Ring Generalmanship and Backpedalling

Ring generalship is really subjective. Is it Kellerman who always says that he judges it on the basis of 'who he'd rather be'? That doesn't help things at all, because who you'd 'rather be' in a fight is shaped by all sorts of biases you have about both the guys involved and what you think their strategies are. I always try to base it on who's dictating the nature of the exchanges, where they happen, at what range, how long they last etc. Still pretty subjective though. All about the clean punches at the end of the day. Thats pretty much how I look at it... From this year Bradley vs Provodnikov was a good fight to see ring generalmanship. In Tims rounds he was boxing with space, engaging when he wanted too and picking Prov off. In Provodnikovs rounds he was mauling Bradley into the ropes and brawling in close/mid range. Another one to watch would be Duran vs SRL 1 and Duran vs SRL 2. Ive decided to ignore ts scoring the fight to Trout because it could end up being an interesting thread.

I didn't give Trout a round, no matter how hard I tried to give him one I couldn't. I don't find substance in his work, none.

RiC-DiC- Someone who doesn't know shit about boxing. Ring generalship is about control, which can be accomplished by back peddling, cutting the ring off, behind a jab etc. If you look at a man like Rigondeaux and think ''How is that ring generalship, he is just back peddling'' you are a fool. You obviously don't perceive how he cuts off his opponents an I say that because, it's very easy to be a matador and make your opponent do all the work, while you just back away from his shots and pick him off while he's coming in (I've had enough amateur experience to know just how easy it is to use footwork going backwards and wait for openings). If it is so easy try it -edit- against someone who is effective at cutting the ring off.

You're a good poster but Jesus man you scored the fight for Trout? Ring generalship I guess is subjective. I thought Lara was in control of the fight pretty much all night.

ring general: the person making the other fighter do what he wants and not the other way around. So if you're backing up as floyd does, he backs up and sets traps so he WANTS the other opponent to come in and fall into the traps. So even though Floyd is backing up he's still the ring general because the opponent is doing exactly what floyd wants and floyd is under no pressure from it

Judging Criteria: 1. Clean punching 2. Effective aggressiveness 3. Ring generalship 4. Defense With a strong emphasis on clean, effective punching. Jim! Ring generalship is the fighter that best controls the action; the fighter that dictates the distance and pace the fight is fought at. Usually, it's the fighter at center ring, but it can also be the fighter giving movement on the outside if the fighter appears in control (usually coincides with criteria #1 (which is what all of the criteria usually do)). It is the most vague (because it is left to people's opinion) of the criteria, but it should be #2 because it is more important than aggression when the lines of ineffective and effective are blurred. Lara won rounds by landing the cleaner harder punches (1) controlled the distance amd pace of the fight through his movement (3) and limited the damage he received in return (4). He rendered Trout's attempts at #2 useless.

Ring generalship is really subjective. Is it Kellerman who always says that he judges it on the basis of 'who he'd rather be'? That doesn't help things at all, because who you'd 'rather be' in a fight is shaped by all sorts of biases you have about both the guys involved and what you think their strategies are. I always try to base it on who's dictating the nature of the exchanges, where they happen, at what range, how long they last etc. Still pretty subjective though. All about the clean punches at the end of the day.

i stopped reading after you wrote that you scored it for trout...your obv trolling or woefully unintelligent and not knowledgeable ...you pick.

cant believe you took all the time to write that, didnt read past the first sentence. You were trolling throughout the whole fight saying it was like 10-2 for trout lol. Just quit

Since when is "being the aggressor" the reason to give someone a round? His "aggression" was completely ineffective. And the scoring criteria is "Effective aggression". "Being the "aggressor" is completely irrelevant if it's not effective. The scoring criteria are; Clean effective puncing Effective aggression Defense Ring generalship Lara landed the cleaner more effective punches in every single round. He used better defence, rendered Trout's "aggression" ineffective and controlled the pace and was the ring general. Lara dominated the fight and I wanted Trout to win.

Ring generalship is who is in control, who is dictating and who is imposing their style on who. But that's only a piece of the scoring system. The cleaner, harder punches were landed by Lara and that's basically the bulk of what is scored.

So I'm sitting here re-watching Trout-Lara, trying to re-score the fight (which I scored 114-113 for Trout) and I'm having a hard time giving Lara rounds for all his being inactive and backpedalling.. The reason I gave so many close rounds to Trout was because he was the aggressor, pressing the action and I thought he was more of the "ring general". If Austin boxed like Eslirandy on Saturday, we would have seen a boxing match that broke the record for least punches ever thrown. So I was thinking.. What is "ring generalmanship", really? From what I understand, a boxer shows ring generalmanship when he controls - or looks like he's in control of - his opponent and appears to be the "general"/man in charge in the ring. Now, a lot of the time, I hear people say how good Rigondeaux is at ring generalmanship, but I don't understand how you can call constant backpedalling and waiting for your opponent to make the first move "controlling" the fight. I say that because, it's very easy to be a matador and make your opponent do all the work, while you just back away from his shots and pick him off while he's coming in (I've had enough amateur experience to know just how easy it is to use footwork going backwards and wait for openings). It would be just as easy for your opponent to do so, but there wouldn't be a fight if both fighters never tried to initiate the action. The difference between Rigondeaux/Lara and the likes of Floyd/Ward is that Rigondeaux and Lara can't initiate the action and can only control the ring from the outside, whereas Floyd and Ward can get attack first, fight on the inside and control the center of the ring. I don't know if that's just because these Cuban fighters are too scared to expose their glass chins, or what. IMO, the ring general should be the one who actually controls the center of the ring, king of the hill style. Of course, this shouldn't carry more weight in the judging of a round than punches landed, but if one fighter is giving his opponent the opportunity to counter, by pressing the action, while his opponent isn't - even if the more inactive fighter's connection percentage is higher - I tend to score those types of rounds for the one who outworked his opponent and controlled the center of the ring. It's easy to play it safe, ring generals don't play on easy mode. What do yall think? Is ring generalmanship subjective? Can judges see the "ring general" as the one who's trying to press the action and controlling the center of the ring, or will it always be the one who forces his opponent to chase him around the ring? I stopped reading when you said you scored it for Trout in the first 2 words. :wtf1:

stopped reading when you scored it for trout,,,, Trout really didnt do anything either,, i understand your point about avoiding conflict but lara landed more of the harder cleaner shots, scored the kd,,, Trout was coming forward pushing the fight, but was he really landing hard shots, i think he landed few and far between compared to lara