Did Ali cheat against Foreman?

Of course it is a highly relevant, valid contextual argument to identify the contrary notion of moralising within a sport that some people consider immoral in its entirety.

It is also completely off point to substitute the obvious highlighting of moralising with the altered definition that it is simply a sport some people don’t like.

If flouting the rules is cheating - which includes every infraction, big or small - then you will witness a lot of cheating throughout many fights - do you come away from every fight labelling boxers as “cheaters”.

Boxing pivots itself on primal instincts - the lines are blurred between that, the laws of the primal land and the attempt to package all that into a sport with “rules”.

Boxing is not properly sanctioned or regulated. Address the real world of boxing, not that which exists on paper or the one that people would like to exist.

FAIR violence? That’s an oxymoron if you’ve ever read one.

The axiom, two wrongs don’t make a right is the red herring.

The second action can be seen as DUE retaliation in KIND, not an original wrong without just motive - but a reactive leveller which, without the first wrong, would not have been committed in reply - .

In the land of boxing, the second wrong can make it right - especially when a referee fails to do his job - no one else is going to help you in there BUT you.- and many boxers have been criticised for not dealing with a situation themselves, instead relying on the ref to help them out.

If a boxer deliberately hits you in the nuts, isn’t pulled up for it and you don’t retaliate - there’s a good chance he’ll do it again - and this has been seen in a number of fights. Hit that boxer in the nuts back, then there’s a good chance he won’t try it again - at least not with impunity.

Basically, in the world of pro boxing, given its reliance upon primal urges, inclination toward violence and literal life and death engagements and risks, it’s naive to interpret certain self preserving actions as flat out cheating -

AND, in fact, what we might view as omissions on the part of referees may in fact be their own form of arbitrary regulation (which they are actually empowered with under the rules) - in so far as their understanding and appreciating that certain practices aren’t out and out cheating in one on one combat sport and require due interpretation and flexibility.

 

Not in Zaire it didn't.

 

This is the video. They talk to Dundee, Archie Moore, the ref, among others. Archie Moore made reference to Ali pulling down on his head at the 49:45 mark of the video, as well as 1:10:00...

This content is protected

 

Much appreciated brother but it appears you might’ve over sighted inserting the video link - something I’ve done plenty of times.

 

Ah, got it now…thanks man, I’ll have a good look see.

 

What Ali did with the holding was cheating. What Foreman did is also cheating, he hit low, elbowed, shoved blah, blah, blah. All fighters cheat to a capacity.

 

Just watched the time stamp points you provided. Again, much appreciated.

Notably while referencing it, Arch himself only analyses its effect but doesn’t identify it as cheating - rather, he even described it as “good thinking”.

As a quick aside - I know Walcott did, but did Arch ever complain of foul tactics by Marciano - if he did, I haven’t read of or heard it yet.

However, I’m not going to rest on Archie’s apparent “green light” on the tactic.

Technically speaking, it was illegal, and one would expect at least one warning - but refs often don’t do what we reasonably expect of them.

I’ve only tried to illustrate that the interpretation of cheating isn’t always black and white and it most certainly has to be considered in due context and relativity.

As you said, I think Ali wins anyway, so much more of what Ali did that was 100% legit lent to Foreman’s downfall - and if George himself didn’t isolate Ali’s tactics in that regard as being foul - maybe that is part thereof of an answer in itself as to how much address it should warrant.

I will say Ali’s holding in Frazier 2 heavily impacted the complexion and degree of advantage Ali enjoyed through 12 rounds. But as we know, Perez did sweet FA about it.

If anyone was mistreated the most, particularly in view of their own relative clean conduct, it was poor old Joe Frazier, both Foreman and Ali being the culprits.

Finally, what an articulate legend Moore was - and I love those hats he used to wear.

I don’t care if you’re Ali or whoever, to receive compliments from that man re boxing skills and aptitude - well, it doesn’t get any better than that.

 

How can anyone like George Foreman admit he lost to a 32 year old fighter like Muhammad Ali? Always an excuse, Mother Nature conspired against Foreman, she must have bet on Ali.

 

I hope nobody is getting upset with honest polite disagreements-I responded to a few folks in one post-but it makes no sense to say that just because some people consider a whole sport to be immoral, that it is somehow wrong to moralize about things in it.
Even if someone wants boxing banned, they would agree that stabbing someone when the referee is not looking is deeply unethical.
And all of us want boxing to stay legal-& would find this & many other things wrong.

I have changed no definitions, but the question is what is a fair fight.
Cheating is not every infraction, it means intentional infractions.
So every small or & unintentional violation is not showing constant cheating.

It IS a good point that boxing involves primitive instincts.
That is why you give some leeway regarding intent-which is hard to always know.
But boxing being imperfectly governed does not abrogate responsibility to ensure that who would win, get the money, titles, glory...Be who wins following fair rules.
That is completely being in & addressing the Real World.

I cannot believe that any discerning student of the sport & ethics would not see that there is always fair & unfair violence when it is not no-rules, no holds barred.
So whether using a weapon, unambiguously wrestling, going for the gonads, kicking, biting of or chewing off body parts-all this is indisputably wrong & illegal: our task is to also deal with the grey areas.

I DO agree completely & already stated that if it is retaliation (& proportionate) when the ref is not enforcing the rules-not preemptive because you guess your opponent might cheat-then that may well be justified, & in THIS delimited case the philosophy "two wrongs don't make a right" should not be applied.
Mostly because it is a greater injustice if you lose because nobody stops the other guy from cheating!

So I clearly already accepted the "hit in the nuts back" justification, if the rules are not enforced.

But there are many times when it is not mere instinct to survive & folks choose to cheat.
Admittedly motivations can be ambiguous, even TOO the offender.
But we are also rational beings with a moral responsibility to not just follow impulses regardless of impact, consequences or ethics.
So an Ali & many others could & should often eschew all the holding behind the head, let alone pulling down.

And they usually CAN, overwhelmingly so, when warned & they might lose a fight!

But I do agree that there officials are reasonable to allow certain flexibility in enforcement.
Due to both ambiguous intent, the severity of the violation-& how common it is.

Oh, Foreman was cuckoo in his allegations & excuses...But because he did not think of what might well have tipped the balance, a very draining thwarting of offense & energy-does not show that was not a crucial matter.
Big George was also irrational in how absurdly gracious he was in his later career, & on trivial matters like insisting Frazier said he was 5' 10" & he never was a day in his life-both false-he just was not very accurate about details, sometimes for amusing-& later generous-psychological reasons.

But sometimes they clearly allow way too many &/or important, fight determining infractions-usually on one side.

 

He definitely pushed down on his neck. Foreman was known for shoving too.

 

I consider the tactic a gray area. It is, basically, holding … which happens to some degree in most fights. It’s up to the referee to decide if it’s excessive or not and that’s where the gray area is.

It’s one of those rules that ‘everybody knows’ but I doubt you or anyone else can find us a link to the rules of boxing that spell out exactly how and what form of holding is or isn’t allowed and what the remedies are — as far as when a referee is supposed to issue a warning and then supposed to dock a fighter points.

An intelligent fighter will explore gray areas to see what he can get away with in any particular fight with any particular ref: just as a baseball pitcher will see if an umpire will give him the outside corner, and when he gets a strike will then try to throw an inch or two further outside to see if he can get another … until he finds out where that ump will then call a ball. Maybe he gets away with pitches a couple of inches off the plate and throws there to get strikes — I do not consider this a moral or ethical mark against a pitcher. He’s doing what the ‘ref’ is allowing and thus in that situation he’s within the rules.

It’s amusing — and telling — to me that when people decry holding they will often add something along the lines of ‘unless a guy is really hurt and trying to survive.’ I know of no rule in boxing that says you can do it when you’re hurt but not when you aren’t. People will say ‘Hearns lost to Ray Leonard in the first fight because he didn’t know how to hold’ — isn’t that advocating ‘cheating’ if one holds the opinion that holding is cheating?

I personally do not want professional boxing to be some kind of simon pure affair like amateur boxing where guys are warned and penalized at every turn. It’s boring. It leads to stop-start fighting and oftentimes the superior fighter ends up being penalized or DQ’d over some penny-ante nonsense. That’s not what I want when I watch a fight.

Because in the final analysis, boxing is both a sport and a FIGHT. And within fighting, guys are going to do whatever they can get away with.

Where I take exception is saying a guy who holds behind the head a few times in a fight (has anyone added up exactly how many times Ali did this and for how many seconds he had this ‘advantage’?) is cheating. Nah, he’s bending the rules … if he breaks them, that means he’s doing what the ref has repeatedly warned him not to do and spelled out by his refereeing actions is where the line is drawn.

There are, without question, some acts that are cheating. Some are even criminal — if you remove padding from a glove or use tape on the knuckles, you’ve cheated. Same as your knife attack, lol. If you kick a man or knee him in the groin, that’s so far outside the rules as to be cheating. But there’s a difference between repeatedly uppercutting a guy in the cods and landing a few blows on the belt line. The former would be cheating to me, the latter would not.

 

Another great post, dang that is a welcome challenge!
Seriously I agree with parts of this, & will tell you where I differ.

The question is begged-are there any definitions of what & when holding are allowed?
I doubt it. But that is likely because

This content is protected

of holding is technically permitted.
While it would be folly to sanction any of the briefest, most unintentional grasp...
That does not mean that a gray area where discretion should exist means that a referee should not or cannot be held to...Upholding the rules when they are of the frequency & severity to warrant it.

And just because there is some ambiguity does not mean we cannot find within a reasonably limited degree of uncertainty where that line is.
That is a creative challenge re: using called balls & strikes.
Many intelligent fighters will try to bend or break the rules.
Others will not, equally or more intelligent-or to a lesser degree-out of principle.
Or different automatic habits.

But it is never at all wrong for a pitcher to throw outside of the strike zone-because it is never illegal, unlike holding, to do so.
Just trying to get batters to swing at inferior pitches is a sound, wholly ethical strategy.
And there is no violence-a better analogy might be throwing at a batter.
Now THAT tends to have a bigger impact, & like in a fist fight, has danger involved.

It is a good point that allowing some holding when in trouble may be a hypocrisy if you believe the rules should be 100% literally enforced.
I think this can be justified to an extent because of the desperate, instinctive nature of it-not just planned.
But if you do it enough, sure that should be warned & penalized too.

Boxing can be too purely interpreted-in the amateur ranks example, sometimes having the opposite effect of getting the likely WINNER eliminated.
But almost nobody is preaching to go that far.
Still the realistic continual risk, to ethics & outcome-is being too lax.

"Cheating" as a definition largely depends the intent to break the rules.
As does bending the rules-this too implies intent.
There can be honest disagreements here, but I say that even when it is not mostly conscious, we must stop behavior that is has a good chance to A) make a significant difference in outcome, &/or B) are choices, not likely accidental or unplanned.

I can count up how often or how long Ali held & pulled Foreman's neck down in 8 rounds in Africa, but given the likely impact of such actions, & having a general idea from watching the fight-most of us likely multiple times...
I think that like against Frazier the year before we can see it was excessive-& done more than "a few" times-wrong & the referee was negligent in not warning Ali early, & penalizing him if it continued with any frequency.

Maybe most all of us can agree on so this & similar levels of infractions being something that is negligent & unfair not to warn-& sanction as necessary.
Nobody ever disagrees with me that we only got one of the greatest fights & dramas ever in Manilla because Frazier's camp successfully got a ref that was likely to, or prevailed upon, not to repeat the sins of allowing constant illegal handicaps on a single combatant's offense.
So say with Tyson against Bonehugger, likely against Green-would it not have been better, & for the fans, whether they were KOed or not, to not permit a boring clinch-fest?
Which sets a better precedent for future ring warriors.

So yeah use some discretion; I would not want to be penalized for the numerous times I crossed against the light when I used my own discretion that no car was coming.
But it makes society or the sport worse to ignore violations that either tangibly hurt others, or make injury or worse significantly more likely.

 

what seems to go unmentioned in a lot of these threads regarding this fight is that Ali was ahead on points when the fight finished . You dont get points for holding or lying on the ropes so at some stage he musta been throwing some kinda leather to accrue the rounds. Too much is made of this fight as far as shady tactics go. Ali fought the right fight for himself and just had his number that night

 

Good morning Johnmaff! Spot on. My sentiments exactly.