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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
"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?
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.
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.
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
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.
****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.