I rewatched Hatton vs Urango last night......

This is a Brit forum, and this is a thread about Ricky Hatton, and specifically his holding. Which some people STILL think is not against the rules. I have simply proven them incorrect.

Why am I going to talk about Mayweather and Holyfield?

Hatton is a consistent cheat.

 

Here we go

 

I just thought it was a terrible fight.

No DQ though:nono

 

What have you proven? Your first link to rules were over 100 years old and were in place because Prize Fighting used to include wrestling/ holding/ throwing as legal moves. You're just willfully misinterpreting the wording, and how they are applied, either out of ignorance or just hating on Hatton.

Hatton obviously isn't a consistant cheat or he'd have been docked points for holding at some time during in his 47 fight career. I know you're on a one man mission to make boxing a non-contact sport but you've got a way to go yet.

 

Have you managed to ignore the second set of rules I have gleefully copy and pasted from Google, Source: Boxrec?

You know...the ones where they are almost exactly the same.

 

Still the same 2 points are valid. You are misinterpreting what is considered holding and wrestling AND just as importantly how the professionals ie. referees, boxing commissions, sanctioning bodies etc interpret those rules.

But obviously you know best.....

 

I'm not misinterpreting anything. You should take a viewing of the footage available in this thread.

 

I've seen the entire fight, have you changed your mind? Do you think there should have been a DQ now?

 

I'm not so much concerned about whether he should have been DQ'd in this one fight as to how he has not had point deductions throughout his career. And as you say, why the hell the referees do not interpret holding somebodies arms as holding.

If I did say yes...I wouldn't be the only one so its not quite just the "haters" that think this is cheating.

 

Because the refs know that during the course of a hard 12 round fight if they start deducting points for clinching then pretty soon the judges will be rountinely carding 7-7 rounds.

Its part of the game, always has been and always will be.

 

Nah, not if they were looking for consistent clinching.

Or in this case, holding.

 

Forget "holding", thats not whats mean by the word in those rules.

 

In the "modern" set of rules?

So holding does not mean holding? That's pretty far-fetched man..I gotta give you credit

 

No, that holding doesn't mean clinching.atsch

But I'm sure your interpretation (that NONE of professionals or experts seem to agree with) is the correct one...:good

 

FFS don't you start putting ideas in the ******s head. For the record clinching is legal, holding isn't...Hatton obviously clinches, but doesn't hold :deal