by Glen Anglin: I believe that the rules prohibition against holding in a boxing match should be enforced to its fullest extent. This would surely help the game of boxing. The holding part of boxing is an unnecessary gray area that varies fight to fight, fighter to fighter and referee to referee. There really is no good reason that holding in boxing is tolerated. If this requires that weasel-worded holding rules be re-written, then so be it.
The Marquess of Queensbury rules established in 1867 prohibit ‘wrestling or hugging’. Since then different rules changes at different times by different rules organizations have discouraged holding to one extent or another.
Why should a fighter be allowed to use a non-boxing tactic like clinching when it suits him? Holding after being hurt is one thing but usually a fighter clinches as a matter of strategy; like when a taller fighter clinches when he is being crowded by a shorter fighter. It is only a good tactic to use because it is allowed by the referee. If the prohibition against holding was applied evenly and fairly, it would not be a good tactic because the referee would penalize the holder. We would no longer be forced to watch fights that devolve into hug-a-thons.
I doubt if there is any judgment call in any sport that is more inconsistently applied than the prohibition of holding in boxing. Maybe the strike zone in baseball. (Any umpire who talks about ‘my strike zone’ should be fired immediately. The strike zone is defined by the rules of baseball, not by individual umpires.) I have lost count of the number of fights that in my opinion would have turned out different had the referee consistently and firmly disallowed holding and clinching. Ali-Frazier III comes to mind.
Making matters even worse, the way in which referees enforce the rule against holding is so varied and inconsistent that it can drive a fan crazy. Some refs meekly break clinched fighters, which gives the fighters tacit approval to continue to hold. Some referees shout ‘Don’t hold, Don’t hold’, but then never follow it up with action. Some referees (like Carlos Padilla) grab a holding fighters hand and push it away in the middle of the action. I have seen popular fighters allowed all the holding they want in a fight, when a less famous or popular fighter would be warned and punished by the very same referee. All referees should be given clear instructions about what to do regarding holding no matter how famous the holder is. No fighter, no matter who he is, has ‘earned the right’ for extra holding privileges.
Of course, when BOTH fighters are holding, then the referee can only resort to breaking a mutual clinch. But when only one fighter is holding and the other is trying to throw punches, it is the referee’s duty to put an end to it by punishing the holder. If a fighter is too tired or incapable of defending himself on the inside by legal defensive techniques, then he SHOULD get hit. He can stand in close and smother the punches or block or slip or use his legs to move away, but he can’t hold.
I know that many top fighters have used holding often; Ali, Pep, Robinson, Whitaker, Walcott, Leonard, Lewis, the Klitschkos and many more. And I also know that this does not necessarily diminish their accomplishments. But many other great fighters rarely held their opponents: Louis, Marciano, Sanchez, Frazier, Chavez, Hagler, etc. Pacquiao and J M Marquez almost NEVER hold, which is why their fights are so popular and action packed. I also know that many boxing traditionalists see holding as a perfectly legitimate tactic, an essential part of the ‘Sweet Science’. They call it ‘tying his man up’. I say that is nonsense. It’s against the rules. Put an end to it and we will have better competition and more action. This in turn will attract more fans to our great sport. I have lost track of the number of casual fans who have asked me: ‘Why is he holding? Why doesn’t the referee stop him?’
Could an absolute prohibition to holding ‘work’? Why not? One thing that I like about amateur boxing is there is NEVER any holding allowed. You get DQ’d in a hurry when you hold in an amateur bout, so nobody does it. It would require some adjustments in training, but it could certainly work. And boxing would be all the better for it.
Unfortunately, holding is as old as boxing. It harkens back to when boxing was a combination of punching and wrestling; when all kinds of holding and grappling, even body throws and bear hugs, were allowed. But, those days are long gone. Modern boxing is meant to be a fistfight with rules, not an arm wrestling contest. The rules of boxing should prohibit holding in no uncertain terms. It is high time that we do what is good for the sport and establish and enforce ironclad rules against holding. JGA
Comments are closed.