The Insane K-1 No Holding Rule!

　

The word was out at the end of 2005 that K-1 would no longer allow something called holding. There were no more details. My concern at the time was partly for the stars who would instantly lose their status in the K-1 and perhaps in the rest of the kickboxing world: Alexei Ignashov, Remy Bonjasky and Sem Schilt. These men have risen to the top with very specialized grappling (hold and hit) skills. They have invested years to develop these skills and now, as of 2006, they must rely on the outside game of kicking and boxing. My immediate interest was in how they would define holding and how they would enforce the rule. I had doubts that they would be able to do either. Defining holding is not as simple as opening a dictionary and finding the h-word. If this is to become a foul technique, all parties have to be on the same page. Both referees and fighters must know clearly what is an infraction that will lead to point deductions or even a DQ. Do any (or all) of the following meet the definition of holding? -          Locking both hands behind the opponent’s back? -          Locking both hands on the opponent’s neck? -          One arm locking the opponent’s arm and the other arm around the opponent’s waist or over the opponent’s shoulder? -          Both arms locking an opponent’s arm? -          One arm locking an opponent’s arm? -          One arm around the opponent’s waist or over the opponent’s shoulder? -          Pinning the opponent to the ropes and holding the ropes? -          Pinning the opponent to the ropes without holding the ropes? It is sad that the elite fighters were used as guinea pigs to initiate the rule. Uncertain of the exact K-1 definition of holding or the manner of enforcement, Sem Schilt was forced to learn the hard way against Peter Aerts. He never locked his hands behind Aerts' neck or back. Against Akio Mori, he learned that the rule was not enforced uniformly among all fighters. Mori locked his hands behind Schilt's back on a handful of occasions. As for the enforcement of the no-holding rule, we had to wait and see if it would resemble boxing or karate. In boxing, “no holding” means “fire off attacks before locking up and let go quickly on the break.” I had the nagging suspicion that holding would be enforced in a karate manner. The K-1 was founded by Kazuyoshi Ishii – (Notice the resemblance between the company name, K-1, and the initials of the founder, K.I.) – who heads Seido Kaikan Karate. Until 1997, in the quarter final and semifinal of tournaments, fighters knocked to the canvas only received a 5-count, a relic of karate. Since 1998, the K-1 has had a 10-count for all fights. Referees in karate are less hands-on facilitators who keep the action moving and more authoritative figures who hand out penalties. The words “no holding” to a kickboxing referee have a very different meaning when heard by a karate referee. In 2003, the K-1 initiated a very unusual rule. Fighters were allowed to hold the head and attack with knees as before, but they now had to fire off only one knee before releasing the opponent. This line of thinking smacked of karate. Those from a kickboxing background would misunderstand this rule to mean that the referee would be quicker to separate the fighters. As it turned out, the karate powers-that-be actually wanted kickboxers to count their own attacks. One knee was legal. Two knees were illegal. It was as simple as that. It was also as ambiguous as that. If a fighter missed with the first knee, was he still entitled a knee strike? The only way to find out was to try it in the ring and see what happened. The rules did not specify. So, now that the K-1 is evolving into karate with gloves and a ring, we can witness new trends. Before, visiting boxers had to worry about getting worn out and beaten by stand up grapplers. Their own sport didn’t tolerate holding, so they fell short on that skill set. Now, these same boxers will have to be careful to not get yellow carded (one point deduction) for holding because their sport enforces the rule differently. These drastic measures were surely not implemented on a whim. The official purpose is to increase the action. The K-1 has been trying to increase the action for the past few years. They cut the fights short (3 rounds). Not surprisingly, they were not satisfied. This change simply allowed the fighters to gain 10kg each and fights were as slow as ever. They implemented the one-knee-attack rule. No fighter could keep it straight. Even referees were confused. Still not satisfied, the K-1 have put their karate heads together to penalize holding. Time has already shown that they are as wrong about this solution as they have been in the past. Each round, opponents come together about 30 times to exchange blows. If the number of exchanges increased, the K-1 karate management will have had the pleasure of being correct for once. There has been no substantial increase in action. I don’t know how many exchanges per round the K-1 karate management were targeting. My hunches tell me that they didn’t know either. One certainty that the future holds is that the K-1 will look different. Whether it will be more action-packed is uncertain at best. Doubtful is more likely. Kickboxing is 80% defense and 20% offense. Not getting hit is far more important to a fighter than scoring a hit. The option to hold at the end of an exchange emboldens the fighter to initiate his attack. Penalizing that option forces the fighter to rely on angles and blocking to execute his attack. To compensate for the new rule, fighters will have to develop outside defensive skills. We will not see fighters rashly putting themselves in harms way. How bad can it be? Fighters have already recognized referees as a source of points and they have been communicating with the officials to appeal for points. Peter Aerts was as guilty of as much holding as Grand Prix champion Sem Schilt but managed to negotiate with referee Onari in the ring for 2 points, the same as scoring a knockdown. Schilt stuck to what he believed was the fight, ignored the referee and lost by 1 point. When both fighters become equally adept at communicating with referees, we’ll see stalling from the outside. We already witness more cases where the referee demands that the fighters stop staring at each other and start fighting. What is the solution? To start, the K-1 needs to change their fundamental beliefs about the role of referees. If we demand that fighters break quickly and the referees take a more hands on approach, we may stop the vicious cycle. Altering the rules without forethought or input from anyone (Yes-men don’t count.) is a recipe for disaster. Creating a rule that cannot be applied uniformly is also catastrophic. One simple step forward (actually backward) is to have 5-round bouts throughout the year and the 3-rounders in tournaments only. Fighters will respond by maintaining a fighting weight that will generate a reasonable number of exchanges per round throughout the year and perhaps more in tournaments. Drop the No Holding Rule. Drop the One Knee Rule. Initiate a Clean Break Rule. See you ringside! 　 *** UPDATE (2007/01/07): Some good news since writing this article. Only 2 fighters in 2006 have lost points from the no holding rule: Sem Schilt and Akio Mori. The holding not decreased much, but fighters are trying to break quickly. The rule itself has not been rewritten, but it is being enforced better.