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.
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.