Whats is YOUR interpretation of Ring Generalship?

[The Gambler1981]

Yea and if you cant pick a winner the moment the bell rings, it should be even. If you look for something to give a fighter in a very close round, you can pick any tiny thing you want to justify it

Its easy to pick any thing to give a fighter a round. At that point its gonna be whatever bias you have. IF you like aggression, youll give it for that o ring generalship, then youll give it for that

You should always be able to find something as there are very few truly even rounds.

Judging is subjective in nature, so you should come to grips with that.

[Rome-By-Ko]

Yes and 95% of it is about punches landed. I bet 95% of people on here couldnt name the 4 criteria right now without googling it.

And your most likely one of them..Ignorance is not an excuse,if your gonna follow the sport..You should know the rules of it..

[Russian Crushin]

You should always be able to find something as there are very few truly even rounds.

Judging is subjective in nature, so you should come to grips with that.

Yes if you look for it.

Boxing is who lands better punches, Its really simple

[-PBP-]

I'm kinda surprise that you say ring generalship does not matter nearly as much as who is landing the best punch..I know you to be a very knowledgeable boxing fan..Ring generalship is what's getting you into position to hit ya opponent in the first place..

Ring generalship is just as important as having power or speed..Believe me,if your landing the better punches,your most likely winning the ring generalship battle as well..Which in short,ring generalship goes hand in hand with everything else...

Well said.

Is it ring generalship if you get in position but miss? It all stems from the person who lands the better most effective punches win.

Well if your throwing punches and missing then the other fighter is displaying better ring generalship and defense by controlling the distance and eluding your punches. Also throwing and missing is ineffective aggression and obviously doesn't qualify as clean, effective punching.

[The Gambler1981]

Yes if you look for it.

Boxing is who lands better punches, Its really simple

There is more that goes on in a fight than just punching~ and a judge is suppose to look for everything~


Although like I said punching is the point of the game, thus is most important.

[Rome-By-Ko]

Is it ring generalship if you get in position but miss? It all stems from the person who lands the better most effective punches win.

Like it says right there in the post your responding to,ring generalship is all about putting your self in the right position..Yes if your landing the better punches you win..But don't act like not being in a position to not land those better punches have not lost a fighter a fight in the past..Like I pointed out in the post,if your throwing a 100 punches a rd but missing majority of them,then your ineffective..This goes the same for if your making your opponent miss but not making him pay..If your trapping your opponent on the ropes but missing tons of punches..The name of the game is to hit and not be hit..You see how that works??You say the more effective puncher,while I'll say the fighter who takes less punishment..It all goes back to being a subjective sport..Everyone looking and seeing what matters to them..

Granted some fights are easy to score..But some not so much,because both fighters may be doing well in certain areas you like..Then it still comes back to being subjective,and which one of the things that you liked from either fighter,do you like more..

[Light_Speed]

I can see how judges sometimes give bad decisions, this has to be the vaguest term used on how to judge boxing. It seems everyone has their own interpretation especailly HBO announcers...

Who seems to be more in control, who is dictating the tempo of the fight, when and where the exchanges take place.

[New England]

Like it says right there in the post your responding to,ring generalship is all about putting your self in the right position..Yes if your landing the better punches you win..But don't act like not being in a position to not land those better punches have not lost a fighter a fight in the past..Like I pointed out in the post,if your throwing a 100 punches a rd but missing majority of them,then your ineffective..This goes the same for if your making your opponent miss but not making him pay..If your trapping your opponent on the ropes but missing tons of punches..The name of the game is to hit and not be hit..You see how that works??You say the more effective puncher,while I'll say the fighter who takes less punishment..It all goes back to being a subjective sport..Everyone looking and seeing what matters to them..

Granted some fights are easy to score..But some not so much,because both fighters may be doing well in certain areas you like..Then it still comes back to being subjective,and which one of the things that you liked from either fighter,do you like more..

you're talking about the same thing. you can have a glass that is 75 % full and call it 25% empty.


his point is that you can boil scoring a fight down to one element : the effectiveness of the punches. the guy who lands the more effective punches wins the round. being a ring general, effective aggression, and defense are a means toward that end. you score the effectiveness of the punches over the balance of the round. you ask: "who did more damage?"

[Russian Crushin]

Well said.



Well if your throwing punches and missing then the other fighter is displaying better ring generalship and defense by controlling the distance and eluding your punches. Also throwing and missing is ineffective aggression and obviously doesn't qualify as clean, effective punching.

It's punches landed that count not punches missed. You only get credit for defense if the guy missing more punches landed less effective punches then you. It wouldn't be odd to see marg miss 80 punches and win rounds, ask clottey

[daggum]

so if you get yourself into a position to hit your opponent but keep swinging and missing either you really suck and don't deserve to win or your opponent has such good defense that he should win.