That referee totally sucked

Discussion in 'World Boxing Forum' started by Rui, Jan 17, 2009.


  1. Rui

    Rui Well-Known Member Full Member

    1,755
    2
    Apr 3, 2008
    Yeah, I hate holding as much as the next guy. But Berto was holding periodically; nowhere near as much as guys like Ruiz or Hopkins and his actions certainly didn't warrant a point deduction. More importantly, during the clinch that actually prompted the deduction, Collazo was just as responsible for the hold as Berto.

    In conclusion, **** that referee. Let the fighters fight.
     
  2. nezy37

    nezy37 Boxing Addict Full Member

    5,241
    0
    Jul 13, 2007
    all I gotta say is wow.

    It wasn't getting in the way of the fight, Jesus man how could it with that kind of action.
     
  3. elgrancampeon

    elgrancampeon Well-Known Member Full Member

    2,413
    0
    Feb 28, 2008

    Holding is AGAINST THE RULES!!!!!!!!

    If some refs don't follow the rules then you should fault them.
     
  4. nezy37

    nezy37 Boxing Addict Full Member

    5,241
    0
    Jul 13, 2007
    Man it was hardly excessive....I didn't even really notice it.

    You might be right that it helped Berto though, it got him away from Collazo a bit.
     
  5. Rui

    Rui Well-Known Member Full Member

    1,755
    2
    Apr 3, 2008
    When a fighter is hurt or stunned, he has every right to hold. Holding must be a part of a boxer's repertoire if he wants to be successful. Look at what happened to Cotto when he failed to clinch against Margarito.

    A fighter's undefeated record should not be based on the actions of a referee. By constantly threatening Berto, the referee makes Berto anxious of another potential clinch. Thus, Collazo could actually initiate a clinch and make it seem as if Berto was the one who was holding on (Collazo tried this near the end if you didn't notice).
     
  6. PH|LLA

    PH|LLA VIP Member Full Member

    79,438
    2,646
    Feb 1, 2007
    that was one of the worst deductions ive seen
     
  7. Rui

    Rui Well-Known Member Full Member

    1,755
    2
    Apr 3, 2008
    Holding isn't against the rules.

    Rabbit punching is against the rules. Hitting below the belt is against the rules.

    Excessive holding may be against the rules, but that wasn't the case with the fight.
     
  8. elgrancampeon

    elgrancampeon Well-Known Member Full Member

    2,413
    0
    Feb 28, 2008

    "You cannot hit below the belt, hold, trip, kick, headbutt, wrestle, bite, spit on, or push your opponent."


    I guess you can kick a little, right?
     
  9. Rui

    Rui Well-Known Member Full Member

    1,755
    2
    Apr 3, 2008
    Whose quote was that?

    I can't believe you're arguing that holding is against the rules. Excessive holding perhaps, but if holding was against the rules, how many fights would Hopkins have lost? Do you know how many clinches he initiated against Calzaghe? Same with Ricky Hatton. There's a reason why referees never warn fighters for clinching until it becomes excessive.
     
  10. elgrancampeon

    elgrancampeon Well-Known Member Full Member

    2,413
    0
    Feb 28, 2008

    clinching != holding

    Plus holding IS against the rules and that is how it's stated. The ref decides what is and what is not acceptable. There is no "holding level" that must be reached before the ref can give a warning. The area is very vague and you can't rely on holding as a tactic because you can get called on it.
     
  11. circleinsidebox

    circleinsidebox Member Full Member

    146
    0
    Oct 1, 2008
    yall r misusing terms
    CLINCHING is allowed
    HOLDING is not....

    and Berto was clinching....
    holding = hugging
    clinching = wrapping your ams around opponents arm so they can't punch
     
  12. san rafael

    san rafael 0.00% lemming Full Member

    27,684
    7
    Jun 11, 2008
    I have to agree. ^
     
  13. Rui

    Rui Well-Known Member Full Member

    1,755
    2
    Apr 3, 2008
    Clinching is the equivalent of holding. I'd be interested in learning how exactly the two are different.

    And you still haven't answered my question. If holding was against the rules, how are fighters like Hopkins and Hatton allowed to constantly get away with it? Because holding isn't against the rules. Only holding in excessive amounts, which is up to the referee's discretion. But unlike low blows or rabbit punches where 3 times is the usual limit before a point is deducted, you can initiate a hold more than 3 times and still no point will be taken away unless it reaches a signficant amount.
     
  14. Rui

    Rui Well-Known Member Full Member

    1,755
    2
    Apr 3, 2008
    Clinching is also associated with hugging.
     
  15. VARG

    VARG Boxing Junkie Full Member

    8,005
    0
    Oct 30, 2008
    ****in' thank you...no one seemed to mention this ****. It seemed to me like Berto was all too worried about NOT holding instead of the opponent in front of him. He was cautious to really do anything...

    I don't think that'll change much in the rematch...but it definitely had an effect on him in this fight.

    I still had Collazo winning...but I think that ref effected Berto's fight.