Ring generalship: A purely subjective scoring criteria?

Am I right in understanding that clean punching/, effective aggression, defence & ring generalship are NOT all equal scoring criteria? That clean punching is the most important aspect of scoring a bout and that ring generalship is last, behind defence?

Or am I wrong?

Who actually set the criteria, I mean initially?

I found the Boxing Rules of Athletic Commission of the State of New York but this confuses me. Does the rules differ from state to state?

Quote:

---

5. It is advisable to deduct points when a contestant persistently delays the action of a contest by clinching and lack of aggressiveness

---

.

I never knew this?

I'm rambling because I am genuinely confused about ring generalship. There seems to be no absolute rule on what is to be considered as more appropriate or more competent ring generalship so it is left up to the judge to decide and therefore the fighter to influence the judges.

So I'm wondering is ring generalship as much about the appearance of being in control as much as it is about actually being in control.

Is 'smoke and mirrors' something that judges take into account? Should they?

The way I view ring generalship is: the fighter who is employing their strategy most effectively.

Which means it's different for different fighters. For pressure fighters ring generalship means stalking your opponent, backing them down, making them avoid you at all costs. For a counter puncher it would be to invite in attacks from your opponent and counter effectively.

well hell wlad should have lost dozens of points based on that rule above.

I would say similar, the fighter is controlling the fight the way they want to.it is an unambiguous term but generally ascribed to older fighters like B Hop.

Effective punching is king. If a guy is landing clean and those shots are having a visible effect on his opponent, who cares who is moving better or dictating where the fight is taking place?

Everything in boxing either helps you land effective punches, or helps you avoid effective punches from your opponent. What else really matters?

Ring generalship is something that might come into play to help decide a razor close "feeling out" round where nothing really happened.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jimanuel Boogustus

Am I right in understanding that clean punching/, effective aggression, defence & ring generalship are NOT all equal scoring criteria? That clean punching is the most important aspect of scoring a bout and that ring generalship is last, behind defence?

Or am I wrong?

Who actually set the criteria, I mean initially?

I found the Boxing Rules of Athletic Commission of the State of New York but this confuses me. Does the rules differ from state to state?

Quote:

---

5. It is advisable to deduct points when a contestant persistently delays the action of a contest by clinching and lack of aggressiveness

---

.

I never knew this?

I'm rambling because I am genuinely confused about ring generalship. There seems to be no absolute rule on what is to be considered as more appropriate or more competent ring generalship so it is left up to the judge to decide and therefore the fighter to influence the judges.

So I'm wondering is ring generalship as much about the appearance of being in control as much as it is about actually being in control.

Is 'smoke and mirrors' something that judges take into account? Should they?

---

That is a pretty deep inquiry you have there. Based on the difference between score cards more often then not these days it would appear that "subjective" wins the day but we all know that something else has to be at play in many cases.

There is a certain amount of redundancy in the 10 point must system where I suppose lends itself to subjectivity or the ability to claim simply that you saw it differently. However when people start to call the effective use of the ring and working off the back foot as running, something is clearly lost in translation.

Ring generalship can include effective aggression, defense and clean accurate punching as part of its definition. The ring is there for a reason and its size a major contention in pretty much every major fight. Unfortunately today we are in the phone-booth era driven by highlight reels. People in large measure dont want to watch a boxing match and those that make it to 12 are deemed a failure. Its a knockout or bust time. That leaves little room for the subtleties of the sweet science to even get noticed.

Interesting topic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brocktonblockbust

well hell wlad should have lost dozens of points based on that rule above.

---

So who is actually inforcing the rules? Are these rules universal? Do they not apply in Zaire or Germany???

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IamInuit

That is a pretty deep inquiry you have there. Based on the difference between score cards more often then not these days it would appear that "subjective" wins the day but we all know that something else has to be at play in many cases.

---

Yeah we have to consider corruption or some other outside inflence as far as 'bad' decisions go but then I guess there is this other side of the coin that I wanted to get in to with casual and even hardcore fans where there are massive differences of opinion over close fights, robberies and bad decisions. For examle (not neccessarily here but) Canelo fights seem to devide a lot of opion. As do Danny Garcia fights.

It seems a guy who has seeminlgly heavy feet and dosent look good moving around the ring and is being made to 'look bad' although when you look at the shots (and crucially the type of shots) actaully being landed (per round/ per fight, whatever) then you have a fight that is not as it 'looks'.

I think in these intances, ring generalship is misleading.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IamInuit

There is a certain amount of redundancy in the 10 point must system where I suppose lends itself to subjectivity or the ability to claim simply that you saw it differently.

---

I was going to bring this up as well.

I always assumed that the good old Marquess of Queensbury created a one-stop-shop for the rules of boxing. But thw 10-point must is nothing to do with him. Who created the 10-point must?
Your right, it is a poor system if the looser of the round only gets deducted 1 point, unless they are knocked down.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IamInuit

However when people start to call the effective use of the ring and working off the back foot as running, something is clearly lost in translation.

---

Rule no.5 leaves me a little stunned, frankly. So I can't really comment on 'lost in translation', untill there is some clarifciation on the enforcement or at least considerationof this rule.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IamInuit

Ring generalship can include effective aggression, defense and clean accurate punching as part of its definition. The ring is there for a reason and its size a major contention in pretty much every major fight. Unfortunately today we are in the phone-booth era driven by highlight reels. People in large measure dont want to watch a boxing match and those that make it to 12 are deemed a failure. Its a knockout or bust time. That leaves little room for the subtleties of the sweet science to even get noticed.

---

To be honest, I can undertsand this. Boxing is ultimately an entertainment business and thrives off thrills and spills. Shame though.

I have about the same definition as Lyle, just think of it as the guy you would have rather been in a round. It's subjective party because it's so tied in with all the other criteria to me, maybe used to reward the guy who looks a little more comfortable, everything else being even.

Never really thought of it bud, seems a bit like the hard to pin down and subjective definition of "p4p". Simply put I think its doing what you want when you want to do it in the ring. Be that with effective aggression and pressure or mobility and walking a guy into 1001 counter punches. Movement is key in both, there is nothing better than watching a guy cut down the ring on a boxer and position him into another combo...Chavez sr would literally 'cup' or arm bump guys into ripping body shots when they were all out of ring. Or a defensive minded boxer setting traps, using a guys pressure against him spinning out and bouncing a combo off his noggin. Come to think of it I think positioning has a lot to do with generalship. If your feet aren't under you and ready for the next step, your punches lose steam and your getting hit in return.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jimanuel Boogustus

It seems a guy who has seeminlgly heavy feet and dosent look good moving around the ring and is being made to 'look bad' although when you look at the shots (and crucially the type of shots) actaully being landed (per round/ per fight, whatever) then you have a fight that is not as it 'looks'.
I think in these intances, ring generalship is misleading.

---

Looking slick while being punched about the face and not answering back is not supposed to get you points or win rounds that one lost. Same with round stealing in the last 15 seconds. Somehow, the 2:45 of dominance by the other guy is functionally deleted? Ali and Leonard were masters at pulling that blind over the festivities.

Its at times like that when it looks like there is no criteria and they ought to discontinue using a "must system" that they may or may not use.

A broader question is why has the system not evolved? What are they still doing at ringside with all those blind spots and distractions? I mean in some cases you are left wondering if the person even watched the round or was to busy analyzing the celebrities.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jimanuel Boogustus

I was going to bring this up as well.

I always assumed that the good old Marquess of Queensbury created a one-stop-shop for the rules of boxing. But thw 10-point must is nothing to do with him. Who created the 10-point must?
Your right, it is a poor system if the looser of the round only gets deducted 1 point, unless they are knocked down.

---

The object of the game afterall is to out score your opponent. That's where the 10 point must originates. Landing more scoring blows then the other guy.

I think it originated in London and was an add on to the do's and dont's. Its always been based on the judges knowing what a scoring blow is. Lets not forget that thee were no judges much of the time and the ref called the fight at its origin. I find it interesting that its still practiced in Britain and have mixed feelings about it.

I also find the reluctance to call an even round even kind of odd. There is nothing in the rules about an obligation to pick a winner. I've called an awful lot of first rounds even over the years. Same with a late kd. If person A dominated 2 minutes and 50 seconds of a round and gets dropped that should not get the round for person B all the time. That could easily be justified an even round.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jimanuel Boogustus

Rule no.5 leaves me a little stunned, frankly. So I can't really comment on 'lost in translation', untill there is some clarifciation on the enforcement or at least considerationof this rule.

---

Haglers ability to take the ring away from his opponent and cut it off is no less/more dominant then Floyd's use of the entire ring. They should both be given equal consideration with the other elements
listed

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jimanuel Boogustus

To be honest, I can undertsand this. Boxing is ultimately an entertainment business and thrives off thrills and spills. Shame though.

---

Its dummied down the sport and shares the blame in many ways for the erosion of judging.

You want to know what ring general ship is? Watch Floyd, 90% of the time he's in control. He'll be controlling where the fight is happening, how fast the fight is happening, and avoiding all clean punches.
It won't be exciting, I'll be disgusted, and Floyd will be in control.
Fighters do whatever the referees will let them do!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by p4pking

I have about the same definition as Lyle, just think of it as the guy you would have rather been in a round. It's subjective party because it's so tied in with all the other criteria to me, maybe used to reward the guy who looks a little more comfortable, everything else being even.

---

I tend to agree with that statement. The concern I have with Lyle's perspective is that sometimes guys change their style up to be most effective with their specific opponent. For example, puncher might turn boxer because it'll increase his chances to win against another puncher, or a stalking pressure fighter might employ counter punching if he's facing another pressure fighter. At bottom, it is who controlled the flow in the way they wanted to. I agree it is subjective.

Ring Generalship:

To exhibit control by means of purposefully and effectively dictating or manipulating either:

• The spatial element of the contest; that being the combative space, distance and movement of (or between fighter and) the opponent.

And/ or

• The temporal element of the contest; that being the initiation, duration and frequency of all combative manoeuvres taken by either fighter.

For now - that's my truest crack at it :-\

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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 :p

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jimanuel Boogustus

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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 :p

---

its a good question :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jimanuel Boogustus

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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 :p

---

and id say 9 out of 10 times its irrelevant