boy like me.

clinching is illegal in the rulebooks but happens in virtually every round. it is a judgement call made by a ref, not a binary phenomenon like a punch either missing or landing on a compubox sheet. you don't just take a point away when a fighter clinches. you take points when it is done excessively or without warrant. it is a judgement call, and i don't care if you're bleeding form the vagina too heavily to understand that.


clinching is actually far less prolific in boxing than it was in the past. guys used to have 6 oz gloves with no thum which basically allowed you wrestle.



ward tore those walls, evidently. once he was up in that vag of yours it was never the same. you're damaged goods .


who are your 5 favorite fighters, historically or otherwise? if you were worth my time i'd have no problem showing you countless instances where they clinched and were not deducted points, because clinches and their legality are inherently subjective,a nd for the most part clinching as it manifests in boxing is a part of the sport and not worth the deduction of a point.


you're such a f#ggot