Promoters/networks should do something about clinching... Serious topic, long read.

This issue was brought to my mind by the Vazquez Bey fight. I thought Mayweathers use of the clinch was perfectly fine.

The clinch is something in boxing that can completely change the fight. It's taught to fighters very early in their career and isn't particularly hard to do. The tactic is definitely frowned upon and it should be. What really makes clinching work and not work is the referee. Depending on the ref you could get away clinching all night, or maybe after 4-5 in a round get warned that on the next offense you will have a point taken.

In this sense a referee can completely change the way a fight runs. Think if Danny Gift Garcia hadn't been allowed to clinch that much against Lucas? The fight would be different. It allows fighters who box on the outside to clinch at anytime someone gets inside the jab. In the eyes of many fighting on the inside is action, and a lot more exciting than the outside. I myself am a fan of the sweet science and I do like to see intelligent usage of clinching here and there. But it is overused. I personally though Mayweathers usage of clinching tonight wasn't bad at all. I'm not making this thread because of that. What brought this issue to my attention was the Miguel Vazquez vs Mickey Bey fight.

The fight ended up being so boring that if you were a casual tuning in, you would probably not want to watch boxing ever again. I am starting to think that the networks/promoters need to impose a rule that if you clinch you lose .5% of your purse. For every clinch that follows it is the same. So you clinch 10 times? That costs us X amount of fans because you made the fight boring to watch so we will take 5% of your purse. This way if its a clinch that REALLY needs to happen such as a fighter is hurt, (good example is Floyd vs Mosley, Floyd HAD to clinch there and it didn't really become a pattern, so a clinch like that would be worth it). However, when you dive in head first w/ 1 punch and then clinch, you wouldn't do that anymore because of the potential loss of funds.

I'm making this thread because I don't think clinching should be in boxing as much as it is today. Promoters/Networks are hurting their own product (boxing) by allowing it to be so rampant and go completely unpunished.

For the record the numbers I used for the monetary loss for the fighter probably shouldn't be that exactly. But I just wanted to use it as an example. There also should be more STRICT number of clinches allowed before points get deducted.

 

Well look, we do agree that CLINCHING IS BAD. I think most boxing fans are in agreement of that. This would be like turning on a football match and seeing a player on defense or offense sneak out of the huddle and move the ball a few yards in a certain direction favoring themselves. It specifically says in the rules don't do that. Yet, it happens time and time again. It needs to be less of a grey area and offenders should be punished under strict rules. It should not be "if you feel like enforcing clinching as a foul you can do it, but you can also be lazy and watch it keep happening".

I truly believe the main reason clinching hasn't had strict rules enforced is because promoters can use clinching to the advantage of their fighters on their own cards. So you can have your own referee who allows you to clinch but when your opponent does it he can get penalized. I think we as fans should now use the internet to organize and petition changes to clean up boxing. We have a way to organize now as a group and can make things happen.

 

Yes it was atrocious. I don't mind a clinch here and there, but when your actual game plan you have formulated going into the fight is: "I will use my longer arm to hit him once, then dive in with my head and grab him so he can not do anything". That is innapropriate. It's exploting the clinch. I know in AM fights where I live maybe 4-5 clinches in a round and you were DQ'd.