How Much Infighting?

[marbleheadmaui]

The Joe Cortez thread got me thinking more generally.

I suspect many of the answers here will simply be a matter of taste. Mine is certainly colored that way.

I like infighting far more than I enjoy watching two guys stand out of range, then one lunges in and that is the description of the fight. Crowding, clutching, grabbing to gain position to punch seems to me as legitimate as what has now come to be called "ambush boxing." I think what Roberto Duran did to Ray Leonard, what Marciano did to everyone, what Joe Frazier did to everyone but Big George, the way Henry Armstrong won three crowns etc. is as legitimate and within the rules as any other style.

My ONLY requirement is that the clutching, grabbing, shouldering, holding be done with a strategic purpose, preferably an offensive one. As long as one man is struggling to make the fight in a given situation, has one arm free or is trying to rip away his hands from being held? I think the referee ought to err on the side of letting the action go. Of course if both men go passive? Then one should call for a break. But if one guy is punching or trying to and the other is simply holding? The holder is the guy who should be warned.

One last thing on this topic. The fighters shouldn't be moved from where they are when a break is called. This even often happens along the ropes or in a corner and I see the referee shove the guy with the position advantage back towards the center of the ring to give the guy on the ropes space. Why? The guy with the advantage earned it, why is he being penalized? The ref should do the absolute minimum to get the fighters hands free and that's all.

What say you?

[JazMerkin]

It depends how good the infighter is. There are too many fighters who just seek to maul in there with no real purpose. It's like any style of boxing. When it's done great (Angulo-Alcine a recent example) than it's thrilling to watch. When it's done badly (Froch-Dirrell comes to mind) it's the worst type of fight to watch for me. I will say that I'm personally more of a fan of seeing guys boxing at mid-range, but truthfully if I get to see a fight where all of the facets of the game are on show I will positively love it. It's why Mayweather-Mosley & Ward-Bika were two of my favourite fights of last year, because I got to see guys showing how completely rounded their game is.

[captainanddew]

2 guys in a phone booth is my preferred type of fight as well. good infighting appears that it may become a lost art, only practiced by those fighters who have taught unbelievably well and have a desire to know all facets of the sweet science.

[marbleheadmaui]

2 guys in a phone booth is my preferred type of fight as well. good infighting appears that it may become a lost art, only practiced by those fighters who have taught unbelievably well and have a desire to know all facets of the sweet science.

Agree with that, but I also think there is a refereeing problem. They are, by and large, too damned active and intrusive.

[AdamGB]

Please don't start 'nick naming' refs based on the average number of times that they interupt the boxing in a round!

[greynotsoold]

The standard these days seems to be to break far too quickly, which I don't like at all. I love to watch an inside fight, far more than I'm interested in watching some guy with tassels on his shoes and a funny haircut skip around while being told that that is great boxing.
It has always been curious to me that there were boos doing the Charles Williams/James Toney fight, and I can only imagine how much interference there would be today during the in-fighting of the Gavilan/Graham fights. Let them fight!
And it is the responsibility of a fighter- if he is to be considered a professional- to be at least competent at all aspects of the activity.

[marbleheadmaui]

Please don't start 'nick naming' refs based on the average number of times that they interupt the boxing in a round!

Believe me I only do childish things like that when one performs so far below the norm I don't know what else to do!

[marbleheadmaui]

It depends how good the infighter is. There are too many fighters who just seek to maul in there with no real purpose. It's like any style of boxing. When it's done great (Angulo-Alcine a recent example) than it's thrilling to watch. When it's done badly (Froch-Dirrell comes to mind) it's the worst type of fight to watch for me. I will say that I'm personally more of a fan of seeing guys boxing at mid-range, but truthfully if I get to see a fight where all of the facets of the game are on show I will positively love it. It's why Mayweather-Mosley & Ward-Bika were two of my favourite fights of last year, because I got to see guys showing how completely rounded their game is.

GREAT comment on the bold.

I also agree that the best fights are ones where tactical approaches must change. That's a big reason why the Hearns-Leonard, Hearns-Benitez, JMM-Diaz I, Arguello-Pryor I etc were such magical fights.

[Jimanuel Boogustus]

an observation i made a few years back was that some refs start off breakin fighters who are quick to hold, maybe for the first few rounds but then gradually let it become a freely endeavoured dynamic to the fight.
I think it's a measure of a referee's general competence, dealing with holding... i remember thinking that I was glad Martinez knocked Williams out when he did because the referee was really starting to piss me off with his irratable, novice handling of the fight. He would of lost control of it had it gone on.

And thats you see the ego come to the fore... When an incompetent ref insists on making a statement in order to regain control.

[awdleyfuturehalloffamer]

Infighting i like,holding i hate.

[CommunistKevin]

Infighting is fine. But like somebody sAid holding is terrible. It is a fine line.