Ring Generalship = ******ed

**The Troll** · 02-03-2008, 04:46 PM

not when you apply it to these unconvential circumstances.

**Chairman L-mao** · 02-03-2008, 04:46 PM

Your best post ever. It's a hopelessly ambiguous term that gets construed in any way a judge/fan wishes to construe it.

One thing I'll say about your post, though, is that you shouldn't take into account what you think a fighter's territory or style is "supposed" to be. When the opening bell rings, both guys have a blank slate. You can't say "Chavez wants to fight on the inside, so if they fight inside he got his way." That might make for an interesting commentary, but it doesn't belong to the judging of a fight

**Fox McCloud** · 02-03-2008, 04:48 PM

Originally posted by Chairman L-mao

Your best post ever. It's a hopelessly ambiguous term that gets construed in any way a judge/fan wishes to construe it.

One thing I'll say about your post, though, is that you shouldn't take into account what you think a fighter's territory or style is "supposed" to be. When the opening bell rings, both guys have a blank slate. You can't say "Chavez wants to fight on the inside, so if they fight inside he got his way." That might make for an interesting commentary, but it doesn't belong to the judging of a fight

That may be the intent, but you can't tell me that judges don't give a fighter ring generalship points for making a slickster stand toe-to-toe or making a flat-footed fighter chase all night, right?

It honestly seems like the part of scoring that awards fighters for going through the motions, without having to do anything.

A fighter who rolls a fighter on the ropes for all 3 minutes of the round is clearly the ring general, but who gives a **** if he doesn't do any damage? Am I right?

**Pico Hollywood** · 02-03-2008, 04:51 PM

Originally posted by DWiens421

That may be the intent, but you can't tell me that judges don't give a fighter ring generalship points for making a slickster stand toe-to-toe or making a flat-footed fighter chase all night, right?

It honestly seems like the part of scoring that awards fighters for going through the motions, without having to do anything.

A fighter who rolls a fighter on the ropes for all 3 minutes of the round is clearly the ring general, but who gives a **** if he doesn't do any damage? Am I right?

If the fighter is forcing the fight he is given the round from the judges if the opposing fighter doesn't counter, even if the opposing fighter is setting him up.

**Chairman L-mao** · 02-03-2008, 04:52 PM

Originally posted by DWiens421

That may be the intent, but you can't tell me that judges don't give a fighter ring generalship points for making a slickster stand toe-to-toe or making a flat-footed fighter chase all night, right?

It honestly seems like the part of scoring that awards fighters for going through the motions, without having to do anything.

A fighter who rolls a fighter on the ropes for all 3 minutes of the round is clearly the ring general, but who gives a **** if he doesn't do any damage? Am I right?

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.

**Fox McCloud** · 02-03-2008, 04:56 PM

Originally posted by Pico Hollywood

If the fighter is forcing the fight he is given the round from the judges if the opposing fighter doesn't counter, even if the opposing fighter is setting him up.

And that is correct in my opinion.

If someone is doing something that is setting up an infliction of damage, but doesn't end up going through with it, what's the point? It didn't do anything to influence how the fight was going. If points are given on that, then points are being given purely on a fighter going through the motions, which is riduclous.

**Scott9945** · 02-03-2008, 05:00 PM

Originally posted by DWiens421

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?

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.

**Fox McCloud** · 02-03-2008, 05:04 PM

Here's another example...

Mayweather Jr. vs. Jesus Chavez round 1:

Punchstats:
Chavez - 6 of 92
Mayweather - 23 of 56

Mayweather was furiously backpedaling the whole round, because Chavez was rushing at the speed of a jog the whole round, and just flailing his arms out to get at Mayweather. None of the 6 punches that he landed were anything special. Mayweather on the other hand, got some good leverage on some of his counter shots, especially some of the right hands he threw.

Lederman gives round one to Chavez on RING GENERALSHIP!

Whoopty-****ing-do... Chavez had Mayweather going backwards... so what? He was still getting hit frequently and effectively, but Lederman gives the round to Chavez... I don't get it.

**Scott9945** · 02-03-2008, 05:07 PM

Originally posted by DWiens421

Here's another example...

Mayweather Jr. vs. Jesus Chavez round 1:

Punchstats:
Chavez - 6 of 92
Mayweather - 23 of 56

Mayweather was furiously backpedaling the whole round, because Chavez was rushing at the speed of a jog the whole round, and just flailing his arms out to get at Mayweather. None of the 6 punches that he landed were anything special. Mayweather on the other hand, got some good leverage on some of his counter shots, especially some of the right hands he threw.

Lederman gives round one to Chavez on RING GENERALSHIP!

Whoopty-****ing-do... Chavez had Mayweather going backwards... so what? He was still getting hit frequently and effectively, but Lederman gives the round to Chavez... I don't get it.

Harold is old school and almost always gives the round to the more aggressive fighter.

Ring Generalship = ******ed