Tuesday, March 25, 2025

Thoughts on Big George

I came to boxing in the late '80s and early '90s. At that point George Foreman was the commentator for HBO Boxing, along with Jim Lampley and Larry Merchant. I was aware that George Foreman was a former heavyweight champion and also that he was staging a professional boxing comeback after a long absence. He was fighting often, but usually against no-hopers. His comeback was often dismissed as a novelty act or a vanity project.  

My first real exposure to Foreman was him wearing a tuxedo, calling fights and always having an ear-to-ear grin on his face. Foreman and Merchant had an entertaining double act in those days. Practically every broadcast Merchant would react incredulously toward some statement that Foreman would make. While we all were watching the fights in the ring, the sparring between the broadcasters provided extra entertainment. Maybe Merchant regarded much of what Foreman said as gibberish, believing that Big George was just another member of the jockocracy who didn't have anything to offer other than his own biography. Maybe he believed that Foreman was underprepared for the action in the ring. Or maybe Merchant was just predisposed toward argument. It was Foreman's wide-eyed optimism vs. Merchant's inherent cynicism. It made for great television. 

And many of Foreman's comments were dismissible. It often seemed as if he was watching a different fight than the rest of us. But every now and then he would offer a truly fascinating pearl of wisdom. 

Image courtesy of Top Rank

What I specifically learned from Foreman was "lean" and "mean." In a fight between big men, or a brutal bout that extended into the late rounds, if Foreman ever saw a fighter leaning on the other, he almost always would note how taxing that leaning was on the other fighter, how it could deplete the opponent. Foreman had been a master at using his physicality in the ring and I'm sure that he understood both sides of the "lean." It was a tactic that was often missed by other ring commentators; they dismissed it as clinching or getting a break, but George saw it differently. It was another way for a fighter to win, one that was often missed in the ensuing fight report the next day. Ultimately, it was a vital piece of information about how fights can be actually won or lost. 

I can still hear Foreman's voice in my head when a fighter is underperforming or unwilling to mix it up. "He has to get mean," Foreman would say. To Foreman, much about boxing was a temperament issue. It's not that he wasn't interested in X's and O's, but he understood that the intangibles, specifically a fighter needing to do whatever it took to win, was paramount at the upper reaches of the sport. Spite was needed. It was the hurt business after all.

He loved to look at a fighter's eyes and interject whether he thought that the boxer had what it took on a psychological level to win. Was the will to win present? Was the moment too big for the fighter? He was always keyed in on a fighter's body language and temperament, and left the describing of the fight action to others. 

***

In the usual descriptions of George Foreman's stunning knockout win over Michael Moorer, where he became heavyweight champion for a second time, 20 years after his initial reign, Foreman's age was the main focus. Heavyweights weren't supposed to be world champions in their mid-40s. And in truth, that was quite a story!

But to me, the overall unlikeliness of that event, the absurdity of it, had to do with the final combination of the fight. Foreman flashed a jab and then threw what looked like an arm punch with his right hand. And then Moorer splattered on the canvas. It looked like a nothing punch. It wasn't an epic sequence that led to the victory; no, it was a basic combination, and one that looked like it had very little mustard on it. 

However, that final sequence demonstrated once again that Foreman had unusual power. He didn't have great hand speed or torque with his punches; he just had sledgehammers in his hands. Throughout his career, wins or losses, Foreman's power played differently. He had unusual results: blasting out the destructive force of Joe Frazier like it was taking a little kid's lunch money; nuking Ken Norton; and forcing the great Muhammad Ali, the man who flew like a butterfly, to languish on the ropes out of desperation. 

***

To me, the first sign that Foreman's comeback was a serious proposition was his fight against Holyfield in 1991. Holyfield had just beaten Buster Douglas to become the heavyweight king and the Foreman fight was viewed as a way to make a big money fight with little risk. Few gave Foreman a serious chance in the fight.

However, Foreman blew up that narrative quickly and the first two-thirds of that fight was one of the best heavyweight wars of the 1990's. Holyfield had faced many punchers in his time at cruiserweight and heavyweight, yet he seemed, like others before him, unprepared for Foreman's level of power. Here was a supreme athlete with all of the tools, yet he had to spend significant portions of the fight in recuperation or even survival mode. Foreman didn't have Holyfield's speed, legs, coordination, or conditioning, but he blasted Holyfield in the pocket at numerous times throughout the fight. 

Holyfield would eventually win the bout. He essentially outhustled Foreman and had much more to give in the final third of the fight. But it was more than just an uncomfortable night at the office for him. That night reminded the boxing world that Foreman was still a threat and demonstrated that Holyfield had real vulnerabilities when trading. Holyfield would have another rough fight next against hard-hitting journeyman Bert Cooper and would go on to lose in 1992 against Riddick Bowe. After Foreman, the inevitability of Evander Holyfield was now more uncertain. 

***

Foreman's first fight against Joe Frazier was just as absurd or unbelievable as the Moorer bout. Frazier was the baddest man in boxing, the guy who decisively beat Ali. And yet against Foreman, Frazier could barely stay on his feet. Time after time, Foreman would pop Frazier with a big right hand as Smokin' Joe would try to close the distance. And Frazier reacted like he was on roller skates. Quickly his legs were gone. Frazier kept getting up and Foreman kept knocking him down. Six times in two rounds. It was as if Foreman was playing a different sport. 

***

I interviewed Cus D'Amato's biographer, Dr. Scott Weiss, many years ago. One fascinating nugget that emerged during the interview was that D'Amato was petrified about Foreman's style as it related to his young charge, Mike Tyson. Now keep in mind, Foreman was still in his first retirement during those years, but there were rumblings that he was about to return to the sport. 

D'Amato studied fight films with a zealotry that few possessed. He knew the strengths and weakness of every fighter, of every style. And as much as he loved the bob-and-weave for Tyson, he understood that there was a Kryptonite to the style, a heavy puncher who could come underneath with either hand as Tyson was trying to get in close. Foreman was so skilled in the pocket, so devastating with short punches from either hand, that D'Amato advised his team to avoid Foreman if at all possible. For as much as D'Amato was about the art of overcoming fear, even by unconventional means like hypnosis, he was still spooked by a retired Foreman. 

***

The Rumble in the Jungle occurred before I was born. And when I initially watched the fight, I had already known the outcome. But even with that knowledge, it was still a stunning result. Foreman spent round after round wailing away at Ali, who was stuck on the ropes. And these were not the short, thudding punches that I mentioned earlier. This was Foreman unloading with everything he possessed, physically and psychologically. He was determined to end Ali that night. But if we're being honest, there was also an element of fear in Foreman's performance, like if he stopped or took a rest, that bad things were going to happen. 

The Rope-a-Dope is perhaps the most famous strategic gambit in the history of professional boxing. Perhaps it could only be achieved on that scale once. No one could conceive of a fighter taking that much punishment from Foreman and simply trying to outlast him. What fighter would even do that to himself? This was Ali junking a game plan and deciding to go mano-a-mano, not with technique or power, but with sheer will. Ali figured out early that he could not win a regular fight against Foreman. He was outgunned. But he thought that he was mentally stronger, and on that night he was. 

***

The Foreman fight against Jimmy Young in 1977 was the one that made him go into retirement for the first time. And it's a tough watch. Foreman isn't even 30 yet in the fight, but he looked so listless during large portions of the match, like he had completely run out of ideas. 

Young came into the fight with an unimpressive record (20-5-2) but don't let that fool you. Many thought that Young had beaten Ali the prior year. He had also authored a convincing win over Ron Lyle, whereas Foreman had previously gone life-and-death with Lyle. 

Young was a slippery defensive fighter from Philadelphia and if I said earlier that Foreman looked like he was playing a different sport than others, so was Young. Young was a non-puncher, but more than that, he was unconcerned with power. He was an angles fighter who would often stick his body or head between the ropes to get an unconventional line of attack on an opponent. He could glide around the ring, but he was also incredibly awkward. He was an expert at using his forearms and elbows to maneuver an opponent into a hitting position or to escape damage. Perhaps the closest the heavyweight division has seen to Young in the last 40 years has been Chris Byrd, but Byrd was far more conventional. 

Foreman against Young was an example of a guy trying to kill a bee with an ax. The axman would swing at air and then the bee would come back around to sting the big, bad aggressor. The process continued on an inescapable loop. Foreman could not handle that type of fight. He looked so far removed from the killer of the '70s. He seemed dispirited in the ring. 

But his spirit would soon return. He maintains that immediately after the Young fight was where Jesus called to him. He would leave the sport, become a preacher. His life forever changed.   

***

For a final absurd Foreman bout, check out the five-round slugfest against Ron Lyle from 1976, which was one of the decade's best fights. This was Foreman's first fight after Ali and it was clear to me that he wasn't quite all the way back to his best. Lyle was a tough dude, a good puncher and someone who was rough on the inside, and Foreman's legs just didn't look right to me. 

The two went to war and it's still amazing to see how badly hurt Foreman is in the fight and yet somehow pulls off an almost miraculous reversal of fortune to get the knockout win. Throughout all of Foreman's career, I believe that he had never been as busted up as he was here, even against Ali. 

And if one of Foreman's weaknesses during the first phase of his career was a questionable psychological will, here is the counter to that narrative. Foreman was completely battered in the fight, sprawling on the canvas, a second or two from the fight being stopped. But he finds a way. He summons the courage. I have no idea how he pulled out that win. In a career full of remarkable feats, his victory over Lyle was his most impressive to me. Not because it was a dominant showing or a clean victory, but it was an example of Foreman being more than a bully or a gifted puncher. No, here he stared at the abyss, but he wasn't going to let it take him that day. He would prevail. 

***

Throughout Foreman's second career as an active fighter and in his later years, he was one of the best interviews in the sport. Humble almost to a fault, he was exceedingly gracious regarding those whom he had shared the ring with, even the fighters who had beaten him. He hilariously referred to himself as the "Dope" when recounting the Rumble in the Jungle. 

Foreman wasn't burdened by the negative aspects of pride. He seemed comfortable with his life. He knew that he had made a mark and didn't feel the need to remind others of his accomplishments. That he believed life was a blessing, and that he had become a blessed man, was evident in his words and deeds. 

Most refreshingly, Foreman, unlike many past greats, always had time for a kind word for the top fighters who came after him. He often would praise fighters like Manny Pacquiao or Tyson Fury. He didn't believe that the best of boxing ended with his retirement and those of his contemporaries. He understood that the sport evolved, that athletes changed, and that greatness could be defined in any era. 

His passing on Friday marked the end of a sunnier time of boxing for many. When Foreman was king, the world cared about boxing in a much more profound way than it does today. I'm sure that Foreman's death to many represented even more than the passing of a man, but with it, another reminder of a past that most likely will never return.

But Foreman's later years were not marked by bitterness toward the sport. He understood that greatness was still within it. He knew that boxing gave him a life and a platform to do well and to do good. It's a sport that provides opportunities for the downtrodden, the deadenders, like Foreman himself claimed that he once was. It can be a sport of uplift, of grace and of transformation. Those characteristics remain. There is still good in boxing. Foreman saw that. And perhaps we should remind ourselves of that too. For all of boxing's myriad problems, which we all can recite without notes or preparation, the good that it contains should never be forgotten. That's what Big George understood.  

Adam Abramowitz is the founder and head writer of saturdaynightboxing.com
He's a contributing writer for Ring Magazine, a member of the Ring Magazine Ratings Panel, the Transnational Boxing Rankings Board, and the Boxing Writers Association of America.
snboxing on twitter. SN Boxing on Facebook  

Sunday, March 2, 2025

Steve Willis Must Be Fired

During the ninth round of Saturday's Gervonta "Tank" Davis-Lamont Roach fight, Roach threw a relatively harmless double jab combination with 2:18 left in the round. Immediately after the last jab, Tank, on his own volition, took a knee. Then he got up, turned his back to the action, and went to his corner so that his team could wipe some grease from his eye.  

At the beginning of this unusual sequence, referee Steve Willis started to administer a count, which is the correct course of action when a fighter takes a knee, and then he suddenly stopped. After Davis returned from his corner, Willis engaged Davis in some bizarre banter, saying that the sequence could have been ruled as a knockdown. But no further action was taken. 

Ref Steve Willis (blue) in a less controversial moment
Photo courtesy of Esther Lin/Premier Boxing Champions 

Now there were three distinct points of the sequence where Willis could have or should have penalized Tank:

  1. The voluntary knee is an obvious point where a ten-count should have been administered.
  2. Tank turning his back to the action also should have led to a ten-count or even grounds for a disqualification. 
  3. When a fighter's cornerman or third-party representative comes onto the ring apron without the permission of the referee, that fighter could be disqualified. This happened when Tank's corner wiped off the grease without permission from Willis. 
That Willis chose to do none of these things is the highest dereliction of his duties. For fuller context, it must be understood that Davis was the overwhelming favorite coming into the fight and the one with considerable marketing muscle and public affection behind him. The 18,000+ fans in Barclays Center where there to see Tank. 

There is no way of sugar-coating it; by action and deed Willis gave preferential treatment to one fighter over another by failing to administer the rules. Again, Willis started the ten-count. His professionalism immediately kicked in. He knew what he was supposed to do. And then something else happened entirely. 

The egregious nature of Willis' conduct cannot be marginalized or explained away. This wasn't a borderline low blow or a determination of whether a cut was caused by a head butt or a punch. This was far more obvious. Tank's conduct was staring him in the face. And at that point Willis refused to follow the rules of the sport. 

The tragic nature of Willis' behavior was that the fight was declared a draw. Should Willis had rightly counted the knockdown (to say nothing of a potential disqualification), then the underdog Roach would have had the biggest win of his career, a life-changing opportunity for him. Instead, Tank was able to escape with his lightweight belt.  

Roach may never have an opportunity like that again. On this one night, he should have been the deserved winner over one of the best fighters in the sport. Boxing is not about who is supposed to win; it's about what happens on fight night. Roach should have left with the glory. 

Willis had been a solid ref for many years, but this is not the first time he's had a serious shortcoming. Earlier in the year, he reffed a dreadful fight between heavyweights Brandon Moore and Skylar Lacy, where Willis was reluctant to disqualify Lacy, even after the fighter had demonstrated no interest in actually fighting. Lacy spent most of the fight wrestling. Only when Lacy finally tackled Moore out of the ring, where both fighters could have seriously been hurt, did Willis disqualify Lacy. And even in that moment, Willis exhibited inexplicable conduct. He started his count of 20 (which is what happens when a fighter is knocked out of the ring) and then just stopped mid-count to disqualify Lacy. Willis' arbitrariness and indecisiveness during the fight was plain to see. 

We've seen refs fall off the cliff before. Tony Weeks was one of the best in the business until he began to stop fights inexplicably early. Kenny Bayless suddenly decided to stop letting boxers fight on the inside. Their ability to correctly apply the rules of the sport left them quickly. With Willis, who's been a pro boxing ref for over 20 years, it appears that he has met a similar fate; he can no longer be trusted to administer the sport's rules in real time. 

But as the New York State Athletic Commission considers action on Willis, they might want to think about investigating themselves as well. During the 10th round of the fight, the Prime broadcasters relayed that the NYSAC reviewed the actions of the previous round utilizing their instant replay mechanism, and decided to take no further action. In essence, they, like Willis, refused to arrive at the correct decision, even if the right call was one that was so obvious to make. 

The worst thing for boxing is for people to question the legitimacy of the sporting contest. It's far more dangerous to the future health of the sport than any other factor. If there are no rules, if there is no order, then boxing no longer becomes a credible enterprise. 

The NYSAC cannot allow so blatant a transgression to go unpunished. Willis can't be allowed to continue; he can't come back from this. His conduct was that detrimental to the sport. What happened on Saturday was toxic. It hurt the sport globally. The NYSAC didn't cover themselves in glory either. They should hold their own inquest after their first order of business is taken care of: that Steve Willis can't work for them ever again. 

Adam Abramowitz is the founder and head writer of saturdaynightboxing.com
He's a contributing writer for Ring Magazine, a member of the Ring Magazine Ratings Panel, the Transnational Boxing Rankings Board, and the Boxing Writers Association of America.
snboxing on twitter. SN Boxing on Facebook