Holding is a double edged sword, it can make your generalship of the fight or it can destroy your presence completely.
I haven't suggested anywhere that judges will "make up their own rules". The rules with which they are supplied have no provision for scoring holding.
Yes, holding can be part of ring generalship, particularly if you wearing the other guy out with a size advantage, smothering an in-fighter when your in-fighting skills are not as good, or recovering from a punch. Similarly, the ability to push off and re-set from holding is also ring generalship. With holding, the rules should be enforced if a fighter does it too often. Holding can detract form " effective aggressiveness ", which is a scoring criteria in boxing.
Of course you don't "get points" for holding. But holding stops the other guy from "getting points". If Miguel Cotto knew how and when to hold, he would not have been bludgeoned to defeat by Antonio Margarito. Guys like Hopkins have turned strategic holding into an art form. I would say it is an essential skill for any 21st century boxer.
this is boxing so whatever you can get away with to give yourself an edge maybe considered ring savy the ali frazier II match is a good example of a fighter pushing the rules by holding and pushing a fighters head down making it imposible for frazier to work inside and attack ali's body and it also helped ali that perez deducted no points after over a hundred warnings .so whatever you can get away with i feel is ring generalship if it is part of your game plan it is not the boxers fault if the ref is weak
No. Holding goes against a fighter in the scoring. In fact, excessive holding can get you disqualified. If holding were part of rinbg generalship then excessive holding would be rewarded. Fighters who hold are fighters who are trying not to fight. For example, Leonard holding Duran's arms under his arms was a clear signal that Leonard did not want to get hit by Duran's punches which he was unable to block because of Duran's handspeed and craftiness. At the same time Duran was winning points for effective aggression, Leonard was losing points for excessive holding. Occasional holding is okay when you are hurt and need to clear your head. But as a tactic to stop action, it is a big no-no.
As I suspected this facet of scoring is not concrete. It appears that the NYC commission at least had the gumption to take a stand and describe what ring generalship is and isnt. The marquis of Queensbury rules are at odds with the NYC commission definition of ring generalship. The unified rules make no mention on this scoring whatsoever. It seems to me that ring generalship should be removed from scoring criteria as the definition implies some doubt and too much subjectivity. i find it interesting that boxing has "evolved" if that is even an accurate statement from fights like I linked on here where Langford and Flynn essentially punch off the grasp the entire fight. I wonder where the split in grasping from being part of boxing to now something that can get you disqualified occurred.
YES! Holding is a skill that sometimes needs to be applied whether its legal or not in a fight........... It is ring generalship, or at least a tactic that is often necessary....... A seasoned pro will do what he must do in order to win or survive....... :deal MR.BILL
That's a bit of a rash generalization for your welcome post here. Classic Boxing doesn't refer only to the pre Queensbury/modern ruleset period. Not to mention there's still a whole lot of clinching today, just with a lot less meaning.
I think that YES. By clinching you can tire faster fighter, wear him down and the execute. Some guys don't like to fight inside, so when you are working him in clinches you are making him fight your fight.
It was a matter of Duran not wanting to fight but not being able to. You do know he spent the night in the hospital after the fight, right? To be sure, he screwed up in his approach to dieting and then gorging himself before the fight, but to argue that he did this because he didn't want to fight is absurd. As soon at Leonard realized that Duran couldn't fight, he started taunting him. In fact, the whole idea was to get Duran in the ring when Duran wasn't ready because Leonard knew he couldn't be a fit Duran. Leonard admits this himself. My advice for you to go with the facts rather than rationalizations that you think makes your guy look better. Prime for prime, Duran always whips Leonard. He was just better all around. Peace.
Yeah, he checked in late at night in the hospital, after long partying, for PR reasons by his management. And yeah, poor Leonard for taking the rematch that Duran allowed - and how dare he set a date for this fight?? He knew Duran wasn't 100% because the date of the fight was known only three months in advance; he should've invented a time machine to beat a "prime" Duran, who is invincible for obvious reasons. Being out of shape is the WORST excuse to lose. And no excuse to quit. p.s. what happened to your "redrooster" account, did it got banned or did you want to make it look like there are more people with a Leonard-OCD?
In the rematch Hearns manages to survive by holding, and Hagler comments on this as a development by Hearns. I found that interesting. Even a guy like Hagler, who hardly used this tactic himself, obviously saw it as a tool a experienced fighter should have when needed.
This is a terrible example of holding for ring generalship. Tony Perez turned a blind eye to Ali illegal tactics which involved putting his lead hand behind Frazier's neck and pushing down on it. Carlos Padilla wouldn't let him do that in Manilla, repeatedly slapping away Ali's glove from Frazier's neck. Carlos Monzon was the best at holding for ring generalship. Monzon used to tie up the opponents arm in close while trading shots with his other hand. This is not an illegal technique if both fighters are doing it and the ref controls it. If one fighter is excessively holding with both hands while using wrestling or shoving techniques like Foreman used to do, it's illegal.