Ring Generalship = ******ed

[!! Shawn]

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, ****, 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 ****** 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.

[kayjay]

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 ****, but why is it "Chairman L-mao?" I don't remember using that account

[!! Shawn]

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 ****ed 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.

[ElGranLuchador]

ring generalship is a excuse to give a close round to the favorite fighter
examples
defensive ring generalship
calderon vs esquer
esquer is landing good and better punches but because he has to chase and literally run to catch calderon judges give the round to calderon
aggresive ring generalship
arce vs unknown thai
unknown thai is landing good jabs and clinching arce but he is going backwards the whole round and arce throws a good ammount of punches most missing or landing on the thai arms
judges give the round to arce because they saw arce punching and thai guy retreating

in conclusion ring generalship is ******ed

[Dorian]

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, ****, 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 ****** and actually has no meaning?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UuCud9rfYCU

[Steak]

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....)

[Clegg]

I know I wrote this ****, but why is it "Chairman L-mao?" I don't remember using that account

I imagine he could've been used to amusing effect during the Olympics.