Tweet
So I'm sitting here re-watching Trout-Lara, trying to re-score the fight (which I scored 114-113 for Trout) and I'm having a hard time giving Lara rounds for all his being inactive and backpedalling.. The reason I gave so many close rounds to Trout was because he was the aggressor, pressing the action and I thought he was more of the "ring general". If Austin boxed like Eslirandy on Saturday, we would have seen a boxing match that broke the record for least punches ever thrown.
So I was thinking.. What is "ring generalmanship", really? From what I understand, a boxer shows ring generalmanship when he controls - or looks like he's in control of - his opponent and appears to be the "general"/man in charge in the ring. Now, a lot of the time, I hear people say how good Rigondeaux is at ring generalmanship, but I don't understand how you can call constant backpedalling and waiting for your opponent to make the first move "controlling" the fight. I say that because, it's very easy to be a matador and make your opponent do all the work, while you just back away from his shots and pick him off while he's coming in (I've had enough amateur experience to know just how easy it is to use footwork going backwards and wait for openings). It would be just as easy for your opponent to do so, but there wouldn't be a fight if both fighters never tried to initiate the action. The difference between Rigondeaux/Lara and the likes of Floyd/Ward is that Rigondeaux and Lara can't initiate the action and can only control the ring from the outside, whereas Floyd and Ward can get attack first, fight on the inside and control the center of the ring. I don't know if that's just because these Cuban fighters are too scared to expose their glass chins, or what.
IMO, the ring general should be the one who actually controls the center of the ring, king of the hill style. Of course, this shouldn't carry more weight in the judging of a round than punches landed, but if one fighter is giving his opponent the opportunity to counter, by pressing the action, while his opponent isn't - even if the more inactive fighter's connection percentage is higher - I tend to score those types of rounds for the one who outworked his opponent and controlled the center of the ring. It's easy to play it safe, ring generals don't play on easy mode.
What do yall think? Is ring generalmanship subjective? Can judges see the "ring general" as the one who's trying to press the action and controlling the center of the ring, or will it always be the one who forces his opponent to chase him around the ring?
So I was thinking.. What is "ring generalmanship", really? From what I understand, a boxer shows ring generalmanship when he controls - or looks like he's in control of - his opponent and appears to be the "general"/man in charge in the ring. Now, a lot of the time, I hear people say how good Rigondeaux is at ring generalmanship, but I don't understand how you can call constant backpedalling and waiting for your opponent to make the first move "controlling" the fight. I say that because, it's very easy to be a matador and make your opponent do all the work, while you just back away from his shots and pick him off while he's coming in (I've had enough amateur experience to know just how easy it is to use footwork going backwards and wait for openings). It would be just as easy for your opponent to do so, but there wouldn't be a fight if both fighters never tried to initiate the action. The difference between Rigondeaux/Lara and the likes of Floyd/Ward is that Rigondeaux and Lara can't initiate the action and can only control the ring from the outside, whereas Floyd and Ward can get attack first, fight on the inside and control the center of the ring. I don't know if that's just because these Cuban fighters are too scared to expose their glass chins, or what.
IMO, the ring general should be the one who actually controls the center of the ring, king of the hill style. Of course, this shouldn't carry more weight in the judging of a round than punches landed, but if one fighter is giving his opponent the opportunity to counter, by pressing the action, while his opponent isn't - even if the more inactive fighter's connection percentage is higher - I tend to score those types of rounds for the one who outworked his opponent and controlled the center of the ring. It's easy to play it safe, ring generals don't play on easy mode.
What do yall think? Is ring generalmanship subjective? Can judges see the "ring general" as the one who's trying to press the action and controlling the center of the ring, or will it always be the one who forces his opponent to chase him around the ring?
Comment