Ring generalship: A purely subjective scoring criteria?

[erics44]

if a fighter throws 5 punches and lands once

and the other fighter throws 1 and lands it, it being a similar punch to his opponents

the fighter who threw more should be awarded the round

[erics44]

if a fighter throws 5 punches and lands once

and the other fighter throws 1 and lands it, it being a similar punch to his opponents

the fighter who threw more should be awarded the round

so what im saying is defence, ring generalship shouldnt make any difference

a fighter could have the best defence in the world, avoiding every punch in a round

IMO if he doesnt land himself and makes less of an effort throwing punches he loses the round

[Jimanuel Boogustus]

if a fighter throws 5 punches and lands once

and the other fighter throws 1 and lands it, it being a similar punch to his opponents

the fighter who threw more should be awarded the round

What was more effective though the defence or aggression

[SlimTrae]

Ring generalship: A purely subjective scoring criteria?
Yes, it is.

Kabong started out perfectly illustrating this with :The way (I) view it. even though others posts didn't use the personal pronoun (I), they all proceeded in similar fashion.

Something Floyd stated that validates the complexities of scoring in boxing as opposed to soccer, basketball, baseball, American football: Boxing along with them are all sports, but boxing isn't a game.

The analogy of a hard punch vs a soft punch in scoring criteria for example: Does one negate the other? I don't think so. If a punch as soft as it is landed...how do I not score it?

My example of a soft score vs a hard score is in American football -suppose the Dallas Cowboys score 2 running touchdowns for a 1/2 of a yard (twice) braking the goal line---by the nose of the ball.
But the Green Bay Packers score 2 touchdowns running 85 yards and 92 yards, then do an end zone dance, brake out the cell phone and call their momma while the cameras surround them.

One team had 2 soft scores, the other had 2 hard scores. But hey...they both scored!!!

To put that in perspective of ring generalship.
Suppose the Dallas Cowboys dominated offensive time out of 60 minutes- by having the ball 40minutes to the Packers 20?

They IMO would have had field generalship or ring generalship.

But... time of possession doesn't deem them as the winner-- anymore than one who controls the ring 11 rounds out of 12.

Bernard Hopkins had TOTALL ring generalship vs Jermaine Taylor I, but yet he didn't get the win.

Michael Katsidis IMO controlled the pace of the fight, where the fight took place against Casamayor, yet he lost. Truly.

So I would say Yes ring generalship is a scoring criteria that is NOT absolute. It is not objective like knowing how to score in golf, rugbee, soccer or any other sport that is literally a "game"


Interesting topic that produced some really well thought out comments, Topic/responses like these: you guys rock.

[TitoFan]

Boxing is one of those precious few sports where, it's not only scored by judges.... but you can also sway those judges with certain tactics to win you the round. There are other sporting competitions involving judges, such as several Olympic sports, but these aren't one-on-one competitions, and there's little the athlete can do to sway the judges, other than just "nail the dive", or whatever the sport happens to be.

What are some of these tactics?

Well, for starters, how about the all-too-common "waiting until the final 30 seconds before stepping on the gas pedal and impress the judges" technique? Throughout history, there's been fighters who have excelled precisely at this type of judge swaying. Leave them with a good last impression, even if you got beat from pillar to post the previous 2:45.

How about the feather-fisted flurry, in which the number of punches thrown is meant to impress, regardless of whether they land or not? Again... some experts in this technique throughout boxing history.

So while ring generalship is definitely a worthy criteria (albeit subjective) on which to base scoring of a boxing round, it's worth noting that we're normally dealing with judges who may be prone to being swayed by the aforementioned techniques.

[erics44]

if a fighter throws 5 punches and lands once

and the other fighter throws 1 and lands it, it being a similar punch to his opponents

the fighter who threw more should be awarded the round

What was more effective though the defence or aggression

its a good question

[erics44]

if a fighter throws 5 punches and lands once

and the other fighter throws 1 and lands it, it being a similar punch to his opponents

the fighter who threw more should be awarded the round

What was more effective though the defence or aggression

and id say 9 out of 10 times its irrelevant