What is your understanding of Ring Generalship?

Its how you control the ring, not running around. Its dictating where the fight happens. You can move around and make your opponent miss or just step in and push them back. How fluid you are with the ring abd control.

I guess ring generalship can be in the eye of the beholder and considering what style (whoever is judging) favors, that can determine the outcome. But lets take a look at the fight this past weekend between Peterson & Garcia & a match this fight has been compared to (Lara vs Alvarez). In both fights, there was a big clash of styles. We knew this going into Lara vs Alvarez but I think Sugar Lamont Peterson surprised us all. When I look at both of those fights I try to look at who was the ring general which to me means who controled the tempo/action/area & why. When you look at both fights I mentioned, you had one fighter using lateral movement, & sure it looks nice but I think what people need to look at is why they are using lateral movement, is it to set up offense or is it because they were hurt or bothered by a punch? If they are using lateral movement effectively to set up punches (like Keith Thurman) than they are definitely the ring general but if they are avoiding engagement because they were bothered by a punch or scared than the aggressor should become the ring general hence making them the winner of the round. When it came down to it in Garcia vs Peterson, it was obvious Peterson was weary of Garcias power and used lateral movement to avoid a fight which made his offensive output very low giving away crucial rounds. With Canelo vs Lara, there were rds where Lara used lateral movement to set up his offense, than there were times he used it because he was clearly bothered making the ring general ship a game of tug a war... & just in case you are wondering, I scored Garcia vs Peterson 7-5 Garcia & Lara vs Alvarez 6-6 (even after watching it 3x's). Its alot easier scoring fights when its between fighters you dont care for lol Think bull/matador vs rodeo clown/bull; in a bullfight, though a matador is always in the line of fire, the matador is often able to control the flow of action (effective use of the cape, using the saber to make strategic strikes, becoming more active yet control as the bull deteriorates, closing in for the kill when the opportunity opens, etc). A rodeo clown, though able to kinda manage a bull's attention, will simply do everything in their control to 'get out of dodge' and not get gored. Peterson moved around a ton and all that, but he didn't use his movement to actually do anything, until well into the fight (after the whole was already dug deep). Lara moved around a lot, but didn't use his movement to do anything. If Peterson fought the fight like he fought the last three rounds, the outcome may have been different; he didn't do that.

I think the Pac vs. MArquez fights are great examples of clean punching not showing the whole picture. If I remember punches landed were pretty even, and the effect (outside of kd's) wasnt massively different, but for long periods of the fight Marquez was controlling the fights pace, he was controlling where the action was taking place and I think (as per the rules) he should be rewarded for that. Floyd evading opponents punches and landing his own while Marquez receiving punches to his face first before he can counter. That is the big differece between the two fighters. And that is why Marquez has so many close fights even he still lands clean punches to his opponents in few rounds

Clean Punching is when you visibly hurt your opponents. I categorize Ring Generalship into two. Effective Aggression and Defense. Like I said earlier in my post, Floyd is the perfect example of Ring Generalship-Defense. In Ring Generalship-Effective Aggression, Loma, GGG, Pacquiao comes into my mind. They creates opening to their punches while being aggressive and comes forward. Like what Pacquiao did to Clottey. He may not visibly hurt Clottey but Pacquiao creates opening to his punches. Like punching Clottey to the body to open up his High Guard. Cutting off the ring is one the most important thing in effective aggression too (GGG/Roman). I don't award round for fighters who dance around the ring without landing a single punch.

Floyd is a ring general when he fought Canelo, Lara ran. GGG cut off the ring against Murray, Garcia followed around Peterson. If you don't see the difference I can't explain it to you. Also, what Peterson did against Danny wasn't ring generalship, same as Lara versus Canelo. When you land like 3 punches a round, literally, just because you're not getting hit doesn't mean you're winning or being a ring general. A lot of people need to understand just because a guy can't hit you, doesn't mean you're winning a fight. I agree with you. Floyd is the perfect example of ring generalship-defense. Evading his opponents punches while landing his own. It may not be clean punches(visibly hurt his opponents) at times but still he lands it.

Ring Generalship is when your favorite fighter lands no meaningful punches but you want to award him a round. Exactly! LOL Also: "My favorite fighter is imposing his gameplan, I'll give him the round!" because of course, we all know both fighters exact game plan and we are master tacticians...

Completely agree. Look at Harold Lederman. He has scored all 4 Pac-JMM fights for Pac, sometimes by VERY wide margins all because he like's Pac's "effective aggression" when he doesn't take into account's Marquez controlling the pace, distance and tempo of the bout. Clean punches are 1st, the rest is conjecture. I think the Pac vs. MArquez fights are great examples of clean punching not showing the whole picture. If I remember punches landed were pretty even, and the effect (outside of kd's) wasnt massively different, but for long periods of the fight Marquez was controlling the fights pace, he was controlling where the action was taking place and I think (as per the rules) he should be rewarded for that.

Don't you feel this is just an oversimplification? Ring generalship is much more complex than that. For example, you might have a guy landing more pitty patties with little pop, and the other fighter landing a few heavy, thudding body and head shots. Then it becomes an argument of quality vs. quantity. Volume vs. effective punches. Furthermore, we then have to question how one can truly gauge the punches, we're not the ones feeling them so it's hard to actually assess the quality of each punch connected. This is where things get very debatable. Look at Herrera vs Benevidez, or Herrera vs Anyone in that matter lol I think at this point it comes down to who looks more comfortable. If you get a guy shoe shining and getting hit clean mid combo, than theres a big argument for the cleaner puncher to take the rd but if the aggressor is lunging or looking awkward (moving in, in a awkward/non boxing way) than the shoe shiner effectively took the aggressor out of his element. I really think judges should study up on a fighter before they judge a fight, not for favortism but just for something to base performance off of.

Floyd is a ring general when he fought Canelo, Lara ran. GGG cut off the ring against Murray, Garcia followed around Peterson. If you don't see the difference I can't explain it to you. Also, what Peterson did against Danny wasn't ring generalship, same as Lara versus Canelo. When you land like 3 punches a round, literally, just because you're not getting hit doesn't mean you're winning or being a ring general. A lot of people need to understand just because a guy can't hit you, doesn't mean you're winning a fight. Yes sir!!!

Three ringside judges score bouts based on four factors: The only thing that should count is clean punches landed the rest is too subjective. Completely agree. Look at Harold Lederman. He has scored all 4 Pac-JMM fights for Pac, sometimes by VERY wide margins all because he like's Pac's "effective aggression" when he doesn't take into account's Marquez controlling the pace, distance and tempo of the bout. Clean punches are 1st, the rest is conjecture.

Is that what you took from my response? That it was racial? I can see where you jump to that conclusion but that wasn't the case at all. I was in a Danny thread prior to this and carried it over into here. My point was Lamant didn't do sh*t for 6 or 7 rounds other than run, no one is going to win a fight that way. Im kidding lol But my response to the fight was Pete has no one to blame but himself because of how he started the fight.

Don't you feel this is just an oversimplification? Ring generalship is much more complex than that. For example, you might have a guy landing more pitty patties with little pop, and the other fighter landing a few heavy, thudding body and head shots. Then it becomes an argument of quality vs. quantity. Volume vs. effective punches. Furthermore, we then have to question how one can truly gauge the punches, we're not the ones feeling them so it's hard to actually assess the quality of each punch connected. No, I think it's really simple. People over complicate it when the rules themselves are simply stated.

No. Just because I'm black doesn't mean I scored the fight for Peterson. Is that what you took from my response? That it was racial? I can see where you jump to that conclusion but that wasn't the case at all. I was in a Danny thread prior to this and carried it over into here. My point was Lamant didn't do sh*t for 6 or 7 rounds other than run, no one is going to win a fight that way.

So you had Peterson winning the first 6 rounds then? No. Just because I'm black doesn't mean I scored the fight for Peterson.

Clean punching should be the majority of it all, because the rest just hinges off whether your landing clean crisp shots. Thats basically what I look for. Any fast foot speed guy can make it a run fest and supposedly have the fight where he wants, but if he's not doing anything with it, whats the point. Don't you feel this is just an oversimplification? Ring generalship is much more complex than that. For example, you might have a guy landing more pitty patties with little pop, and the other fighter landing a few heavy, thudding body and head shots. Then it becomes an argument of quality vs. quantity. Volume vs. effective punches. Furthermore, we then have to question how one can truly gauge the punches, we're not the ones feeling them so it's hard to actually assess the quality of each punch connected.

Ring Generalship is when your favorite fighter lands no meaningful punches but you want to award him a round. So you had Peterson winning the first 6 rounds then?

Ring Generalship is when your favorite fighter lands no meaningful punches but you want to award him a round. "but look at all the dancing and showboating, he's frustrating his opponent"

Ring Generalship is when your favorite fighter lands no meaningful punches but you want to award him a round.

i could care less if you've got super talent and athleticism and are named sugar ali whitaker duran with all the ability in the world to make all the cute moves and have prodvodnikov fighting off the backfoot looking like a bambi on scates because of his lack of balance, if he's landing more and better quality shots than you, i give him the round This..................

Clean punching should be the majority of it all, because the rest just hinges off whether your landing clean crisp shots. Thats basically what I look for. Any fast foot speed guy can make it a run fest and supposedly have the fight where he wants, but if he's not doing anything with it, whats the point.