Ring Generalship = Retarded

Ring generalship is another way of saying 'who's winning the fight?'. how else are you supposed to 'control the fight' if youre not even winning? that doesnt even make sense. ...and if you already chose whos winning the rounds, you dont really need to give points to them, do you? pretty pointless... when it gets down to it, all scoring really is is determining whos doing more damage per round. defense counts too, but mostly because youre taking points away from the other guy, cause they cant do damage to you. which is practically the same thing as getting points yourself. 'effective aggression' is pretty much another way of saying 'whos doing the most damage'. aggression is attacking, right? if youre effectively attacking, then youre landing punches and doing damage. same thing. the cleaner punches part is where it gets hard. not only do you have to figure out which punches are landing the cleanest, but you have to also take into consideration the number of punches too...but at the end of the day, the only reason youre considering those things is to find out whos doing the most damage to their opponent. thats all boxing scoring is really about.(or should be about....)

Seriously... it honestly does seem like ring generalship is the thing that people point to as a positive when everything else is going wrong for their fighter. Whitaker-Chavez round 12: Whitaker running away (literally), he got their heads caught in the ropes wasting about 10 seconds, and Bobby Czyz praises him for his beautiful "ring generalship". I guarantee you, Chavez was kicking Meldrick Taylor's ass for ring generalship for all 12 rounds of their first fight... I mean, fuck, Taylor was fighting toe-to-toe, which is supposed to be Chavez's territory. What does that mean though? It means that Chavez was getting his ass kicked at his own game. When Roy Jones purposely laid on the ropes for counter opportunities as he did when he was a badass, his opponent clearly gets ring generalship points for rolling his opponent on the ropes, but for what? Jones was about to KO him in most cases. Does anyone think this nebulous term is stupid and actually has no meaning? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UuCud9rfYCU

The way I learned to score fights was that criteria was used only when there was nothing else to seperate the winner of a round from the loser. To use it as the main criteria for scoring is absolutely wrong. The top priority is always effective punching. And you do have a point that the term "ring generalship" is somewhat vague. That is not true. If clean punching was the main criteria, Ali would not have won rounds against Foreman. Margarito would not get rounds against anyone, and scorecards would be fucked up like the amateurs. If a fighter is in control, drops his hands and lets the other guy unload on him to show he can take his best shots, who do you give credit too? The guy that just landed the clean punches, or that guy CHOSE to chance the flow of the fight by allowing his opponent to hit him as a show of bravado? I say you give credit to the guy in charge. Now if the guy in charge gets hurt, you give credit for the punching.

I'm not denying prejudice about what a fighter normally does can influence the judging, I'm just saying it shouldn't. Every fight is different. You can't justifiably judge a fighter on what you perceive to be his "style." I put that in quotes because the style categories are superficial anyway. To whatever extent you still consider a fighter in terms of a category, you haven't begun to analyze, understand his real individual style and tendencies. I know I wrote this shit, but why is it "Chairman L-mao?" I don't remember using that account

Seriously... it honestly does seem like ring generalship is the thing that people point to as a positive when everything else is going wrong for their fighter. Whitaker-Chavez round 12: Whitaker running away (literally), he got their heads caught in the ropes wasting about 10 seconds, and Bobby Czyz praises him for his beautiful "ring generalship". I guarantee you, Chavez was kicking Meldrick Taylor's ass for ring generalship for all 12 rounds of their first fight... I mean, fuck, Taylor was fighting toe-to-toe, which is supposed to be Chavez's territory. What does that mean though? It means that Chavez was getting his ass kicked at his own game. When Roy Jones purposely laid on the ropes for counter opportunities as he did when he was a badass, his opponent clearly gets ring generalship points for rolling his opponent on the ropes, but for what? Jones was about to KO him in most cases. Does anyone think this nebulous term is stupid and actually has no meaning? Your concept of ring generalship is severely skewed. The term describes the act of controlling the action inside the ring. Roy laying on the ropes countering is ring generalship as he is in control of the action and can move off the ropes at his leisure. Ring generalship is basically who is in control of the pace of the fight. It has nothing to do with actually controlling physical space within the ring. Meldrick Taylor was also winning on ring generalship as he was choosing when to trade. Granted, perhaps his strategy wasn't the best, it was what he wanted to happen. The term has to do with how a general controls the action on a battle field. Think of it as the fighter that is controlling the action in the ring. They might be the more active fighter, they might not be the more active fighter. They might be coming forward, they might be going backwards. It has nothing to do with actually controlling ring space.

Ring generalship is still retarded. It should only come into play if everything else is equal. If the other guy is landing more cleaner, harder blows, I don't care what you do, you should lose the round.

Ring generalship is still retarded.

Ring Generalship is rewards whoever is controlling the pace of the fight. You may definitely control the pace of a round and still lose the round without question. Hence the 3 other criteria. You cannot look at each of the four judging criterias seperately, but all of them conjointly. They all support and are essentially related to eachother. Clean Effective Punching directly affects Defense, Ring Generalship directly affects Effective Aggression, etc, etc. If each criteria were to be look at seperately, there would be a judging system similar to what they use in figure skating. Where each criteria gets a seperate score, and then they're all added up. Very good post... This is why I hate hearing that X fighter is winning this fight on ring generalship... because that honestly sounds like they are winning the fight because they are going through the motions of what they are supposed to be doing, when in reality, it doesn't matter worth a damn if the fighter doesn't capitalize on that.

Harold Lederman would beg to differ....... Like when he scored Hatton's first round against Mayweather 10-9 Yeah, I thought that round was pretty clearly Mayweather's, but whatever... I think everyone got a lot more caught up in Mayweather falling back when he got his shoe stepped on, but that's just me. Ring generalship is when you put yourself in the position to defend and attack well. Yeah, but who cares if you don't do anything about it? When you put yourself in a great position to fuck your opponent up and don't, did it do anything positive for you? Not really. I like the answer that it is merely a part of everything else... I agree with that. I think that the 4 categories all overlap like a beast, to the point that there is really no way they can separate and effective.

Ring Generalship is rewards whoever is controlling the pace of the fight. You may definitely control the pace of a round and still lose the round without question. Hence the 3 other criteria. You cannot look at each of the four judging criterias seperately, but all of them conjointly. They all support and are essentially related to eachother. Clean Effective Punching directly affects Defense, Ring Generalship directly affects Effective Aggression, etc, etc. If each criteria were to be look at seperately, there would be a judging system similar to what they use in figure skating. Where each criteria gets a seperate score, and then they're all added up.

I personally only take ring generalship into account if i cant decide who won a round based on scoring punches, aggresiveness, pressure, defence. Actually, id say for me ring generalship is a combination of the above. Not some seperate thing.

Jermain Taylor as has that type of style that always leads u to believe he is Controlling the pace of the fight etc cause he uses the jab very well from the centre fo the ring IE Hopkins 1+2 ,except for the Pavlik fight obviously ,maybe this is one of the reasons he always gets favourable judging in fights i thought Montell Griffin controlled the 1st Toney fight by ring generalship

Ring generalship is when you put yourself in the position to defend and attack well.

Seriously... it honestly does seem like ring generalship is the thing that people point to as a positive when everything else is going wrong for their fighter. Whitaker-Chavez round 12: Whitaker running away (literally), he got their heads caught in the ropes wasting about 10 seconds, and Bobby Czyz praises him for his beautiful "ring generalship". I guarantee you, Chavez was kicking Meldrick Taylor's ass for ring generalship for all 12 rounds of their first fight... I mean, fuck, Taylor was fighting toe-to-toe, which is supposed to be Chavez's territory. What does that mean though? It means that Chavez was getting his ass kicked at his own game. When Roy Jones purposely laid on the ropes for counter opportunities as he did when he was a badass, his opponent clearly gets ring generalship points for rolling his opponent on the ropes, but for what? Jones was about to KO him in most cases. Does anyone think this nebulous term is stupid and actually has no meaning? Harold Lederman would beg to differ....... Like when he scored Hatton's first round against Mayweather 10-9

When your boxing style is putting your opponent in positions where he can't be effective, that's ring generalship. Running away, that isn't. The problem is that alot of people don't understand ring generalship.

Harold is old school and almost always gives the round to the more aggressive fighter. That is not being old school, if it was, we would not mention Willie Pep as a p4p ALL TIME GREAT with 200+ victories.

If you want to score a fight you have to throw the punch stats out the window anyway. What if, for instance, a guy is wearing his opponent down by punching his arms and ribs? Is he doing nothing? According to the punch stats, he is just missing punches, but in reality he is inflicting punishment Have you seen the fight though? Lederman giving round 1 to Chavez against Mayweather was horific.

If you want to score a fight you have to throw the punch stats out the window anyway. What if, for instance, a guy is wearing his opponent down by punching his arms and ribs. Is he doing nothing? According to the punch stats, he is just missing punches, but in reality he is inflicting punishment By those stats are really just numbers to show how that round went... because I know that punch stats are not always a telling tale of how a round went... but in honesty, that round really wasn't close at all IMO. Lampley questioned Lederman in a very embarrassing manner because of it, which made me very happy. :lol1: "Wait wait Harold, did you score round ONE for CHAVEZ?" "Absolutely Jim!" "Okay, that's all I needed to know." :lol1: :lol1: :lol1:

I'm on board with the original post; Ring Generalship is pretty much meaningless. for scoring criteria.

Here's another example... Mayweather Jr. vs. Jesus Chavez round 1: Punchstats: Chavez - 6 of 92 Mayweather - 23 of 56 M. If you want to score a fight you have to throw the punch stats out the window anyway. What if, for instance, a guy is wearing his opponent down by punching his arms and ribs? Is he doing nothing? According to the punch stats, he is just missing punches, but in reality he is inflicting punishment