Is Ring Generalship No Longer Appreciated >> ??

**vB Martin** · 10-01-2006, 05:55 PM

It depends on how you use the ring. If you just run, that's not ring generalship. If you run while effectively counterpunch and mount your offense, that would be ring generalship.

I also think people really don't understand this aspect of scoring. A good example would be a fighter who comes forward constantly, being aggressive but missing a lot. Even if he's missing, if his offense is keeping you from being able to launch your own, he's still controlling the action, therefore exhibiting ring generalship.

**restless_438** · 10-01-2006, 06:03 PM

no, you bring up a VERY good point, FF06..

aggressiveness seems to be the favorite, although all the fine points should be taken into account equally when judging fights.. and i do believe Ring Generalship is sometimes overlooked, moreover, difficult to comprehend for many people (for reasons unknown)

**Mr. Ryan** · 10-01-2006, 06:19 PM

Duane Ford himself admitted that he didn't know what ring generalship is. Ring generalship is boxing, it's making your opponent do what you want him to do. Boxing means not just moving your feet, but throwing jabs behind them. Alot of judges don't understand boxing, that's why they score only on clean, effective punching. Of course clean blows should be the most important thing when scoring, but there are 3 other criteria.

A perfect example of ring generalship may be Pacquiao-Marquez. Marquez was able to control Pacquiao with his technique, not just his punches. I was scoring alot of close rounds for Marquez because he was doing what he wanted to do. That's boxing, that's ring generalship.

**yrrej** · 10-01-2006, 06:21 PM

Ring generalship means controlling the ring. It is just one aspect of scoring, not the whole picture.....

**flipside** · 10-01-2006, 06:23 PM

barera showed ring generalship in his fight with juarez but i have to admit it was boring

**Crazy Dude** · 10-01-2006, 07:01 PM

The art of boxing is to hit and not be hit. That's why it should be judged on effective punches and not intangibles like ring generalship.

**vB Martin** · 10-01-2006, 07:05 PM

Originally posted by Crazy Dude

The art of boxing is to hit and not be hit. That's why it should be judged on effective punches and not intangibles like ring generalship.

so defense and ring generalship shouldn't count for anything?
If I throw a ton punches, landing at say 20%, keeping my opponent out of his game and he lands a single, hard clean punch, he should win the round?

Did they serve snacks on the short bus?

**Crazy Dude** · 10-01-2006, 07:17 PM

Originally posted by vB Martin

so defense and ring generalship shouldn't count for anything?
If I throw a ton punches, landing at say 20%, keeping my opponent out of his game and he lands a single, hard clean punch, he should win the round?

Did they serve snacks on the short bus?

If the one hard punch hurt the other fighter more than the 20% the other guy landed then I'd score it for him. Otherwise I'd score it the other way.

If one guy hurt they other guy more than who's really got the better defence?

**Del Coqui** · 10-01-2006, 07:31 PM

Bigger emphasis is on clean effective punching, doesn't matter how well you move around and control the ring if the other guy is outlanding you with cleaner shots then you're in trouble (Chavez-Camacho, Cotto-Malignaggi, just to mention a few). Another thing I wanna point out, ring generalship is completely different to effective aggresiveness, which is another aspect to be taken into consideration when scoring fights.

Is Ring Generalship No Longer Appreciated >> ??