Whats is YOUR interpretation of Ring Generalship?

[daggum]

if a general directs his troops into battle and they all get killed is he winning? why is a guy who is "dictacting" the pace being the ring general if he keeps getting hit..pretty crappy general you got there...hint hint hopkins-calzaghe

[-PBP-]

if a general directs his troops and they all get killed is he winning? why is a guy who is "dictacting" the pace being the ring general if he keeps getting hit..pretty crappy general you got there...hint hint hopkins-calzaghe

But that's why there's 4 factors to consider when judging a round and not just 1. Your not supposed to judge the round only on ring generalship.

[Russian Crushin]

No, there is plenty going on in the ring that a real judge should be able to pick a winner about every round they score.

It isn't that hard to pick a winner if you use all the criteria available.

All of the criteria should be in your head while judging the round, you're not judging a fight just looking at just ring generalship and then just on defense and then just on aggression. If the bell rings and you cant decide a winner, there should be no "picking who to give the round to"

Picking a winner isnt hard, you're right because its the guy who scored the best more effective punches in more rounds.

[daggum]

But that's why there's 4 factors to consider when judging a round and not just 1. Your not supposed to judge the round only on ring generalship.

well isn't there a difference between a good general and a bad general. not sure why the general who charges forward and gets destroyed is automatically better. what about the general who lures his opponent into traps?

[WarMaidana]

id say the fighter who fights his pace has good ring generalship, if hes a brawler fighting a boxer but keeps the match a brawl then he has good ring generalship or vice versa

[Russian Crushin]

But that's why there's 4 factors to consider when judging a round and not just 1. Your not supposed to judge the round only on ring generalship.

Clean effective punching is 95% of scoring, its not 25% each

[-PBP-]

Clean effective punching is 95% of scoring, its not 25% each

That's true but there's many rounds (more often than not) where its difficult to measure which fighter landed the clean effective punches or back and forth rounds in which both fighters have their moments or even feeling out rounds.

If it was that simple that would be the only criteria to judging a fight.

[DARKSEID]

if you have fast eyes or you've been in a fight before you can see all the little things that are going on and there's so many of them to judge.. it's hard to call a round even.


Posted from Boxingscene.com App for Android

[The Gambler1981]

All of the criteria should be in your head while judging the round, you're not judging a fight just looking at just ring generalship and then just on defense and then just on aggression. If the bell rings and you cant decide a winner, there should be no "picking who to give the round to"

Picking a winner isnt hard, you're right because its the guy who scored the best more effective punches in more rounds.

So what does this have to do with what I said~ yea punching is the object of the game.

You should not score even rounds, as it is not that hard to find something to separate the men based on the rules of scoring.

[Russian Crushin]

That's true but there's many rounds (more often than not) where its difficult to measure which fighter landed the clean effective punches or back and forth rounds in which both fighters have their moments or even feeling out rounds.

If it was that simple that would be the only criteria to judging a fight.

Not really, its actually easy if you dont favor a certain fighter or have some type of bias. Otherwise you'll score the Paulie-Cano fight for Paulie