Define Ring Generalship?!
Something or someone got me thinking about subjective scoring and the criteria from which we use to score with.
- Punch Effectiveness
- Aggression
- Defence
- Ring Generalship
Okay well, the 1st three i get. But is it jsut me or is Ring Generalship a bit of a dud item? A bit of a mish-mesh of the above three?
Maybe it comes down to aggressive footwork?! Or looking composed?!?!
I really don't know how to define the term Ring Generalship! :D
;)
Re: Define Ring Generalship?!
There really is no specific definition for ring generalship, but I define it as:
thru footwork and movement, putting the fight in a section of the ring where you are most comfortable and your opponent is least comfortable.
So in a fight like Floyd-Oscar, when Floyd was constantly moving and keeping the fight in the center of the ring, he was controlling the ring generalship, because that is where he could do his best damage and where Oscar couldn't do damage.
If Oscar had effectively cut off the ring and forced Mayweather to the ropes, Oscar would have been controlling the ring generalship.
I put a lot of value on ring generalship, because I hate the concept of giving extra credit to the guy who comes forward, as some judges do. It's about effective agressiveness, not just aggressiveness. You don't get any extra credit from me for coming forward unless you're actually effective doing it.
Re: Define Ring Generalship?!
Quote:
Originally Posted by SweetPea
There really is no specific definition for ring generalship, but I define it as:
thru footwork and movement, putting the fight in a section of the ring where you are most comfortable and your opponent is least comfortable.
So in a fight like Floyd-Oscar, when Floyd was constantly moving and keeping the fight in the center of the ring, he was controlling the ring generalship, because that is where he could do his best damage and where Oscar couldn't do damage.
If Oscar had effectively cut off the ring and forced Mayweather to the ropes, Oscar would have been controlling the ring generalship.
I put a lot of value on ring generalship, because I hate the concept of giving extra credit to the guy who comes forward, as some judges do. It's about effective agressiveness, not just aggressiveness. You don't get any extra credit from me for coming forward unless you're actually effective doing it.
:coolclick:
Basically making the other guy fight your fight.
Re: Define Ring Generalship?!
effective jab, consistent counters and dominating aggression are all ring generalship.
its to control the pace of the fight and be winning it.
Re: Define Ring Generalship?!
Quote:
Originally Posted by SweetPea
There really is no specific definition for ring generalship, but I define it as:
thru footwork and movement, putting the fight in a section of the ring where you are most comfortable and your opponent is least comfortable.
So in a fight like Floyd-Oscar, when Floyd was constantly moving and keeping the fight in the center of the ring, he was controlling the ring generalship, because that is where he could do his best damage and where Oscar couldn't do damage.
If Oscar had effectively cut off the ring and forced Mayweather to the ropes, Oscar would have been controlling the ring generalship.
I put a lot of value on ring generalship, because I hate the concept of giving extra credit to the guy who comes forward, as some judges do. It's about effective agressiveness, not just aggressiveness. You don't get any extra credit from me for coming forward unless you're actually effective doing it.
P, nice one! :coolclick:
Cutting off the ring/ Controlling the center or the ring. Nice ;)
Re: Define Ring Generalship?!
Quote:
Originally Posted by SweetPea
There really is no specific definition for ring generalship, but I define it as:
thru footwork and movement, putting the fight in a section of the ring where you are most comfortable and your opponent is least comfortable.
So in a fight like Floyd-Oscar, when Floyd was constantly moving and keeping the fight in the center of the ring, he was controlling the ring generalship, because that is where he could do his best damage and where Oscar couldn't do damage.
If Oscar had effectively cut off the ring and forced Mayweather to the ropes, Oscar would have been controlling the ring generalship.
I put a lot of value on ring generalship, because I hate the concept of giving extra credit to the guy who comes forward, as some judges do. It's about effective agressiveness, not just aggressiveness. You don't get any extra credit from me for coming forward unless you're actually effective doing it.
An excellent response :coolclick:
Re: Define Ring Generalship?!
It has more to do with like Sweetpea said about fighting your fight better than your opponent is fighting their fight. Than about aggressiveness, because that already has a category of its own. It's about composure, confidence, and staying relaxed.
Re: Define Ring Generalship?!
