Holding

Why wouldn’t boxers stop clinching and rely on other methods to protect themselves? People adapt and change their behavior when rules change.

I think the powers that be could probably prohibit intentional clinching without it resulting the parade of horribles you describe. I don’t see any reason why fighters would have to turn into rock em sock em robots or why other types of non-punching physical contact would be penalized.

 

OK, tell me exactly how that works.

We get three or four major PPV-level fights that end in DQs while officials are trying to convince professionals who have fought the way they fight their entire careers and suddenly they’re going to stop doing everything they know, everything that is instinct to them? No, they’re going to get warned and DQ’d.

And then the public goes away, people say ‘no way I’m ever paying to see a fight again; hell, no way I’m ever watching a fight again’ — because you cannot get from Point A to Point Z without saying, ‘we’ll just make the officials start taking points and DQ-ing people to show we’re serious’

By that point you’ve ruined the sport.

Jack Johnson was a dominant fighter in part because of holding. Look how long it took to get from his form of prizefighting to something akin to what we have today ... and how long do you think it would take to change it to what you want? If you think that happens in a matter of months or even a few years, I would say history shows you’re wrong. You’d have to start enforcing it now and when a crop of fighters comes up that have never fought under the rules as we know them now then they would be indoctrinated into the new way.

Now, tell me how you’d accomplish it.

Holding isn’t a foul. It shouldn’t be a foul. EXCESSIVE holding is a foul and is enforced ... maybe every ref doesn’t definite it or enforce it the way you want, but it’s a rule.

How many great fights of the past would be stopped under your rules? How many comeback wins would be out the window because a guy got knocked down and held to survive the round and cleared his head and then put on a brilliant performance.

Under your way, he’d either have lost so many points doing that or been DQ’d that merely hurting someone would be an almost guaranteed win (or else he could run I guess, but if his legs aren’t under him then you’re basically rendering him defenseless by saying he cannot clinch. Worse yet, he’d refrain from holding and maybe get brain damage or killed so you can have a rule to your liking because he couldn’t defend himself.

 

When I was a kid I used to hate watching boxing when there was holding. "Why do they hug all the time!?!?" But as a late teenager I started going to the local gym. One day I was sparring with a guy who was a better prospect than me, and our trainer was teaching him how to hold, to tie up his opponent, when necessary. It was damn effective. I couldn't do anything. I totally got why fighters hold when necessary.

That said, excessive holding is awful. But doing it as a defensive measure when a fighter needs a moment to clear his head... it's part of the science of boxing.

I'm not at all saying he would've won, but if Gerry Cooney knew how to hold he would've lasted longer against Michael Spinks.

 

I suspect the proponents of this are talking from their couches and have no idea what it’s like in a ring. I’d love someone who wants it this way to post some video of them sparring without ever holding or clinching to show us how it’s done, haha.

Can you imagine if we get AJ vs. Tyson Fury next year — I’d say that’s the biggest fight that can be made, probably — and it ends in DQ in the third round for holding? You’d have a riot in the stands and people demanding their money back.

I’d rather us argue over scoring than lengthy video dissections of how the referee who docked Fighter A four points and Fighter B only two had stolen the fight from Fighter A by penalizing him when he could EASILY have taken six points from Fighter B.

I can only think of a few major fights that have been completely unwatchable due to holding — Tyson-Bonecrusher, Wlad-Povetkin (which I explained earlier is way more on Povetkin), Weaver-Coetzee ... but isn’t it better to have people boo a bad fight than to send them home with an unsatisfactory DQ ending? Because a fight can start out with clinching and still end up having a satisfying ending, or even be a really, really good fight — if you start taking points and DQ’ing people, you give no chance for that to happen.

 

John Ruiz's whole career was based off excessive clinching.

 

Casuals and members of the public already complain about holding/clinching all the time. I'd bet that it keeps the sport from being as popular as it might be. It slows down the pace of many fights, limits the action, and is all around far less aesthetically pleasing and entertaining. I have no problem whatsoever with missing out on the rare great comeback because the ref disqualified a fighter for clamping down on his opponent's arms and hugging him for dear life. If a guy is too hurt to defend himself without clinching, then stop the fight. Fighters would probably ultimately end up taking a lot less punishment this way. We remember all the improbable comebacks because they're thrilling and rare, but more often it's just one guy holding on so that he can endure a more prolonged beating and take many more blows to his head.

And how many exciting knockouts do the fans miss out on because one fighter managed to clinch his way out of peril? Fans don't want to see that! I understand the skill and strategy involved in clinching, but as is there are significant drawbacks and I don't think there's anything glorious about the status quo.

I agree that there would be a learning curve, and there's a delicate balance to be drawn for the fighters who just clinch instinctively from years of practice. But I think in the long run people would eventually just learn how to fight with far less intentional defensive holding and clinching. But the best approach might just be for the powers that be to ramp up enforcement of the existing rules until trainers and fighters recognized that repeatedly and intentionally clinching and holding was very risky. The distinction between holding and excessive holding is in the eye of the beholder, and I think boxing would be better off with far, far less holding.

 

I don’t think people who complain about holding would say, “All right, now that they’ve changed the rules, I’m all in on this sport where we’re going to have DQ’s every other fight.”

It’s a case of be careful what you wish for — the change you describe could literally and quite probably result in an entire PPV card where every fight ends in DQ or is decided by points taken away for relatively minor offenses ... because if we’re going to get rid of holding, by gawd, we can’t say ‘but it’s OK if you don’t do it so much.’

If this is what you want, how much amateur boxing do you watch? Because they absolutely officiate it the way you advocate and it doesn’t seem to have become a big draw. If you don’t watch amateur boxing and you say you want boxing to be like you describe, why not?

EDIT: You say holding is turning people away but some of Tyson’s fights were filled with holding (Bonecrusher for one) and it didn’t turn anyone away. And how many times did he wrench someone’s elbow and try to break their arm in a clinch ... you think people would have wanted to see Tyson DQ’d for that?

 

Again, I disagree with your assumption that a crackdown on clinching would leave us with people getting DQ'ed every other fight, so you and I are not going to see eye to eye on this. You write as if fighters wouldn't change their behavior at all in response to a new rule or ramped up enforcement, and I think they would make the necessary adjustments.

There are a number of big differences between amateur and professional boxing that are more salient than the differences in how clinching rules are enforced.

 

Could lead to a lot more serious injuries as well. If fighters didn’t have time to clinch and take a breather they’d be more fatigued and could also have the opposite effect on what you desire. Fights would just downright turn sloppy.

 

You blaming Povetkin for Wlads clinching shows what you understand about boxing , not a lot.. Your post history is riddled with hate for Povetkin which would explain why you are pathetically blaming him for Wlads shameful and disgraceful cheating. . . This entire post is complete garbage

Explain what you see here

https://cdn3.vox-cdn.com/imported_assets/2167547/blanket.gif

There are two clinches in that gif.. One shows Povetkin dipping under a left hook before being grabbed. The second shows Klitschko lunge in from mid range to initiate a bear hug.. . Yes , Klitschko repeatedly clinched from mid rage , before Povetkin even got inside his wheelhouse.

Both times Povetkin has a high guard. Both times it is Wlad that is using his upper body to tuk Povetkins head under his armpit. This happened all throughout the fight. It was the same pattern over and over.

This content is protected

 

This is a fair comment. It's not ideal but holding happens all the time and if you start deducting points for it, you're going to get a lot of fights ending in DQs and nobody wants that.

Every sport has little infringements that canny practitioners will work around. It's part of the fun for me. I enjoyed watching Tyson get round Big Frank's excessive holding; it was a real demonstration of his skill. Similarly, I liked watching Hearns hang on to James Kinchen - like he was his woman - sailing perilously close to being DQed before coming back to win a nailbiting barnburner which, had he been disqualified, we'd never have seen.

So, in short, while I would never watch a highlight reel of holding, these moments amplify the good action in a fight. Without the downtime of holding, every fight would look like youtube highlights. Bizarrely, I would quickly get sick of the 'perfect' fight.

It's like women. I don't want my woman to be Margot Robbie perfect. I like the imperfections although Mrs Ezzard, with her lockdown hair, beard and Corona kilos, may be pushing this charitable nature of mine a bit far at the moment.