Did Ali cheat against Foreman?

Good morning mate. Good ol george was never shy of excuses. He musta came out with 5 or 6 and, if all true, would have needed paul newman and robert redford onboard to execute them all. Funny enough, yesterday was the 28th anniversary of big george beating Moorer, a fantastic achievement. Doesnt half make ya feel old

 

You're definitely right about all that making us feel old! Lol. Yes that was quite an achievement for George.

 

I agree Ali was allowed to hold too much both in Zaire and in Frazier 2, but the "133 clinches" came from Futch and should not be taken as objective gospel.

Curiously it's never mentioned that Frazier's tactic of hitting the hips was illegal as well, as the hips are below the belt. Suppose Dundee should have moaned about the x punches (according to his count) Frazier landed on Ali's hips. Should we question the result in FOTC because of those?

 

Why float the suggestion that anyone is becoming upset when they are clearly not?

One should steer clear of such preemptive misreads - it’s the same old embryo for a false and off point narrative.

Of course it makes sense to highlight the contrary nature of moralities within a sport that can be reasonably argued to be immoral inside and out.

And of course it is changing the terms of definition when moralising was the crux of the point in so far as nominating certain detractors who are NOT simply disliking the sport as if based on a matter of taste.

Whether it was crucial or not, Foreman did not identify the tactic as cheating (nor did Archie Moore) nor did Foreman identify the tactics as the cornerstone for his defeat - quite a reach to speak on Foreman’s behalf in that regard AFTER it was made clear that Foreman himself didn’t cite those tactics as fouls and/or cheating.

Quite reasonable to understand that being aware of his physicality and frequent use of same to his own advantage, that it was one feature Foreman chose not to cry poor about.

If anything, Foreman might’ve been shocked by Ali’s ability to manhandle him as he did - since that was supposed to George’s forte.

There seems to be a lack of understanding that intelligent fighters like Ali will profile the attributes of their opposition, including apparent and repeated transgressions in order to remedy same. Ali wasn’t going to cry poor, he was prepared to deal and deal he did.

Technically, Frazier fouled Ali numerous times in FOTC, deliberately punching at the hips, below the belt line - this served to slow Ali up as anyone should know. Where is/was the hue and cry regarding those obvious and heavily repeated foul shots?

Ali didn’t cry about it - such was his authentic, practical understanding of the sport. Don’t look to just one fight in that regard, look to and understand the whole landscape.

Boxing has been described, and justly so, to be far different from normal “sports” - the practice of boxing being more synonymous with day to day life, it’s struggles and the real world challenge to survive, prevail and preserve oneself.

It is argumentative to split hairs on infractions - a foul is a foul. If it is “deemed” to be comitted with deliberate intent some can interpret that as cheating. This is not a news flash.

Say Ali was misinformed just prior to the fight that such tactics were to be allowed for that one fight.

That would remove intent to cheat - it wouldn’t diminish certain people’s observation that Ali was in breach of the rules and that it somehow determined the outcome - and others again might view Ali as not being in breach until the ref deemed him to be so - the ref being the end point authority with final discretionary powers.

Did Zack Clayton cheat also by way of omission?

One might water it down and suggest no, Clayton was merely incompetent. If there was such blatant cheating on display - how did a world class ref like Zack inadvertently oversight same?

Maybe, Clayton, like many others, didn’t interpret it as flat out cheating. He was the man, the final word.

Is this eligible to be deemed as revisionism? If not, where were any of the claims that Ali’s tactics constituted cheating, as at that time or for any time long after the smoke had cleared in Zaire?

Often it might seem reasonable to attach deliberate motive but it will always be a subjective take.

Jump into the ring and see how quickly impulses (including those that drive natural self preservation) infuse themselves into the equation - and let’s repeat, without the primal urge to fight and the primal urge to watch people fight - the sport of boxing doesn’t even see lift off.

Remember Moore’s interpretation - “good thinking”, he did not say or remotely imply cheating. Great boxer and great student of the sport the old Arch. He understood.

Moore also floated the option of Foreman and his corner figuring out a counter to the tactic.

Bending or breaking the rules - another arbitrary interpretation - it lacks self awareness to understand that this a highly subjective call.

Clinching is allowed to a degree but at some point can be deemed “excessive”.

How much clinching is too much? We all have our OWN answer to that question, - which is often akin to the answer to “how long is a piece of string?” and speaks for the subjectivity involved and the indefinite nature of the possible answer.

When Hearns rematched Leonard, it was noted that Tommy had since learned to clinch/hold when he was in trouble - something he didn’t do the first time against Ray.

Tommy was applauded for his deliberate holding which was more than pronounced and a likely KO was possibly averted due to that holding - and it also likely his corner was screaming for him to hold also - this is boxing, not tennis.

As a viewer, if you think deliberate holding is wrong - then it stays wrong, black and white, UNLESS you allow for discretionary interpretation which then puts you in a world of subjectivity, grey areas and allowance/inclusion of context to determine if a foul is somehow okay or not.

Any discerning, competent student of combat sports, and more specifically boxing, wouldn’t be so naive as to fail to understand the many real paradoxes and grey areas that I have highlighted in their effort to apply their own subjective and finite template as to what is exactly fair/moral and what isn’t.

 

Good sense of balance,Bokaj. Yes I too have always queried as to why Smokin' Joe got a pass for the hip bashing. Just goes to show that while a fighter gets away with some strokes,he gets screwed over regarding others. Win some lose some.

 

Frazier also had a reputation for using his head a bit liberally. Ellis actually made that accusation leading up their fight and I belivee Ali also complained about it during their fights.

When illegal tactics are discussed here, they are usually done so in a very selective manner. Like Holy alledgedly headbutting Tyson. These are in fact two fighters that both liked to be rough at times, but Tyson fans have been successful in spinning the narrative that Tyson was the innocent victim. Likewise have Frazier fans been successful in painting what was a fairly rough fighter in Frazier as the victim of Ali's cheating.

 

Very true on all counts. George Chuvalo also had a free passage at times shelling Muhammad in the nuts.

 

At least Ali had “Cleopatra” to pass the buck to when he was floored by Henry Cooper. Let’s just say his wandering eyes bit him on
the asp? <groan>.

And, who wouldn’t be distracted by a prime Liz Taylor? - though her prime seemed a bit short like Mike Tyson’s - old Liz went to pot real quick

And, she stole peoples husbands too - Eddie Fisher from Debbie Reynolds - Princess Leia’s Mum and Dad, which makes Eddie Fisher Darth Vader or Dark Helmet if you like (Space Balls). Fisher was an alcoholic too. Just say’n’.

Eleanor Parker was way hotter than Liz and hotter for longer. Get a gander of her in Scaramouche or The Naked Jungle <bites knuckle>. Unfortunately no, she doesn’t actually get naked in the jungle.

Just thought I’d randomly throw that in. Well before my time, but some of the 40s/50s actresses were too gorgeous and shapely - I was born in the wrong era!

 

Yeah. And the funny thing there is that it's even a bragging point for Chuvalo that Ali supposedly (according to Chuvalo) pissed blood after the fight. If that was the case, it was probably more due to the blows below the belt than the ones above it.

 

Exactly.

 

Seriously did not see you had already mentioned the hip shots - which I’ve noted previously on other threads also. Great minds think alike and you thunk to post it first - so, suffice to say, I totally agree!

 

And there was Wepner’s OTT rabbit punches which Ali didn’t so much complain about as he did duly return in kind. It became so comical Ali even took to holding his glove behind his neck to block any potential incomings. Ali was nothing if not a thinker on his feet. LOL.

 

Thank you for the measured and reasoned response. Want to make it clear I wasn’t ‘calling you out’ or trying to start something with you but your previous post was worth quoting because it addressed a point of view on so much surrounding this.

I suspect we’re not all that far apart on most of this. And where we do disagree it’s fair takes on both sides.

Me, I don’t want the ref interrupting Ward-Gatti Round 9 even when Arturo lands low on the hips because the great action is what makes that round iconic. You probably could have picked several spots for some over-officiating that would have ruined it (and maybe reward an exhausted Gatti for said low blows by giving him a break to recover whilst warning him … which is probably what he wanted). I think Ward would actually agree, but who knows.

Again, to me it’s a far cry from saying someone ‘bends the rules’ to saying someone ‘is a cheater.’ The second standard (to me) equates a mere roughhouse guy who’s exploring the boundaries of the referee’s discretion to gain an advantage to Panama Lewis taking padding out of a glove or something. And that chafes me as I admire a fighter like say Eusebio Pedroza who manages over 15 rounds to go through the rulebook and bend each and every rule to see what’s going to be enforced as there’s a high degree of strategic intelligence there.

If the other guy wants to be the schoolboy who brings an apple to the teacher, that’s his right and business to do so, but sometimes the kid who cribs answers off someone else’s paper while the teach is distracted aces the test.

 

I think I posted this anecdote in another thread (can’t remember which one) not terribly long ago but your retaliation mention reminded me of one of my favorite moments working a corner.

I had a guy who was in with a roughhouse type who was repeatedly and, it seemed to me, deliberately butting him from the start. He had opened up cuts over both my guy’s eyes with his head and even knocked him down with a head-butt-to-the-chin/left hook combo for a brief count.

After about three or maybe it was four rounds, my guy was too flustered to think. He was looking to the ref for help and mentally checking out. The other guy got warned and I gave the ref the riot act but I could see where it was going — the other fellow was probably going to have a point deducted soon but he was getting away with it (and some elbows and general mauling) and the gain far outweighed any penalty that might be coming.

So between rounds I got my guy to look me in the eyes and I said, ‘Are you willing to go to hell to win this fight.’ He said yes. I said, ‘Then let’s take him with you and see if he is.’ I instructed him that if the guy butted him again, I wanted a right uppercut straight up the middle to the cods to send him a message.

About 30 seconds into the next round, the guy butted again and my guy launched that uppercut. The opponent went down from it and the ref admonished my guy and informed us if he went low again it would be a DQ on he spot. The opponent took the full 5 minutes to recover but it took something out of him.

I motioned my guy to go after him with everything he had when it resumed and he knocked him down I think two times over the rest of that round and put him down for good at the start of the one that followed. The other guy did not risk another headbutt after that, realizing there was a price to pay.

Sometimes you can be your own referee.

 

No, after Kinshasa Foreman was totally destroyed. In a rematch however asked by George he would have lost again. Ali would have destroyed him mentally again. He should have faced Ali after Young but he lost and besides he saw Jesus and became a preacher.