Clinch and holding

define "excessive". He did it frequently. Like, in every round after the first probably multiple times.

He (probably) did it more than Dirrell did against Froch. He (probably) did it as many times as Kahn pushed Peterson.

 

yeah, he was happy to fight on the outside. Agreed.

He was delaying the action on the inside, not the outside. It is a very borderline tactic that should have been penalized in my opinion.

 

This question has already been answer by OP. Are you saying you want me to show you the post?

 

he doesn't define excessive. He refers to John Ruiz and says "not like that".

 

I think most of us understand what OP means.

 

Actually, my last post comes across as kind of flippant, which wasn't my intention.

I pretty certain OP is thinking the same thing as the rest of us: that Ruiz used clinching not only to stalemate an opponents offensive (in order to quickly shift the punching action back to a mode or distance that favors the clincher), but also as a lead and a counter. The former use of clinching is okay. The latter uses are excessive, and mar the entire pattern of the fight.

Abril didn't clinch the way Ruiz did.

 

Clinching is illegal so a fighter should never clinch. The referee should warn the fighter every time he's intentionally clinching. The only time clinching is tolerable is when a fighter was hurt and he tries to survive for a few seconds to regain his senses. Anyway even in this situation the referee must intervene and separate the fighters. If you want to clinch go fight Muay Thai.
The sad part is that some stupid referees mistake clinching for inside fighting and they allow it. Clinching always makes for boring fights.

 

I don't mind a rough and dirty clinch-fest as long as the ref lets them fight there way out of a clinch. I hate it when one fighter lunges in to hold... "Break!" ... Reset... "Break!"... Reset... "Break!" And repeat. The ref immediately calling for a break ten, fifteen times per round as soon as the two fighters get close is stalling the action too. Let them work.

 

Clinching is okay as long as it's limited to one fighter doing it to break the opponent's forward moving, infighting momentum. When this happens, the ref should give the fighters a chance to fight there way out of it. If, after a moment, such doesn't happen, he should order a break. If the clinching fighter disobeys, it's time for a penalty.

The point behind the clinching, obviously, is so the clinching fighter can quickly shift the action back to a distance where he feels comfortable. Immediately thereafter he is expected to box and punch, and not stall.

Clinching is wrong if it's used as a tactic to replace lead punches, or if it's used only as a counter to an opponent's punching. An example of the former is hitting then holding, to prevent a counterpunch. An example of the latter is clinching in response to being hit (at medium and distance range), instead of parrying, dancing away, or punching back. These forms of clinching should be penalized.

Abril clinched properly. He used the tactic effectively as part of his overall, successful strategy to outclass Rios.

 

so now its the other fighters responsibility to discourage his opponent from using ilegal tactics? then rios should have kept punching abril in the balls until he learned to turn sideways to protect them. clinching and holding is against the rules, period. leaving it up to the ref to decide what is excessive and what is not, only invites incidents of favoritism towards certain fighters. abril could probably beat rios even fighting within the rules, doesnt change the fact that he chose not to.

 

I agree 100%, clinching as a strategy should never be tolerated, this is boxing not MMA.

 

I don't see an important distinction between the three kinds of clinching you mention. All three are effective tactics. All three involve holding the other fighter. All three are often tolerated. There is nothing about what Abril was doing that is inherently more "proper" than the other tactics you mention.

you provide no justification for why clinching type 1 is OK and type 2 and 3 are "bad". You simply assert it.

 

I think the question here is the degree to which the clinch interferes with the flow of the action. By "action" I mean exchanges of clean punches.

Clinching type 1 is intended to facilitate the action on the clincher's terms (stymie infighter's attack, pivot the action back to the open ring, where the "clincher" wins with superior long range boxing). It is not intended to mar the entire fight. Abril and the '70s version Muhammad Ali are examples of guys who do this.

Clinching types 2 and 3 are not intended to facilitate action: quite the contrary, these clinches are intended to kill the exchanges, and to smother the action over the entire course of the bout. It's a sneaky way of slowing the fight down so the clincher can pull ahead, in terms of total punches landed. Ruiz was an example of type 1; his "hit and hold" attack was his entire game plan. The current version of Bernard Hopkins is an example of type 2: he keeps grabbing -- regardless of circumstances -- as a permanent, fixed way of defending himself.

Again, the point is that types 2 and 3 kill the flow of the action on a consistent basis over the course of the fight. Type 1 doesn't necessarily do that.

Another thing to keep in mind is the clincher's intention. Guys who do type 1 do it only to stalemate an attacking infighter while at close quarters. Fighters who do types 2 and 3 intend to initiate clinches regardless of whether the action is unfolding inside, outside, or at medium range.

Henry Akinwande's effort against Lennox Lewis is another example of types 2 and 3 (more the latter).