Number 2 of the Queensberry Rules says... 'No wrestling or hugging allowed'. Yet I see more holding in some boxing matches then punches trown, and most referees only punish a 'fighter' for it with a warning or a point deduction if one of the guys makes a dacing match out of it. I've seen fights where one guy was hanging on for dear life muliple times during the match needing the other boxer to keep standing on his feet, making it impossible for the other guy to hit him in the process... or even worse, when the other could hit him he would get a warning or a point taken away for hitting while holding! :huh A lot of bouts I've seen would problably have gone the other way if the ref had acted against the spoiling tactics of one of the man involved. I know a lot of guys believe it is a part of boxing, and I even read a comment on a fight like 'if you where in that guys position, you would hold too!'. And of course there's a truth in that, but it shows how a 'foul' is beïng accepted while it's easy to rule it out! And of course it means the guy was losing so doing something wrong. If referees around the world started to act against it, boxing would be a lot more interesting because spoilers would be left out in the cold. Please tell me your opinion.
There is a difference between holding and fighting from the grasp. The former is illegal while the latter is a genuine veteran tactic and part of ring generalship.
Fighting "from the grasp"? Someone like, say, James Toney doesn't hold, clinch, or "grasp" much, if at all. Now there's an old school technician...
I think you're spot on. This is something that has bothered me for a while and needs to be changed. Deliberate holding is the most obvious loop-hole in the way boxing is refed. Holding clearly negatively impacts on the quality of the fight, yet it is only stopped by a ref when is gets to ridiculous levels. Fighters clearly grab hold of their opponant to either smother them or buy themselves time when they're hurt. Everyone can see this yet it's permitted . It's such an accepted part of the sport that fighters are considered stupid for not holding at the right times, yet it contravenes the rules. Getting tangled up in an exchange is one thing but If fighters were warned and subsequently deducted points everytime they held they simply wouldn't do it and the sport would be the better for it.
Your right. But, I think the sport has evolved over the years, and a certain amount of holding could be tolerated, but not nearly as much as is now. There are some fighters who've practically built a career out of holding......we all know who they are. I don't know how it would be addressed as the boxing establishments are not known for their cohesiveness.
If the Marquis of Queensbury rules were properly enforced, someone like John Ruiz would have been disqualified in just about every fight he had at the top levels of the game. Other fighters, like Wlad or Hatton, use it more judiciously as a supplement to actual fighting. But what Ruiz does is cheating, pure and simple - and it prevents real boxing matches from breaking out.
Hate it when a fighter is allowed to use holding as part of a gameplan or a tactic throughout a fight. Fights like Jermain Taylor vs Lacy, Malignaggi vs Hatton, Hopkins vs Calzaghe, Ward vs Kessler were disgraceful. It seems only slick fighters are afforded this benefit.
Holding and clinching are different things. And the Marquis of Queensbury rules aren't exactly the current ruleset that refs go by. The NSAC foul regarding holding states that the following is a foul: Holding or deliberately maintaining a clinch. Meaning that you are free to initiate a clinch, but you cannot maintain it for any real length. You must either punch out or break at the refs signal. And for those of you who think that this is some new development, feel free to watch Tunney v Dempsey, and watch what Tunney does when Dempsey gets inside his range. [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0tMBpsRgTU[/ame] Clinching is now, and has always been a part of boxing. There is obviously a point at which it becomes excessive, but it's purpose isn't just to buy time or rest, it's also there to help control distance and pace, as well as positioning. If you don't do it you are severely limiting your ability to win. One big difference between Cotto and Mosely when they faught Margarito was Mosely's willingness to clinch after an exchange. Besides, it generally leaves you fairly open while you close distance and try to wrap the other guy's arms. Every time I see a guy leaping into a clinch I don't wonder why the ref allows it, I wonder why the other guy is too tentative to make him pay for lunging in, undefended.
Not only that but we often times murder referees for getting too involved in fights. Clinching when somebody is hurt has more or less become a staple of boxing. Imagine if a fighter is hurt, holds on for an extended period of time (5-10 seconds?) and the referee jumps the gun and DQs him. It's just way too technical and I lack the faith in the officials to manage it properly.
Indeed, less ref involvement in fights is generally better. Everyone **** a brick over Cortez in the Hatton/Mayweather fight for exactly that reason.
