Why was Foreman allowed to constantly push his opponent?

Certain things — rabbit punches, low blows, head butts, holding and hitting — are enumerated. But even there, it’s up to the ref’s judgment whether it’s deliberate or not and whether it’s egregious or not. I’ve seen people have canniption fits over Ray Leonard landing a paddy-cake, nothing-on-it punch that hit Hagler’s thigh but did no harm like they want a DQ over it. That’s nonsense. Then the drool over Round 9 of Ward-Gatti where both of them are about half a foot low with dozens of shots.

There’s not a sport where someone doesn’t get away with bending the rules for an advantage. Football linemen hold. Soccer and basketball players grab jerseys. Baseball catchers frame balls to look like strikes (and pitchers use everything short of gorilla glue to enhance their grip and ball spin). Someone once said, ‘if you aren’t cheating, you aren’t trying.’

I just don’t get why those who want refs stepping in with warnings every 3 seconds and quick DQs don’t embrace amateur boxing more. That’s what you get there. And it’s boring as hell. Yes, referees need to keep the cars between the lines, so to speak, but they don’t need to be traffic cops. Nobody comes to a fight to see the ref.

 

Here’s a list of infractions from New York’s codified rules. The only mention of a stiff arm is ‘pushing a stiff arm underneath an opponent’s arm’ — this will shock some people, but this rule describes exactly what Alexander Povetkin was doing against Wlad Klitschko … he would maneuver close enough to attack (inside Wlad’s reach) but instead of throwing it the body or hooking to the head, he would thrust both arms forward under Wlad’s … you can see after Wlad is warmed for holding a few times he literally at least a couple of times throws both of his hands straight up in the air (like ‘reach for the sky’) to show it’s Povetkin initiating the clinches. Under these rules, Povetkin is the offender.

https://govt.westlaw.com/nycrr/Docu...ype=CategoryPageItem&contextData=(sc.Default)

The ‘pushing a stiff arm’ under the opponent’s arm is also the only mention of pushing in this set of rules. So by NY rules, at least, what he did with Joe isn’t listed as an infraction.

Here’s Hawaii’s rules, which are similar but do have a few differences — yet in this the only stiff arm tactic addressed is also the thrusting of a stiff arm underneath an opponent’s arm, and, again, no rule against pushing (as in shoving a la Foreman).

https://casetext.com/regulation/haw...fouls-amateur-shows/section-16-74-449-penalty

 

Wow!! Saintpat, that is an intense story, my goodness gracious!

 

Holding is not an infraction. Holding and hitting is.

 

The reason I say that is because I remember Holmes being warned for it. The commentator said that it was because he was using his extended left arm and glove to hold the opponent's head up and in the path of a right hand

 

No slight on you - but that old axiom - “If you ain’t cheat’n’….etc.” is often quoted AS IF it’s making a sound point - but it actually doesn’t hold any water.

It was likely coined by someone in an attempt to excuse their own cheating or cheating performed under their instruction.

I guess if the originator of the quote is happy to acknowledge that cheating (as they themselves labelled it) was involved, they shouldn’t baulk at being called a cheat(er).

Conversely, someone who didn’t actually cheat, shouldn’t be smeared in compensation by the false belief that they weren’t try’n’ their best.

 

It’s simply a way of saying ‘everybody is looking for an edge.’

(Not specific to you, but …) When your guy wins, he’s just taking advantage of what the referee allows. When your guys loses, the other guy was a cheating scumback.

Mike Tyson tried to break arms and did bite off an ear, and his fans just blissfully smile and say ‘wow, what a savage fighter intent on destruction’ and then tell you Holyfield was stabbing him with a switchblade in the clinches and spitting poison in his eyes.

It’s not cheating if the officials allow you to get away with it. And if you’re willing to take the penalty — one warning, maybe another then either back off or press it a bit more and take the point deduction.

I’ve never seen any fighter (nor probably any athlete) who didn’t press and probe to find an advantage in the gray areas or stray afoul of the rules from time to time. It doesn’t make them awful, dirty, thieving, cheating lowlifes … it makes them competitors.

 

The only times I remember seeing that, the ref told him to close his glove. Measuring isn’t a foul. With an open glove it can be considered a form of holding.

 

Chris Byrd used to use the open glove to jab his opponents face

 

Yes there are rules and parameters, but there’s more than a little iron in saying ‘I want a good, clean fight with absolutely no one straying an iota outside of the strictest interpretation of the rulebook.’

 

It still can be deemed cheating even if you’re not officially caught out.

I don’t know that anyone who calls Evander out for his infractions are necessarily the same people giving a pass to Tyson for his.

I think Tyson’s infractions have been reasonably identified and acknowledged - at least I have anyway - but whenever it comes to Evander’s turn to be duly assessed on his own - it strangely loops back to Tyson - a detour in conversation which can actually be interpreted as trying to give a pass to Evander, not Mike.

Another problem with the acceptance of so called cheating - once it enters the realms of a rule breach - everyone has their own idea as to how far the boundaries can be pushed or transcended - leading to highly subjective and extreme variances in opinion.

Discretionary powers can be applicable in nuanced circumstances to a degree - but where possible, those discretionary powers should be reduced/kept to an absolute minimum if not eliminated altogether - instead deferring to a no nonsense, written in black and white, uniformly interpreted ruling -

Let’s say I push my opponent and, for that, he head butts me.

Does one say, all good, tit for tat - or, would we then enter into a discussion as to which rule breach was worse?

I think the latter discussion would ensue - because we all, subjectively, mentally interpret and weight the severity of the rule breach and the deemed degree of cheating involved.

But, once you bust the rules - one could also say it’s ALL cheating - no shades.

As an extreme example, one might argue that illegal wraps or illegally modified gloves are indicative of really “try’n’” for a winning edge.

Of course, that would be crazy to condone - or should I say that I at least think it would be.

I say “I think” because once people become overly flexible and accepting of cheating tactics - who’s there to draw the lines?

Any drawing of lines will be highly subjective and arbitrary.

Good discussion and there are a number of points I agree with.

This might sound a like a cop out, applying special conditions to boxing - but one saying I do like is that, which more or less is: -

Boxing isn’t so much a sport as it is a reflection/simulation of real life, all it’s struggles and the acute tapping of one’s basic instincts to do whatever is necessary to survive and prevail.

I can’t recall the exact quote but that’s my interpretation in my own words whilst trying to remain faithful to the intended meaning.

 

Not all infractions are made equal. I have zero problem with any grappling or wrestling in boxing. Ditto with sneaky eye pokes and headbutts.

Nut punches and rabbit punches are where I draw the line. One's just pretty pathetic, and the other is essentially attempted murder, which is saying something considering it's a boxing match.

 

All I'll say is he's the last person you want behind you if you're sitting on the swing......