Is Ring Generalization the most useless category to judge?

[Fox McCloud]

No, effective aggressiveness is. Ring generalship is basically using your surroundings to make your opponent fight your fight, which is pretty damn important. Effective aggressiveness is basically an overlap of ring generalship and clean punching, so most judges use it as who threw more punches, regardless of whether they landed, which is annoying as hell. I have never understood the judges who vote for the aggressor.

[DLT]

Alot of the judges abuse this term. When two fighters land the same amount of punches, they give to the guy who moved around more. That is ****ing ridiculous. Just cuz you don't wanna ****ing move around a huge ass ring, doesn't mean you should lose.

Thats not true. It still all comes back to the basics. Zab tried to move and get away from Cotto but he walked his ass down and punished him. People choose to fight the way they want to.

If you think a guy like Floyd and others run, that doesnt mean the opponents have to chase them at all. If Floyd ran the whole fight but his opponent stayed in the Center of the ring and never chased him, then what would happened? 1st the crowd would boo because no one is doing anything but the opponent has let it be known that he wont chase the guy. The judges wont penalize him for that at all. The problem is that even if you have a guy who runs like he's on a track team, if you just stay in the middle of the ring and wait on him then he will end up landing alot of shots on you and you wont be quick enough to respond.

At the end of the day I think your just being completely unfair like alot of guys are. You want to make boxing one way and thats not fair. If boxing was one way then it would be a blood sport that would suck and every fighter would have brain damage. Why do you want to make a natually smaller guy go toe to toe with a big strong power guy? Its not fair. Look at guys like Mayorga. We all can see that he is definatly not the cream of the crop and can be straight up skooled but if you make it so that every opponent has to fight him toe to toe then he would be one of the top fighters in the game. Is Mayorga really a top fighter?

[FightNight 2007]

Thats not true. It still all comes back to the basics. Zab tried to move and get away from Cotto but he walked his ass down and punished him. People choose to fight the way they want to.

If you think a guy like Floyd and others run, that doesnt mean the opponents have to chase them at all. If Floyd ran the whole fight but his opponent stayed in the Center of the ring and never chased him, then what would happened? 1st the crowd would boo because no one is doing anything but the opponent has let it be known that he wont chase the guy. The judges wont penalize him for that at all. The problem is that even if you have a guy who runs like he's on a track team, if you just stay in the middle of the ring and wait on him then he will end up landing alot of shots on you and you wont be quick enough to respond.

At the end of the day I think your just being completely unfair like alot of guys are. You want to make boxing one way and thats not fair. If boxing was one way then it would be a blood sport that would suck and every fighter would have brain damage. Why do you want to make a natually smaller guy go toe to toe with a big strong power guy? Its not fair. Look at guys like Mayorga. We all can see that he is definatly not the cream of the crop and can be straight up skooled but if you make it so that every opponent has to fight him toe to toe then he would be one of the top fighters in the game. Is Mayorga really a top fighter?

Why the hell do you keep bringing up Floyd? Did I once mention Floyd?

I have no problem with someone wanting to move or run around the ring, but I find that alot of fighters use excessive movement. The whole point is that people are so obsessed with footwork that they forget the main point...to land punches on your opponent.