Is Wladimir Klitschko a favorite over prime George Foreman and Sonny Liston H2H

You said:

" There is no such thing a elite clinching in boxing."

If that is true, then it follows that...

...every single referee who officiated at a Ruiz fight was incompetent and most of those who reffed a BHop fight or a Ward fight were also incompetent"

This is a fairly straightforward deduction.
Ruiz never boxed a full minute where he didn't clinch.
BHop and Ward rarely boxed a single round where they didn't clinch.

None of these three were ever DQ'd or even had many points deducted, for clinching.

This points to either....incompetent reffing, or....it points to clinching being a part of the game, despite it being against the rules..

Nor have I, before today.

But I get what the dude was saying.

 

But if you asked me how I factor "elite footwork" into my scoring of fights, I could say that it is seen in the form of effective aggression when cutting off the ring and applying pressure, as just one example. Fighters can be seen using "elite footwork" to wrongfoot opponents and set up angles to land clean, hard punches. It can be seen to manage distance as part of a boxer's defense, and it can be used to navigate the ring space economically as part of ring generalship.


Now, attempt the same exercise using "elite clinching" as your centerpiece.

 

Wlad had far superior hand speed and foot speed than both and hits just as hard as Foreman. He would keep both at range amd neither would like to taste his power.

 

This is just saying its not but its used to set up things that are. How is clinching different again?

 

You're effectively equating my not recognizing clinching as elite (as a general principle) with referee incompetence involving specific fighters. How much further did you want to make the leap to miss the point?

I guess that doesn't matter to you as long as you can shift the discussion to your point - which, in case you haven't gathered yet, has nothing to do with mine.

 

If you can't see the relationship between your point and mine, I can't help you.

 

I don't need your help.

This isn't a question of whether some abstract relationship exists between our points --- it's about your false equivalence.

You can list as many fighters as you like who you believe practiced "elite clinching," and imply as many referees as you want were incompetent for not penalizing them. It doesn't challenge the statement I made.


There is no such thing as elite clinching in boxing.


That's not a complicated point. It's direct, and it remains untouched by name-dropping or deflection. If you can't grasp that, then I'm afraid it is I who cannot help you.

 

You did ask for my help in understanding the term "elite clinching."

It appears you might have a faulty understanding of the term "false equivalence."

Could you point out the instance of false equivalence you're referring to ?

Actually, it does challenge your now doubled-down statement: "There is no such thing as elite clinching."

And it's not my phraseology.
I showed you exactly where it came from and the dude who coined the term gave instances of what he felt met the definitions.

A poster could talk of elite footwork or elite feinting.
The originator of this term explained what he meant by the attribute "elite clinching" and he provided examples.

That's why I'm at loss as to why you're confused here

"Name-dropping" is another term you should probably educate yourself on.

At any rate, given our respective stances here, I think we have taken this as far as is useful.

 

The sarcasm is now conveniently lost on you it seems --- as was your ability to help at the time when I asked you to expand on your definition of the term, as follows...

For clarity:

There is no valid logical path from... "There is no such thing as elite clinching in boxing"

to...

"If what you say is true, then every single referee who officiated at a Ruiz fight was incompetent and most of those who reffed a BHop fight or a Ward fight were also incompetent."

Just because you're talking about clinching, too, doesn't mean you're addressing my point. I said clinching isn't elite --- not that refs are incompetent for allowing it. Related subject, different argument. No equivalence.

Capisce?

At this point, I'll be honest --- I'm not entirely sure what you're attempting to convey here.

But, on the assumption that you're trying to challenge my statement that "there's no such thing as elite clinching in boxing" by pointing out that someone coined the term and applied it to a few fighters... that doesn't actually refute anything I've said.

Recognizing that a phrase exists isn't the same as accepting it as legitimate, valid, or meaningful within the sport. My statement was about the concept, not the dictionary definition of the term.

If you're making a different point entirely, feel free to clarify --- but as it stands, your response doesn't engage with mine in any coherent way.

Yes, a poster could talk about "elite clinching" in the same way they talk about elite footwork or feinting --- but that doesn't mean the comparison holds.

Footwork and feinting directly contribute to the four scoring criteria: they help create openings, control range, land clean shots, and avoid damage --- all of which are recognized as part of scoring.

Clinching, on the other hand, is a regulatory concession, not a skill that earns points. It's tolerated within limits, but penalized when excessive. So, no --- someone coining the term and listing examples doesn't legitimize it as an "attribute" on par with actual scoring skills. It just shows how far someone is willing to stretch definitions.

The more relevant education here was in logic, not terminology --- but I'll leave it there and waive the invoice for services rendered.

 

Elite footwork is absolutely a factor in scoring. If a boxer is able to gracefully dodge another guys punches, place themselves in good positions for their own shots, and keep themselves from getting stuck on the ropes, the judge will look at that favorably.