Clinching - why is it legal?

[Absolut]

Andre Ward gave Kovalev a clinching lesson

 

[Old Cat]

You’re more patent than me bubba

 

[treelo]

Two totally different things going on here!

like Elbows and Blows, you tried to resolve one of your stupid arguments(and yes, they are not discussions as you are not able to have one) by saying this was confusing you.

 

[Breaducce]

I would actually agree that Joe Cortez (because we were discussing him earlier) was a little quick to break up clinches but the argument seems to be that he allowed it to go on too much. I like a ref that takes a second to get in there and break it. Give them a second to fight. Joe Cortez breaks it IMMEDIATELY, which is within the rules I guess but it'd be nice to occasionally see a fighter try to work there, so long as its clean.

Yea, refs basically have discretion and essentially full power over the amount of clinch work that occurs in fights which is why some fights you'll have full out clinch warfare and others where fighters are constantly broken up and are only able to fight at medium to long range as a result. When a fighter initiates a significant amount of clinches which they are legally allowed to do and the ref breaks them immediately, I can see how this is perceived as holding even though it really isn't, given that the clinch automatically leads to the fighters getting separated. The problem is that people ususally blame the clinching fighters who are most often not breaking any rules, rather then the clinched fighter who often accepts the clinch due to a lack of ability or willingness to fight in the trenches, or the refs who do not give opportunities to clinched fighters to work out and respond to being clinched. In most cases. I think a lot of refs need to do a better job of asking for work inside as this would reveal who really is stalling because I have seen fights where the clinched fighter is stalling/holding rather then working inside. Also, its kinda of sad because due to quick separations clinch fighting is becoming a bit of a lost art, and it is one of my favorite things to watch during a fight.

 

[ironfist05]

No, you're misunderstanding. The ref wasn't seeing most of Salido's fouls. I already said that low blows are more egregious fouls than holding. I wish you'd read the thread so I wouldn't have to go over this again.

The point here is that clinching is not illegal and a few posters were not clear about the difference between a clinch and holding. Then I pointed out that people always seemed to ignore that Floyd was getting fouled while he was clinching OR his opponents were clinching as well.

yeah there is no way he didn't see Loma visibly getting nut shotted.

I don't disagree on the Floyd matter, but you have a weird degree of selective tolerance for the Loma/Salido reffing. You've openly admitted you don't like dirty fighters, but never seemed bothered by Salido/Loma, and even went out of your way to defend it. Odd.

 

[aries]

You got schooled here. Accept it.

No I defended my position completely. IF one guy starts fouling first and with impunity then that's the refs fault for not dealing with it. If the second fighter starts fouling to prevent the first guy fouling then that's still the refs fault. IF Cole was to penalise Loma for holding BUT not penalise Salido for fouling that would have been an even bigger joke. Is that what you are suggesting should have happened in that fight?

 

[aries]

yeah there is no way he didn't see Loma visibly getting nut shotted.

I don't disagree on the Floyd matter, but you have a weird degree of selective tolerance for the Loma/Salido reffing. You've openly admitted you don't like dirty fighters, but never seemed bothered by Salido/Loma, and even went out of your way to defend it. Odd.

That's because he's the biggest most biased hypocrite on here.

 

[Seano]

yeah there is no way he didn't see Loma visibly getting nut shotted.

He missed a lot of them. Salido knows when to fight dirty.

I don't disagree on the Floyd matter, but you have a weird degree of selective tolerance for the Loma/Salido reffing. You've openly admitted you don't like dirty fighters, but never seemed bothered by Salido/Loma, and even went out of your way to defend it. Odd.

I have used the "dirty" descriptor everytime I have talked about that fight. What is my expected reaction? I just wasn't surprised by it. Thats Salido. "Dirty" isn't a complimentary term when I use it.

 

[Seano]

That's because he's the biggest most biased hypocrite on here.

This is like when homosexuals call people gay to put them in their place.

 

[aries]

This is like when homosexuals call people gay to put them in their place.

Really lol. Resorting to homophobia now Seano? Really, how old are you? And then point out where I've been hypocritical. I reckon Treelo was right, you are a sociopath.

 

[Canelo]

So Seano agrees that initiating a clinch and stalling whilst not throwing any punches is holding and illegal.

But when showed a clip of his favorite fighter doing exactly that it's not a foul at all.

I mean Floyd initiates it, he holds on tight and doesn't throw punches, what's there to dispute in that sequence?

This dude is the king of cognitive dissonance, he reminds me of Haggis over at CHB just not as intelligent.

 

[aries]

Really lol. Point out where I've been hypocritical then?

So Seano agrees that initiating a clinch and stalling whilst not throwing any punches is holding and illegal.

But when showed a clip of his favorite fighter doing exactly that it's not a foul at all.

I mean Floyd initiates it, he holds on tight and doesn't throw punches, what's there to dispute in that sequence?

This dude is the king of cognitive dissonance, he reminds me of Haggis over at CHB just not as intelligent.

Exactly. Worlds biggest fucking hypocrite.