Is Ring Generalship No Longer Appreciated >> ??

[vB Martin]

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?

Then you really don't know how to score boxing.

[Em1]

I don't think it is. See Taylor/Bhop 1 & 2, and more recently Toney/Peter.

Judges seem to be going for the big "TV" shots then for "clean and effective punching" that I hear Harold Leaderman talking about before every fight.

[vB Martin]

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.

Ring generalship isn't controlling the ring, it's controlling the action.

Whilr ring generalship is a seperate scoring category, effective aggression automatically leads to ring generalship. If your aggression is effectve, it means you're controlling the action. If you're not, your aggression isn't effective, is it?

[{BrownBomber}]

It seems whenever a fighter uses the ring to his advantage he is running or is scared or somethin ****** like that

I was always told in my gym the art of boxing is to hit and not be hit

ring generalship= Juan Manuel Marquez
what Floyd does/did is run or atleast he did with Castillo.

[Del Coqui]

Ring generalship isn't controlling the ring, it's controlling the action.

Whilr ring generalship is a seperate scoring category, effective aggression automatically leads to ring generalship. If your aggression is effectve, it means you're controlling the action. If you're not, your aggression isn't effective, is it?

I don't see it that way, then again I haven't taken classes on scoring fights, but, I think they're closely related still different. For example, take a slick boxer who controls the ring very well say PBF against Castillo 1, PBF was controlling the ring along with the tempo of the fight yet Castillo was able to corner him at the ropes and beat him up. In that example I would say Castillo was the effective aggresor while PBF had the ring generalship.

[Easy-E]

ring generalship= Juan Manuel Marquez
what Floyd does/did is run or atleast he did with Castillo.

Floyd wasnt running, he was landing effective counter punches and blocking most of Castillo's shots.

[Run]

Floyd wasnt running, he was landing effective counter punches and blocking most of Castillo's shots.

dude, he ran like a scared *****.



Never pay again for live sex! | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! | Chat for free!

[Abe Attell]

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?

It reminds me of the Winky Wright vs Sam Soliman fight: Sam threw what seemed to be 3 times as many punches, but he didn't land cleanly and didn't land at a high percentage, while Winky's punches were more effective and at a higher percentage...there were a number of people that swore that Sam won the fight simply because he was the more "active" puncher.

[Easy-E]

dude, he ran like a scared *****.

Yeah he was terrified. Thats probably what made him take the rematch.

[Guest]

Yeah he was terrified. Thats probably what made him take the rematch.

Didn't take long for this to turn into another Floyd thread. The haters don't stop thinking about the man...