The insane clinch rule in boxing revisted

[Dr Fong]

TLDR version: The clinch rule sucks.

Long version: So this is a familiar topic and I would generally appreciate an educated response if I am wrong. But I can't remember seeing anyone articulate just how poorly the foul is defined (at least as enshrined in Nevada for example using the ABC's definition). It is based entirely on synonyms and is bizarrely tautological. The foul is:

Holding or maintaining a clinch

This could be rewritten as

Holding or holding a hold

It is actually unclear if this definition is trying to draw a distinction between a 'hold' and a 'clinch', even though clinching is holding, with 'maintenance' being the distinction. This nonsensical, completely made up difference between a hold and clinch is what many have come to rely on.

Or it could also be interpreted as using 'holding' as a synonym for maintaining and thus the rule could have just been simplified to 'maintaining a clinch'.

Note that this tortured definition suggests the act of initiating a clinch is not a foul, and this is where the problem comes in. Some interpretations seem to use 'excessive clinching', but under the ABC definition, theoretically one could initiate a thousand clinches as long as they did not 'maintain' them as per a strict interpretation of the rule.

Nonetheless, the rule is still clear that guys that clinch and maintain it until the refs are forced to break them up has committed a foul. Not the 20th time they've done it. The first time.

Also to clarify for thos who think 'the clinch is part of boxing, I like refs who let guys work (punch) in the clinch'. Of course another clear rule is that you cannot hold with one hand and hit with the other. This is a foul. The two rules combined are clear - a clinch cannot be maintained nor used for offense. Any ref who allows a boxer to punch while clinching is allowing fouls. It is categorically not part of boxing according to the actual rules.

Any sensible reading of the intent of the poorly written rule was that it wanted to give some leeway for refs not to punish fighters for mutually tangling up into clinches but where there was no intent to hold and stall.

However, they completely fucked it up (maybe deliberately) and now nobody in boxing seems to know what the actual rule is, so guys who commit blatant fouls can get away with it.

 

[borntoloseNOT]

Tautowhat?

 

[Boxiana]

Start with the dictionary definition of clinch - it’s not the same as hold:

“grapple at close quarters, especially (of boxers) so as to be too closely engaged for full-arm blows.”

Then think of two guys up close, infighting with the interlocking of arms but then “working it out” to land body or other shots.

Then imagine Haney wading in and grabbing Garcia round the waist with both arms and not letting go.

That’s the difference

 

[PBAC]

clinch has a bad name due to oversized HWs leaning using weight advantage to to smother opponents. Also sneakily used to breach rules due to both the refs lack of clinch knowledge and the fact micro transgressions are hard to spot. A ref who lacks both these understandings will not encourage clinching. Muhammad Ali famously used to lower his opponents neck to obstruct breathing. Even if called on it can be passed off as just holding in an awkward manner.

 

[Seano]

A clinch only becomes illegal when there is no legal blow that can be thrown by the fighters or if one clinches and the other accepts and clinches back to get a break. Clinching becomes holding in certain circumstances.

 

[PBAC]

A clinch only becomes illegal when there is no legal blow that can be thrown by the fighters or if one clinches and the other accepts and clinches back to get a break. Clinching becomes holding in certain circumstances.

there are other illegalities such as headlocks or moves that initiate too much wrestling.

But yeah if you mean working within the clinch game ergo there is a separation from the clinch to wrestling behaviour then that is true

 

[Seano]

there are other illegalities such as headlocks or moves that initiate too much wrestling.

But yeah if you mean working within the clinch game ergo there is a separation from the clinch to wrestling behaviour then that is true

Smart boxers know how to exploit that too.

 

[Human Bass]

I was thinking that boxers should be allowed to push with the arms and hips to break away from the clinch, some kind of basic throw. I know it will never become allowed lol.

But neither massive clinching is allowed and it happens way too much.

 

[Kwic]

I don't follow boxing but that last Garcia fight was atrocious when Devin was put on his feel and held Garcia for dear life and the ref didn't do anything about it, trying to separate them for 2 minutes. I wasn't surprised Garcia was frustrated and landed a shot on the break.
On the other hand, he was allowing the clinch too easily in those situations. He was lots of frustrating in that fight too even though I was rooting for him. It was a bad good fight.

 

[Seano]

I don't follow boxing but that last Garcia fight was atrocious when Devin was put on his feel and held Garcia for dear life and the ref didn't do anything about it, trying to separate them for 2 minutes. I wasn't surprised Garcia was frustrated and landed a shot on the break.
On the other hand, he was allowing the clinch too easily in those situations. He was lots of frustrating in that fight too even though I was rooting for him. It was a bad good fight.

Garcia did the same thing, several times.

 

[Kwic]

Garcia did the same thing, several times.

He definitely was clinching too and that was one of the frustrating parts I wrote about but it wasn't clinching for dear life like Devin when knocked out on his feet. It was his survival instinct and I'm not blaming him but separation should have been much quicker or if you can't stand on your feet on your own them it's over for you and that's it. He was bear hugging him and wouldn't let go. That was absurd. I would have clocked him too on that break since he already manage to recover using bear hugging.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Clinching is part of boxing and that doesnt strictly mean offense, defensive clinching is totally fine and I have no problem with it. Just appreciate what human combat looks like.

 

[toogreen]

clinching is not boxing, its stalling

should be warned then point taken

 

[Dr Fong]

Start with the dictionary definition of clinch - it’s not the same as hold:

“grapple at close quarters, especially (of boxers) so as to be too closely engaged for full-arm blows.”

Then think of two guys up close, infighting with the interlocking of arms but then “working it out” to land body or other shots.

Then imagine Haney wading in and grabbing Garcia round the waist with both arms and not letting go.

That’s the difference

A clinch only becomes illegal when there is no legal blow that can be thrown by the fighters or if one clinches and the other accepts and clinches back to get a break. Clinching becomes holding in certain circumstances.

I understand that there are sensible reasons why we distinguish between these things. But how the rule is written matters.

Clinching is geneally understood as involving some form of holding. Even in the alternate definition most closely related to a broader definition of in fighting, the word 'grapple' is used - again, generally understood to involved holding.

If 'clinch' does not refer to a hold, why is it in the same sentence as holding? And why is the maintenance of it a foul then if it is fundamentally different from holding? How can maintaining a non-hold be the same category of foul as a hold? And if 'holding' is a foul, how can even a fleeting hold in a 'clinch' not be a foul - it's still a hold, is it not?

You see the problem?

It's pretty clear that the rules tried to make an allowance for the distinctions you mention, but the rules are unclear whether there is a fundamental distinction between a clinch and a hold, or whether the duration of 'maintaining' a clinch is what makes it a hold.

You can't hold. You can't 'maintain a clinch'. You can't hold and punch . You can't push. All of these things combined, if enforced to the letter of the law, means a lot of what is accepted as 'fighting in the clinch' really are fouls.

What we get is an awareness by refs that they can't penalize every hold/clinch because a fight isn't a rulebook, and inevitably variations of these positions will occur in close quarters without anyone intentionally stalling the fight. But it also justifies inaction against guys who do deliberately hold and stall.

The rule needs to rewritten for greater clarity. It wouldn't stop dodgy refs ignoring fouls, but it would do a lot to stop apologists from white knighting for guys who blatantly foul, which would make it a bit more difficult to get away with it.

 

[Boxiana]

I understand that there are sensible reasons why we distinguish between these things. But how the rule is written matters.

Clinching is geneally understood as involving some form of holding. Even in the alternate definition most closely related to a broader definition of in fighting, the word 'grapple' is used - again, generally understood to involved holding.

If 'clinch' does not refer to a hold, why is it in the same sentence as holding? And why is the maintenance of it a foul then if it is fundamentally different from holding? How can maintaining a non-hold be the same category of foul as a hold? And if 'holding' is a foul, how can even a fleeting hold in a 'clinch' not be a foul - it's still a hold, is it not?

You see the problem?

It's pretty clear that the rules tried to make an allowance for the distinctions you mention, but the rules are unclear whether there is a fundamental distinction between a clinch and a hold, or whether the duration of 'maintaining' a clinch is what makes it a hold.

You can't hold. You can't 'maintain a clinch'. You can't hold and punch . You can't push. All of these things combined, if enforced to the letter of the law, means a lot of what is accepted as 'fighting in the clinch' really are fouls.

What we get is an awareness by refs that they can't penalize every hold/clinch because a fight isn't a rulebook, and inevitably variations of these positions will occur in close quarters without anyone intentionally stalling the fight. But it also justifies inaction against guys who do deliberately hold and stall.

The rule needs to rewritten for greater clarity. It wouldn't stop dodgy refs ignoring fouls, but it would do a lot to stop apologists from white knighting for guys who blatantly foul, which would make it a bit more difficult to get away with it.

It’s not that controversial IMO - good refs know what clinching is and allow it but will not allow holding.

It’s just that there aren’t many good refs.

 

[PBAC]

Smart boxers know how to exploit that too.

yup, but should a smart ref allow it?

 

[tank666]

Going back a bit but I remember the Lewis Akinwande fight was stopped due to Akinwande's excessive clinching and failure to let go. Don't think Haney was quite that bad though.

 

[tank666]

yup, but should a smart ref allow it?

I think Mills Lane would have been a lot stricter.

 

[froggyluv]

I hate cheap shots (looking at you Flloyd) but that shit shot Garcia threw after Haney's 39th hold was pretty satisfying. Not sure ive ever turned on a fighter so quickly as I did Haney but just absolutely cant stand guys that run in to clinch after every exchange halting all momentum of a fight. Refs should just push them back and not give them so long to reset -just "Go!"

 

[Boxiana]

I hate cheap shots (looking at you Flloyd) but that shit shot Garcia threw after Haney's 39th hold was pretty satisfying. Not sure ive ever turned on a fighter so quickly as I did Haney but just absolutely cant stand guys that run in to HOLD after every exchange halting all momentum of a fight. Refs should just push them back and not give them so long to reset -just "Go!"

Agree with everything here, but fixed one word