this is an interesting topic you have wlad with his clinching and holding and the refs never doing a thing about it.... which ofcourse wears down his smaller foes, of course the old school way of dealing with this was to low blow or head butt the guy but if you do the ref will ofcourse take action against you with bhop its headbutting and low blow and sometimes holding but the ref always always calling it an accident while his oppentent is cut open if his oppentent does it to him, its almost a war crime against society the same goes for holyfield before with everyone from tyson to lewis to vaugan bean lol talking about his headbutts and the refs pretending not to see it... and when he got fouled its a big crime lol so its interesting how would these do without the refs helping them??? wlad having points taken off him and knowing he might get dq'ed soon for holding holyfield-bhop knowing they cant cut open guys and not even get a warning for it
Every ref shows bias one way or another. They interpret and enforce the rules different from one another and that will always seem to help one fighter more than the other depending on how their style pushes the boundaries...
I don't know why Floyd Mayweather and Andre Ward weren't included in that list of clinchers and stallers but oh well.
Ali, Tyson, Lennox, why not there? Dont think is that easy to clinches and to cover in clinches. Also this guys master the clinches know when to go for it and when they will get point red. But how you see World Champion for 8 years get DQ in a title fight ? Should Povetkin get point reduction for playing low all night vs Huck and Wladimir ? BTW, watch Boytzov vs Leapai and see how many clinches there was, more then 100 probably. And see how many clinches was in Wlad - Leapai, no more then 5 ....
clinches are one thing, holding on to your foe and making him carrying your weight is another and yes a champion of 8 years can and should be dq'ed like anyone else you keep doing the same fouls over and over again dq end of story does not matter if your ali or wlad or some guy in his 4th fight and holding is a type of foul that shows you dont want to fight-engage but yeah many "great" fighters have the refs on their side throughout history the point was would they be as great if the refs didnt pretend not to see their fouls due to the fight that the famous "great" fighter
Referees are only human. Often with some fouling they simply do not see it. We have the advantage of multiple camera views and replays, referees can only see what is happening from one angle. Fighters like Hopkins and Holyfield were smart with their fouling they hide in very well. The referees in general are not being biased they just don't see it like we can. The clinching is more blatant and that will come down to how the referee perceives the rules. Fact is too many referees these days allow clinching to occur without any reprimand it just seems to have seeped into the game. But fighters will do what they can get away with.
i both agree and disagree, your point about holyfield and hopkins being smart is true but you mention our view and how the ref sees 1, the ref right beside whats going on 2. with stars those guys the ref has seen their fights on tv before and knows about what they are famous for, so he should watch out for them trying their tricks again and again 3. there is a huge difference between clinching and holding on and making your foe carry your weight which is probably the easiest foul to see from any view point,
All three are smart yet dirty in different ways, they use their tactics to gain an upper hand and derail their opponents concentration and stamina. Holyfield - was a serial head-butter and used it to rough his opponents up. Hopkins (older version past physical prime) - uses excessive clinching to close the distance and nullify his opponents attack. He also uses headbutts to rough his opponents up and affect their composure and concentration. Wlad (current Steward version) - Uses excessive clinching to pace himself and nullify the opponents attacks. He also regularly pushes down on his opponents to sap their energy.
Even if the ref knows a fighter regularly cheats should he penalize a fighter for a foul he actually doesn't see? Yes he should look out for the tricks and fouls but that's why Holyfield and Hopkins get away with it the ref simply doesn't see it because they are so good at disguising it depending upon the position and view of the ref. So he can't warn or deduct points for fouls he hasn't actually seen. Otherwise he'd be biased against one fighter.
i can see what you mean but the mere fact that holyfield didnt even get many warnings says the refs were not trying hard to see what he was doing with wlad, its another story, you cant hide what he is doing its plain to see even for a blind guy lol i wonder how much of the refs trying not see what these doing having to do with "hey if i harass him for fouls, i might not work any big fights in this area again"
wlad and hopkins would have a lot of more losses i am very sure of that, couple of welldeserved DQ's each without a doubt. wlad might have been that ultimate fighting machine knowing that he can't cheat his way to a W he would have to fight and evolve i the right direction instead of this boring and cheating huggybear. in boring hopkins the cheataah case i think a white boy would whip his sas and he would been retired 5 decades ago. wlad is just worst of them but vs Pulev he was OK.