I could understand the initial suspicions re the ropes - they were extraordinarily loose and, as it so happened, that did appear to be a contrived advantage for Ali’s rope a dope strategy. And it was known that Dundee did adjust the ropes prefight. But we know the true whys and where’s regarding the loose ropes and Dundees efforts to actually tighten, not loosen the ropes before the fight. Dundee had to actually warn off Foreman’s corner when they tried to adjust the ropes mid fight. Also, the ropes weren’t just a lucky advantage sitting there waiting for Ali. Ali identified and used the existing environment to his best possible advantage. Loose or not, Ali wasn’t supposed to be on the ropes at all - many, including his own corner who thought he would be killed there - and they reactively screamed for him to get off during the fight. Ali could’ve moaned about the ridiculously small ring and soft canvas but he didn’t.
But this begs the question-we have no idea if Frazier was trying to lessen Ali's mobility with hip shots. But again, he at least overwhelmingly did this This content is protected Ali kep clinching & pulling on him behind the head. Psychologically boxers who cheat-or at least in ways that the referee allows some discretion or leeway-do not want to admit that. Or even think about themselves as cheaters. And while technically consciously hitting the hips is cheating, most everyone & we would say it is de facto not or justified IF your offense is often thwarted by verboten wrestling-like moves. I have said at some length that although the rules seem to never allow holding, it is understandable & hard to avoid ZERO holding. But it has been quite excessive in some fights, & with some fighters. And pulling someone down behind the neck instead of moving away or firing back is at least a little worse.
I see a fair amount of repetition & unwillingness to let go in what is said, but if I am correcting misperceptions or unfair comments they are specific rejoinders-that is not the same as insistence that a stigma be applied wrongly. For example, the un-admitted changing of the claim, it shifted from me supposedly saying someone was upset, then when there is a polite, non-pathologizing correction that I noted I hope nobody is... Instead of admitting, copping to, or apologizing for the error, there is a far-fetched negative interpretation because on a forum where there has been endless issues with ill will, personal attacks bannings-an encouragement of equanimity is given. It is highly unusual & unsupportable for this to be stigmatized, it was germane to the proceedings & to dwell on it very unusual & dismaying. It is not rationally tenable to complain I do not identify who exactly said what anyone can easily identify when I mention the announcer (& towards the end of the fight) in Zaire. I think it quite a stretch to assume the more convoluted interpretation that Foreman is unable to negate the tactic, rather than that the ref is allowing it. BUT it is fair to wonder if other unfair tactics were used in roughly proportionate amounts, & to what effect. Most all of us agree that retaliation when the rules are not enforced is justified. That you should not lose a fight due to illegally not being able to punch. I just do not see Frazier doing much punching on the hips unless reacting to Ali. I do not see Foreman doing nearly as much, nor as impactful rule breaking as Ali. I do see nearly as much with him vs. Frazier-it is just that we all seem to agree that if Foreman never could shove, it would at most delay the inevitable there. Also being shoved is not exhausting like having a large man leaning on you... Ali did not complain about the ropes & ring condition because that was not at all cheating OR rule bending. His camp & he agreed to said conditions, if they should not have, then it is their fault, like with say Hagler vs. SRR. It is a GOOD POINT how the ropes were not a matter of corruption, although at first glance that might seem likely, & they were just not a fit for that ring-a mistake. Also discerning to introduce if Frazier got points for the hip shots... I do not know if it was very likely, but I am open to hearing from someone who knows. IF he did, that would change the equation a bit about how bad the clinch fest was. But Frazier's camp saved Joe a chance to win in Manilla & avoid another unfair & fan displeasing contest, getting an ATG fight instead, by insisting Ali be sanctioned for the constant holding/immobilizing & pulling. It's not rational to allow "anticipatory" cheating. More so if the strategy is unlikely to help vs. a particular fighter & style. Also all of us moralize about some things-it is crazy to call it inappropriate to complain about certain violations just because some do not find the very existence of the sport ethical. Nobody is arguing for amateur rules & headgear, & all find some things wrong even if the ref would somehow not notice or impose sanctions. Condemning This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected
I’ll address this small point because I believe it is new to the discussion and I have some thoughts. This is where we get into gamesmanship. And whether that is, to use your vernacular, immoral or unsportsmanlike. A not uncommon tactic by football coaches is to point out ahead of the contest to referees that you’ve seen on film that the opposing team repeatedly holds or deliberately pushes receivers (committing pass interference) when the ball is in the air and you want them to be on the lookout for it. Likewise, a basketball coach may ‘warn’ the refs that he’s noticed the opposing team likes to grab jersey to slow players down. Similar things for other sports. Now that those coaches are doing is trying to predispose the refs to make calls against the other team. Confirmation bias in a nutshell — tell them to look for something so they’ll find it, because those infractions are common in every game but he wants to see the other team flagged for it. Likewise, a boxing trainer who tells the ref to watch out for the other guy holding and hitting or rabbit punching is hoping that the ref will jump on the other fighter at first instance and be ready to deduct a point quicker than he might have otherwise. Or to get a ref to officiate the fight in a way that’s favorable to his fighter. Case in point: Ray Arcel and Freddie Brown made a big stink before Leonard-Duran I ‘objecting’ to Carlos Padilla because he allegedly didn’t let guys fight on the inside and broke clinches too quickly (although Ali-Frazier III is Exhibit A that he was prone to do just the opposite). They were vocal in this and basically said there would be hell to pay if their man wasn’t allowed to do his thing (with honestly involves a lot of roughhousing) … yet they didn’t try to have him removed — they just wanted him compliant in a way that would best benefit their guy. Now go back and watch the fight and you’ll see Duran at times completely bull-rush Leonard, crashing into him and driving him back to the ropes like a fullback blocking a linebacker. Not within the rules entirely many times. But Padilla doesn’t break them or admonish Duran … and when one hand is tied up he slaps the glove to free it even though the other hand is still free and there’s no call for a break. I’m not even sure glove-slapping to free a man’s hands is kosher refereeing — it’s certainly not taught in boxing referee school, it’s a tactic that seems rather singular to Padilla. In short, they planted their seed in Padilla’s head — blow this one and we’ll do everything we can to see you don’t get another plumb assignment like this and you can go back to the Philippines and referee four-rounders — and watched it grow. They clearly got the fight officiated on Duran’s terms. So my question: is this ‘anticipatory cheating’ they’re heading off, or are they unscrupulously influencing the official to see things their way and handle the fight in a way that gives their man a better chance to win? Are they immoral or unsportsmanlike in doing this — shouldn’t the officials be left alone before a fight to let them be impartial rather than to try to get them to actually be partial toward their guy? Is this, in fact, ‘cheating’ like the title of the thread? Or mere gamesmanship and trying to get an edge?
Another great challenge! How did you get to be a Saint in such a dirty sport? First what I meant was that it is unjustified folly to excuse any fighter from breaking the rules because you want to get the jump on the other guy who might. Although I agree with others that if you proportionately respond to cheating or what many call rule bending that in any event renders you at a substantial disadvantage when there is no sanction imposed-that is justified. As for your moral conundrum, it depends upon the intention & reasonably expected effect of the "warning". Any implication of that type of demotion punishment is suspect. Unless perhaps the ref truly is so negligent, but it sounds very suspect in the example you gave. However I do not think that they should necessarily be "left alone" to make their own decisions. Each camp has a right to express their concerns. If it is true that one guy (or both) tends to have violations significant in severity, number &/or effect.... Then although it is in the opposition's interest to alert the officials to them, they are in the abstract & for the sports benefit Doing the Right Thing to try & stop it. Again the case of Manilla that would never have been so special without Ali being stopped from initiating endless clinches & head pulls. But if there is "working the ref" that amounts to unfair pressure on an invalid manner, that must be ignored or rejected outright by them.
Maybe I'll do a rewatch, but if the first hip shot comes after Ali's first hold you can by this logic say that Ai overwhelmingly did his holding after Frazier's hip shot. I'm nut sure this reasoning makes much sense.
Ali did not hold right after hip shots, this is clear, one happens right after Frazier gets close. What happens the very first time does not mean anything, it is the pattern & what plausibly can be seen as a reaction to stop something offensive-in both senses! Nice accidental pun at the end! Tell us what you think if you rewatch it!
As forecast, the attempted extrications go on and on. Unable to admit to being wrong and then pushing for an apology that isn’t required or warranted. This is a highly uncommon MO on this board and not the norm. There was/is no ill will on THIS thread - therefore, there is NO reason to even reference same but certain poster(s) is/are constantly prone to introducing the concept - even when it isn’t in play or even plausible at any stretch. This was duly referenced, not dwelled upon. Falsely narrating otherwise simply does not cut it. The lack of self awareness is significant. No, not everyone tries to moralise, and certainly no where near to the degree of certain posters to whom everything is untenable or irrational - merely because it soundly refutes their position. If one chooses to sit atop a rarefied, high moral ground, issuing finite proclamations then their own comments/observations will be duly judged in return, particularly for their self consistency. To baulk at same immediately signals inconsistency. Correction: All that I have written is tenable and is rational. And very much to the point. The only way to prove differently is to actually and properly address the exact points/subject in question. In a number of instances, that simply has not been done. Read: Stick to the subject and point at hand. . Of course it is appropriate to cite sources - as the same certain posters have said and have asked for themselves on other threads - but now, due to bias, not so important. Providing the commentators actual name (easier to provide than actually expecting people to look it up IF the author actually knew the name) and the CONTEXT it was said in and the actions it related to was more than appropriate - again, any attempt to minimise that due protocol is disingenuous. The point, which has been sailed away from is that it referenced holding, in the 11th hour of the fight and that “holding” lasts for but a few seconds just prior to the executed KO. My view of Sheridan’s one and only ISOLATED observation (note absolute failure from the other end to address that the comment was isolated) during the whole fight is not at all a reach, and my view was presented with all the facts and context in place, not a mere comment “getting away with it” pulled entirely out of its context - when you’re wrong you’re wrong. If one doesn’t understand and appreciate “anticipatory” strategy, rejecting it otherwise, then one’s knowledge of boxing is pulling up short. And, it seems the duly quoted comments of both Archie Moore and Joe Frazier have been conveniently over sighted - since their views don’t fit the argument. The questioning of ONLY the motive behind Frazier’s hip shots pulls up short. They were repeated foul shots absolute and fired many a time when Ali wasn’t holding. Period. And, it is actually more than reasonable to conclude it to be a deliberate strategy meant to slow Ali down - which it IN FACT did. Do we KNOW Ali held Foreman as he did primarily to tire him? Apparently he definitely did, according to some who apply uneven treatment to such conclusions. Ali’s holding could’ve been simply intended to negate Foreman’s own attempts to attack and maul in the given moment, as and when. Or, it could’ve also been a preemptive move to show Foreman who was boss when it came down to physicality - Foreman’s tactical forte, well established, prior to. Simples. Now Archie Moore observed that the tactic tired Foreman - but made absolutely no reference to fouling or cheating, rather, Arch described Ali as clever/smart in the overall scheme of things. The original opposing position was two wrongs don’t make a right - retaliation being a “red herring”. Since being illuminated by the other parties (myself included in that grouping) to common sense, now the position has changed to retaliation being “justified”, no longer a “red herring” - enter the green light for Frazier’s hip punches and the false claim that it was mainly only practiced when Ali was holding. As I’ve already said, if Ali’s holding was wrong in FOTC, and Frazier’s hip shots levelled the playing field in kind, thus “exonerating” Joe, then that = all square and therefore it is obviously not appropriate just to single out Ali for holding while ignoring Frazier’s hip shots. Call them both in as wrong or leave them both out. It’s all very simple and concise logic.
Yes I showed how I was misquoted in saying there was upset or ill will, that was completely ignored because impossible to refute, & constantly harping on a mere good wish for peace is profoundly out of whack. Obsessive even. Everyone does say believe certain conduct is wrong, it is absurd to "moralize" about anyone drawing the line a little differently than they do. I see continual unsubstantiated premises that amount to "I was right". Asking for sources is fine. But when you give the fight & what an announcer said that anyone who watches a fight can easily see, it is aberrant to act like not spoon feeding a broadcaster's easily noted name is somehow negligent. I think nobody needed to even ask, but that is distinct from a condemnation for not providing the obvious. That is more than petty; it is ironically "Heavy Moralizing". This is similar to an attack for not agreeing that the comment was singular-nobody sane affirms every obvious statement. The disagreement is that while he commented at the end, clearly he was referencing what was happening throughout the fight. Rejecting anticipatory fouling is basic fair play; not excusing fouls. No greater knowledge of boxing is displayed when this is accepted-usually because the fighter is liked. I much admire Ali & his great fights. Difference is I am not one sided & just defend my idol; nor do I never admit error & impugn knowledge & character if it is a matter of a simple difference of perspective. I saw nothing at all that Moore OR Frazier said that remotely rejects, or even contests, what I established. Something like the minimalist comment about Foreman fighting stupidly has no bearing on who may have been cheating & what the effect is. Nothing whatsoever. I go line by line; assuming that an interlocutor is "conveniently ignoring" something instead of not seeing it relevant-not at all wrong, but not at all debunking any claims...Well assuming avoidance or seeing it when there is no logic behind it... Let us just say that is problematic & peacefully leave it at that. Nobody has shown that Frazier commonly initiated punches low/hips; although I welcomed the evidence. We see Ali clinching & puling down often in the '70's, to an extent that almost nobody else got away with. Given how savvy Ali was, it begs credulity that it was not to both thwart dangerous offense, scoring blows-& possible but unlikely it never occurred to him this would be exhausting. If Frazier meant to do the same with hips shots This content is protected so it would not be another illegal smother-fest like their second fight, that is more than fine/fair. Housekeeping: I never disputed that Ali's tactics were clever-or brilliant in tandem. That begs the question about whether ALL of them were fair. Fact correction: I never once said that Frazier only ever punched low when held & pulled. I say that this was true the vast majority of times. And await with equanimity any different specific evidence-few would argue with this though. Fact correction: "two wrongs don't make a right" was argued in the This content is protected of an absurd justification for premptive fouling. I always said that IF one is getting continual, possibly fight winnin' prohibiting fouls, then proportionate fouling to be able to be competitive was justified. Hey I have NO PROBLEMO condemning equally all who fouled. But one also must look at the frequency & impact of fouls. The seemingly unusual opinion that Frazier did not profer most hip blows in retaliation & to be able to essentially not lose due to illegal tactics---> This is an empirical question that everyone can examine via video. I have no This content is protected -ocracy anywhere: IF Frazier had been often starting throwing low, even if on the hips, & although likely not as impactful & holding to prevent any effective or actual offense... Then yeah, I would condemn HIM if Ali just grabbed not to be disabled by the blows. But this would be an unusual opinion that I see nowhere supported by the film. That is just not the way I see it. Lastly, I dunno why FOTC is being referenced. Likely a simple mistake. Sure Ali did some holding there, but what I referenced, & what was much greater & prevented us from knowing who really deserved to win, was clearly the hug & smother like you are my girlfriend fiasco of Ali-Frazier 2. Which I made doubly clear by repeatedly enumerating how Frazier's team properly complained before the 3rd fight/Manilla, & since Ali was stopped & warned twice early... We got a superb classic, & to see who actually deserved to win. Hopefully the common ground shared & consistency here can be appreciated. Now a separate thread can be established if anyone wants to go frame by frame to see who did how many violations of what severity. But there should be no offense with seeing it differently-especially when one has an outlier opinion. Like I did not mind that a dude told me here Briggs did not win a single round against Foreman. However athough Foreman is loved, nobody among some dozens of scorers on "Eye on the Ring" scored it 120-108. AND I recognized the common ground that we both though Foreman clearly deserved the decision. More extreme was the guy who was telling me that Ali would have virtually no chance against Usyk. Like, about the same chance that anyone reasing this would have against Usyk! Although I favor/would predict an Ali victory... Anyone who argues something that extreme about 2 equally sized, highly accomplished ATGs-on either side-has a huge bias & blind spot. At least the differences about who fouls how much, when/in what circumstance, & to what effect... Are dramatically lesser, reasonable, & no big deal.
Briefly so it is not lost, again I think Foreman made many invalid excuses & Ali fought brilliantly. However the degree & kind of manhandling, what was earlier in the thread also called headlocks, might have have had a decisive, punch disabling & fight deciding impact. Even if without the ring size & conditions agreed to it would not have been that close... We just do not know. But there is no justification for saying what thankfully I hear few saying-debating that at least the referee should have stepped in early with a warning, informal, formal, escalating to a point deduction if it continued. Here is, in part, what someone said early in the thread that another soon thanked him for, & labeled "best post of the thread so far". Ali did indeed cheat by excessively holding onto Foreman's head and pressing downwards on it. He used the same dirty tactics on Frazier in their second fight. While Ali is clearly not the only ATG boxer to have used illegal/dirty tactics, this should not be allowed, but cash cows usually are favored by refs since the business as a whole profits from them being on top. I love Ali, but it is almost indisputable that this dynamic occurred often in his second career. More so as he faded. And it is hard not to say he both got close decisions, & most would say he got at least 2 gift decisions.
Of course it means something. It was a reach from the start that Frazier's hip shots only was retaliation (even though Mercante was tougher om Ali's holding than Perez) and it becomes more so if the hip shots came before any holding.
There is no peaceable departure to be concerned about. The points have been debated and refuted. Simple. Again, an off point comment attempting to infuse one’s OWN feelings (not those of the other party(ies)) into the discussion and control the exchange - notably, ONLY expressed after posting several further paragraphs of their own on the subject. One should try to be more genuine and less projecting. No misquotes. Quoted exactly and in context. No harping either. Straight to the bullseye. One shouldn’t falsely narrate - especially repeatedly so. Trying to extricate oneself from a grossly insufficient quote of “getting away with it” speaks for the inability to acknowledge a very weak and disingenuous argument when that argument is duly identified and deconstructed. Sheridan commented on a mere moment in time - the real reach here is the attempt to retroactively apply that comment to mean the WHOLE fight. - and the term was “holding on”, not pushing down on, the head, fouling, cheating etc. It is utterly nonsensical to hang one’s hat on that single comment and then more nonsensical to try and defend it after it has been stripped down and rendered meaningless. One should not reference “spoon feeding”’when they’ve been errant re a number of simple and well known facts that they’ve had to be corrected on. It’s hardly spoon feeding to actually provide a source for one’s own provided quote - that’s a new excuse for the books. Also, if the commentators name came to mind one would’ve quoted his name. Compare the # of letters in Bob Sheridan vs commentator. Again, this is not at all difficult. So one claims no takeaway or implied rejection of foul tactics and/or cheating when both Moore and Frazier identify Ali as fighting a smart fight, Moore specifically including Ali’s strategy of holding and Frazier (supposedly victimised by the same holding in the FOTC) specifically stating that Zack Clayton was doing an excellent job. That’s a ridiculous denial of relevant facts in its own right. But yet the same one believes the provision of the slender, quoted out of context comment, “getting away with it” cuts tbe mustard as some sort of proof and all conquering observation for the whole fight? So, to float one’s argument, among other things, one must ignore/discard Foreman (due to his not thinking straight?, lol), Sheridan, Moore and Frazier (all thinking straight?) ALL making no reference to or claim of Ali fouling or cheating - well, the bias and cherry picking is patently obvious and clearly makes the argument from the other end untenable. . Also, resorting to the suggestion that APPROPRIATE citing of omission of due details/context is “petty” is blatant deflection - particularly if one prides themselves on being pedantic - or is it petty? Who knows when one is constantly redefining terms to suit themselves and the arguments they’re positing? One should also rest on potential feedback to one’s posts as opposed to leading with “- many or most would think…or few would disagree, etc. .” - One can then see if members actually do or don’t come to the party and agree or disagree with them. Other members appropriately speak for themselves as and when they are inclined - of course. No one speaks for them individually or collectively.
No I mean what happened in only the first single instance of a rule violation-of course the pattern of who does what when & how much matters. Again I say the hip shots were mostly, likely overwhelmingly, in retaliation. And after being held & pulled down. If this can be shown to be false I am open, but that is what it looks like to me.
It seems there is a solo trip in an alternate or virtual reality, where despite me bending over backwards to be honest, give credit where due, not pathologize-or respond in un-kind, o nothing that can be interpreted as provocative-there is a lone fuselage of negative assumptions about even my motives-projecting, disingenuous, maybe petty, an ironically unnecessary reminder not to misquote, a sad direction not to be "harping"-as hapless & ineffectual as trying to critique or control mere positive sentiment that nobody gets upset or wiggy... Apparently too late. I see the same automatic pilot language & cookie-cutter assumptions & response. A crazy, repeated complaint that I do not name a commentator when referencing it & it is indisputable & everyone can hear it. Honest confusion at least that when folks say a tactic is smart, that does not speak to whether it is legal or justified. Even a bizarre directive not to say what most people may think-as if that stop others from expressing their opinion. The most that can be reasonably conceded is that the holding-it is implausible to believe only referencing a single instance-did not refer to other related physicalities or mauling, mainly pushing down on the head with all his weight... Sure, but we do not need it called out to condemn it or say it is not right that any combatant gets away such unilateral, & impacful violations of the rules. All wrapped up in an insular amen chorus of one basically saying "yeah, I am right". I tried, hard. Appreciative statements, offering olive branches, restrained in not pointing out more feverish, stereotyping, ego, & it becomes more & more clear, a puzzling & entirely impotent need to control the minutia of harmless statements. Ah well, my motives were pure. That's it; nobody is reading things anyway, & if there is reflexive, utterly inapplicable aggresion in the form of lamentable pathologizing as if a different opinion & acting with equanimity deserves mistreatment that only the author cannot see... Then there will be not only none who agree with such extreme tear-downs, but zero readers for it going forward. Now precisely obody will see the wildly implausible, overweening critiques & self justifications.