No Need for a ‘No Running Rule’: Boxing Already Has One

As Saul “Canelo” Álvarez and Terence “Bud” Crawford train to meet in Las Vegas on September 13 in a high-profile bout streamed on Netflix, debates have shifted toward a proposed addition to the sport’s rulebook: a so-called “no running rule.”

His Excellency Turki Al-Sheikh, a central figure in the Saudi-backed Riyadh Season series, recently ignited debate with a post on X (formerly Twitter). He wrote:

“From this point on, I don’t want to see any more Tom and Jerry-type boxing matches where one fighter is running around the ring and the other is chasing him. We can [no] longer support these kind of fights with Riyadh Season and The Ring. We want to support fighters who leave it all in the ring and fight with heart and pride!”

Since Al-Sheikh’s June 10 post, fans, pundits, and influencers have weighed in. Some have called for clarity; others have taken action. The YouTube boxing commentator ShowBizz The Adult launched a petition on Change.org, garnering over 4,000 signatures. The petition reads, in part:

However, such a rule already exists. The Unified Rules of Boxing states:

Put plainly: the so-called “no running rule” is not a novel concept. It’s already codified—and enforced at the referee’s discretion.

What’s truly at issue here is not a gap in regulation but rather a matter of interpretation. The language surrounding “running” in the ring has long been used to criticize fighters who employ defensive movement and strategic footwork—often unfairly. These are not evasive tactics devoid of engagement, but rather legitimate expressions of boxing’s core principles: hit and don’t get hit, create angles, set traps, and avoid punishment. Footwork is not antithetical to action; it is often the engine of it.

This debate comes in the wake of the “Fatal Fury” weekend, which featured fight cards in both Times Square and Riyadh. Some critics accused boxers like Devin Haney and William Scull of being “on their bikes”—a euphemism for excessive movement. Following the event, Oscar De La Hoya, whose Golden Boy Promotions fighters were defeated in Times Square, criticized Haney on social media, claiming he was “done” in the sport and labeling his performance against Jose Ramirez as overly cautious.

Yet the numbers tell a different story. Haney threw 224 punches and landed 70—more than Ryan Garcia, who fought on the same night, throwing 210 and landing just 66 in his bout with Rolando “Rolly” Romero. Still, it was Haney who faced criticism for “running.” Meanwhile, Romero later revealed on The Danza Project podcast that Al-Sheikh visited Garcia’s corner mid-fight to encourage him to throw more punches—a courtesy not extended to Haney.

This discrepancy raises questions. If “running” is the concern, why single out the fighters using lateral movement and defensive skills? One could reasonably argue that Garcia and Álvarez—both comparatively less active in recent fights—fit the “evasion” label more closely. Yet it is Haney and Scull who bear the brunt of the criticism.

The “no running rule,” then, appears to be less about clarifying boxing’s regulations and more about reshaping its cultural narrative—one that often penalizes intelligence and movement in favor of visible aggression. But boxing is not just about forward motion. It is about rhythm, control, and mastery. The rule exists. What’s needed now is not new legislation—but fair, consistent application.