Why was Foreman allowed to constantly push his opponent?

If we're talking Holmes (and Hearns for that matter), it's like stiff arming was completely legal when they entered the ring. They both did it constantly, blatantly, right in front of the refs, and the refs never did anything. Or how about Holmes shoving his forearm against opponent's faces to push past them? Mayweather did the same thing, only more often, and he was better at it.

Combat sports are all a bit dirty. Just the nature of it.

 

I've said it before and I will say it again:

Any combat sport is a counterintuitive social affair where we celebrate behaviours that the Western school system teaches young boys are detestable, a physical and excessively violent expression of "toxic masculinity". Despite this, we champion those that are capable of inflicting irreparable violence on each other. It takes a certain kind of man to see the eyes of another fighter gloss over in front of him and still keep on weighing in shots to the head of the man who is out on their feet and unable to defend himself, because the ref hasn't noticed the eyes and stepped in to rescue the victim. (All respect to Chris Eubank snr telling Junior to take him out to the body as opposed to continued headshots).

Knowing all this, we expect civility and gentleman conduct in a sport that some learned scholars would argue belongs to the amphitheatres of Rome and not the enlightened societies that we deem ourselves to be? There's a reason why I don't judge/overly dislike fighters by what they do outside of the ring as I certainly don't expect sainthood from men who make a living from violence.

Yes there's rules but this is organised violence and whilst sweet and scientific, it is organised violence. Louis and Patterson are rare - I wouldn't look favourably on my favourite fighter if he didn't take as many advantages as he possibly could. In fact, it's something that needs to be considered when we discuss mythical H2H - not only how do the styles and skills match up, what about the intangibles and the referee?

 

Pretty rare for an elite fighter to not have his share of illegal tactics he gets away with. It’s the exception rather than the norm.

There are certain fouls I think should be enforced more though. Rabbit punches due to the dangers, and hitting guys who are down. It happens so often, and usually the fouling fighter gets a warning (at most). Unless the guy on the ground is hurt, or acts like it.

 

In my opinion, that is a bully street fighting tactic that is learned from childhood for some of us. That tactic is used to knock an opponent off balance in order to capitalize on him. George Foreman in his peak years from 1973-1977 used that tactic against Joe Frazier and Ken Norton in his victories. Another champion that comes to mind was Carlos Monzon, he used to push off his opponents in order to knock them off balance to keep them at bay, then being able to land his counter right hand, also most taller fighters tend to use this to gain an advantage.

 

Against Jimmy Young, referee Waldemar Schmidt did deduct round three from George for shoving, causing him to lose a unanimous decision which sent him into retirement for a decade, so no, he did NOT always get away with it, as he lost his second career defeat. Jimmy was smart and made a big deal out of that tactic going in. It worked for him.

So no, Foreman was NOT always allowed to use this tactic. Frazier also tried to make a big deal out of it before their rematch, but Jimmy made an issue of it during their bout, and got a round out of it.

 

Don't forget that knockdown by Jimmy Young in round 12 had something to do with George Foreman losing that unanimous 12 round decision on March 17 1977, not that corny excuse about the climate, he had ample time to get used to the humidity just like Young did, poor George was just full of excuses. That fight won me a crisp $10.00 Bill.

 

Right. George ignored Gil Clancy telling him to get acclimated for three weeks beforehand. Later, Michael Dokes made the SAME mistake for Ocasio I, a bout Dokes would have lost but for Don King being his guy. For their rematch, Dokes was there for the requisite three weeks and it was indoors in air conditioning. Dokes never made that mistake again, and it saved him a draw with Weaver in their outdoor rematch in Las Vegas.

 

It is kind of like when I was in Cross Country in High school, we got acclimated to the opposing teams course especially if we were the visitors that week. I remember during the Foreman vs Young bout that in round 8, Young was staggered and resorted to sort of a Rope a Dope, Foreman tried to pull him away, Jimmy recovered and went on to win the fight. Remember in the Ali vs Foreman fight, Ali got acclimated, George got cut in sparring and did not train.

 

Talk about getting acclimated! Imagine what Ali would've done to George after Manila following his epic 1975 campaign! (I never bought Cosell and his long after the fact dramatic narrative that Muhammad was somehow shot after Manila. He was just fine for Dunn. Shavers is the one who wrecked him with irreversible brain damage. But in early to mid 1975, Muhammad being still in great competition condition, George would've NEVER ever come back from that beating!]

 

Some fighters don't want to look like "whiners" and think it's less manly to say something to the ref. That's to their own detriment. Certain things are considered fouls not just because they're unfair, they're dangerous. A poorly timed shove can lead to a guy tripping and banging his head on the canvas or corner. A rabbit punch can cause serious damage and so on. A fighter should think less like a macho caveman and more like an athlete who wants to win and also preserve his health. Young understood this and made the ref do his job to get an advantage on the scorecard.

 

If something is illegal, and it happens in a fight more than once IMO - it's always the referee's fault. Either the referee did not see what happened; which means he is a bad judge. Or worse, he saw what happened but allowed it to happen. In other words, the referee allowed the boxer's behavior outside the rules.
Well, now I'm not sure about the rules about pushing. It is certain that pushing is allowed to some extent, but not to such an extent, that e.g. the opponent falls.

 

Man that one is blatant. You can see Fury look at the ref like "gonna do something about that?" Ref doesn't do ****, so Fury just shakes it off.

 

As it were, the referee allowed headbutt. And that's why I say - it's always the referee's fault.

 

Pretty much. When it's a flagrant foul anyone can notice in a replay and the ref is looking right at both fighters, it's 100% the ref's fault. He gets 1 pass if he "missed something" but if a fighter fouls 3-4x in a row then the ref is either incompetent or corrupt, period. A fighter is only breaking the rules when the ref tells him he is.

That's why we need to have better regulation and consequences for incompetent/corrupt refs. They should have an infraction system where people review footage and grill refs for just ignoring/missing obvious stuff like the Wladmir headbutt. Once you get too many infractions, you're out. Threaten them where it hurts: their wallet. Only issue is Wladmir was the A side and a long time champion with over a dozen defenses so the boxing papers that be likely didn't care either and weren't thrilled about the title changing hands to Fury. They usually always show favoritism in that regard willing to overlook repeat offenses.

 

Why should we question the ref?? All were legal because the ref said so. Like when Cockell was down and Marciano gave him a head shot?? Legal hit.