Boxing Forums banner
Cancel
Create thread New Forums

Wingy says there is no such thing as Ring Generalship

Jump to Latest
1 - 20 of 31 Posts
#2 ·
haven't watched the video but "ring generalship" is one of the most idiotic terms in boxing, up there with "effective aggression". It's beyond stupid, cannot be defined and allows judges to use the excuse of "it's subjective" no matter how badly they score the fight.
 
#5 ·
ero-sennin said:
haven't watched the video but "ring generalship" is one of the most idiotic terms in boxing, up there with "effective aggression". It's beyond stupid, cannot be defined and allows judges to use the excuse of "it's subjective" no matter how badly they score the fight.
Click to expand...
Effective aggression is utterly valid - although I agree that if you're scoring on clean punching, then it's kind of redundant. One requires the other.
 
#12 ·
There is ring generalship, basically controlling the pace of a fight, having the centre of the ring etc, effective aggression also. If you judged fights the way he's saying, just clean punches landed, no need for judges just use compubox
 
#13 ·
The guy is okay(ish), he can't really analyse a fight any better than your average fan, he's also up his own arse, and as DC says he clearly is an attention seeker, his bollocks about always wanting the black guy to beat a white guy made me unsubscribe ages back, I swear he's retired a few times now?

Silly twat
 
#15 ·
ero-sennin said:
haven't watched the video but "ring generalship" is one of the most idiotic terms in boxing, up there with "effective aggression". It's beyond stupid, cannot be defined and allows judges to use the excuse of "it's subjective" no matter how badly they score the fight.
Click to expand...
This it's the same with "octagon control" in MMA it's just an excuse for judges to score shitty or to award ineffective aggression
 
#16 · (Edited)
dftaylor said:
Effective aggression is utterly valid - although I agree that if you're scoring on clean punching, then it's kind of redundant. One requires the other.
Click to expand...
yeah that was my point. Effective aggression means you're being aggressive and landing. Ineffective aggression means you're being aggressive but hitting thin air or gloves, so once again it just boils down to punches landed and quality of punches landed, and nothing more. The aggression part should be irrelevant as it shouldn't matter how a fighter lands punches (it can be by being aggressive, walking forward and throwing a lot or being on the backfoot and counter punching). That's why it's a pointless term to use imo.
 
#17 · (Edited)
robpalmer135 said:
shouldnt we all be looking for the same thing?
Click to expand...
Exactly. You hear commentators say it all the time "it could come down to what the judges prefer. Do they like the champions aggression or do they like the counter punching of the challenger?". Preference for a certain style of fighting should never, ever come into it. If you use two criteria for scoring a fight (number of punches landed and quality of punches landed i.e. did the punches land clean? Did they hurt the opponent?), you can take a lot of the subjectivity out of it and allow a fighter to fight the way he wants to fight without being penalized because certain judges don't like his style. Isn't that the beauty of the sport?-more than one way to skin a cat? Imagine Barcelona vs Chelsea ended in a draw and the ref gave the match to Barcelona because he preferred their pass and move style of play.

Yes pro boxing is different to football because as well as number of punches landed you have to take into account the quality of punches so the subjective element will always be there. That's not a bad thing either because otherwise fights would be scored purely on compubox numbers. However, subjectivity in boxing is out of control and always has been thanks to ridiculous scoring criteria. Silly terms with wishy washy definitions that allow judges to get away with scoring a fight based on who they like, and be able to justify it. Here is what I mean.

""Ring generalship" comprises of such points as the ability to quickly grasp and take advantage of every opportunity offered, the capacity to cope with all kinds of situations which may arise; to foresee and neutralize an opponent's method of attack; to force an opponent to adopt a style of boxing at which he is not particularly skillful."
Click to expand...
^Now if you do all of the above then you will probably land more punches than your opponent and land better quality ones. I mean, that's what tends to happen when you "take advantage of every opportunity offered" "foresee and neutralize an opponent's attack" etc :lol: If that doesn't happen, then doing all of the above wasn't much use anyway when the aim of the game is to hit and not be hit, and therefore shouldn't be rewarded. Really, pro boxing is a simple sport. It's not gymnastics or diving, so why they don't just stick to two scoring criteria is beyond me.
 
1 - 20 of 31 Posts
About this Discussion
30 Replies
18 Participants
Last post:
Mandanda
Boxing Forums
posts
4.1M
members
33K
Since
2012
A forum community dedicated to Boxing fans and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about weigh-ins, matches, rankings, fighting styles, training, live fights, reviews, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Explore Our Forums
Boxing Forum