How do you define Ring Generalship?

[OumaFan]

and how important is it to your scoring?

Just seems a bit vague, people seem to have different explanations of it.

[killersheep]

and how important is it to your scoring?

Just seems a bit vague, people seem to have different explanations of it.

To me ring generalship has heavy weighting in the scoring of a round.

I define it as a guy fighting the way he wants to and not allowing his opponent to do so.

[amat]

Yeah, this is huge imo and waaay to vague and whenever I explain to someone how to score a fight, I ask them to judge who is landing the cleanest blows, who is more difficult to land on and who is generally controlling the fight, the guy fighting the fight he wants to fight.

That's pretty much the standard issue explanation right there, the last little sentence. The guy fighting the way he wants to fight is the ring general. Even if a fighter is on his backfoot and staying outside, he can still be the ring general if the guy walking him down is clueless and having no success. The guy who is fighting the smarter fight and more importantly, taking his opponent out of his game. Usually this factor comes into play more when you have a great clash of styles and two boxers are trying to fight each other with complete opposite tactics as was the case when Spinks fought Mayorga, Taylor and Karmazin, the ring generalship means more in that case. When Corrales and Castillo met, ring generalship was really irrelevant because both of them were exactly where they both wanted to be and doing what they both wanted to do.

In addition to a scoring category, like defense or accurate punching, you can apply ring generalship as an attribute to a fighter. For example, Bernard Hopkins ring generalship has been second to nobody's for the better part of the last decade. His opponents simply never fought the way they normally did and were almost always off rythym. It's that attribute that has helped take Bernard so long into his 40's still fighting top level fighters. This is an attribute that is most overlooked and most of the time comes out when they are in the ring, who the smarter fighter is is difficult to judge before a fight sometimes.

[Taeth]

I think used to think it was straight forward, but it not always is. So many people falsley think its just about who is coming forward, but thats not fair to counter punchers. Others think its when guys like Roy Jones Jr who comes to mind most just simply controls every aspect of a fight. I don't necessarily agree with that either.

Look at Pacquiao-Hatton and Mayweather-Hatton

Obviously Pacquiao won faster, his fight looked cleaner, but I think Mayweather fought that fight the way he wanted to. If a guy is really good defensively, like Mayweather or WInky Wright, I think credit should be given where its due, if they are avoiding 90% of the punches credit should be given because thats what they are out there trying to do. If Ricky Hatton was roughing Mayweather up, landing solid punches then I would have given him more rounds.

IMO clean effective punching and defense is a end result of ring generalship, Its not always related, but IMO the only reason why ring generalship should matter is if both guys are landing similar amount of punches (like Cotto-CLottey) where its hard to judge, thats the only time I go to things like ring generalship and effective aggression. Because IMO effective aggression is part of clean effective punching, I can't see how you are being effective if you aren't landing punches.

[Chris Nagel]

Ring generalship is effectively using the ring to your advantage mainly through the use of footwork. In regards to scoring, it just gives you a feeling of who is better controlling the fight. It isn't necessarily specific to style either. A pressuring fighter, or a fighter that holds his ground can also demonstrate better ring generalship than a contrasting opponent.

For the boxer this means maintaining distance as to dictate the action rather than dancing from ring post to ring post to stay away from the opponent. For the pressure fighter, or counter puncher this means not following your opponent around like schmuck. In this case circling in the same direction as the opponent as to cut off the ring while not walking into their line of fire.

[Taeth]

I don't think its just footwork, I think its also an "aura" if you will that a fighter exudes in there, guys like Joe Calzaghe or Cotto or Jones Jr have this ability to show you how in control they are in there.

I think Guillermo Rigondeaux from Cuba is amazing at this as well.

[DaxxKahn]

and how important is it to your scoring?

Just seems a bit vague, people seem to have different explanations of it.

To me ring generalship has heavy weighting in the scoring of a round.

I define it as a guy fighting the way he wants to and not allowing his opponent to do so.

That added with knowing where you are at all times, bringing the fight where you want it EG middle of the ring against the ropes etc....

It is not style specific....Perhaps the best example of ring generalship is Hopkins

[Howlin Mad Missy]

it is tricky especially as you can be fighting defensively AND controlling the fight - people hear 'control' and think it's active or action.

[Spicoli]

identify,create,exploit weaknesses.A guy who can move his opponent without hitting him.Have him falling into feints as he remains one step ahead and dictates the terms as he sees fit.It can be pretty subjective but may just boil down to 'you know it when you see it'.I think it has much more to do with combined defense as opposed to pressure.

[Scrap]

The guy who knows when and why and which.

[Andre]

The part of it thats hard to score or sometimes see till the end, is when someone slowly but systematically wears on someone and drags a good counter hitter or distance boxer down into the mines for an all out war.
If they dont finish them off ,the scores dont always reflect what has occurred and why.

[Andre]

it is tricky especially as you can be fighting defensively AND controlling the fight - people hear 'control' and think it's active or action.

Too right ,then there are other techniques like the rope a dope which is a bluff but still ring generalship.

[Andre]

I don't think its just footwork, I think its also an "aura" if you will that a fighter exudes in there, guys like Joe Calzaghe or Cotto or Jones Jr have this ability to show you how in control they are in there.

I think Guillermo Rigondeaux from Cuba is amazing at this as well.

True there is that part as well.

Tyson on Aura was the king; pre fight and during the fight which all had their varying effects on the opposition depending on their own mental strength.

[killersheep]

I don't think its just footwork, I think its also an "aura" if you will that a fighter exudes in there, guys like Joe Calzaghe or Cotto or Jones Jr have this ability to show you how in control they are in there.

I think Guillermo Rigondeaux from Cuba is amazing at this as well.

Yes when your opponent stands still like a punching bag and doesn't throw anything back, you have just won the Ring Generalship portion of the round.

[JazMerkin]

I don't weigh it as heavily as others & I think at times what one person might see as ring generalship, another might see as weakness, such as my & killer's vastly differing take on the Vazquez-Prescott fight the other night.

However, Amat's description seems to some it up best. The best exponent of ring generalship IMO is Floyd Mayweather, you can tell if he fights the opponent's fight it's to prove a point & because HE wants to, such as in the Hatton fight when he beat him up on the inside. Hopkins is pretty good, however he can fall into just being messy at times. Mosley against Margarito was a great example, & I think Khan last night was a good example as well. Just generally controlling the fight & being the man dictating how the fight is fought.