Page 2 of 2
Re: Ring Generalship, is it even a factor today?
Posted: 23 Jan 2016, 22:55
by Tarkus
man wrote:Tarkus wrote:It is a factor and it is a problem. Get rid of it. Get rid of defense and effective aggression fantasies as well. Just leave objective criteria. That is number and power of punches landed.
totally disagree. the number of punches
is horribly overrated.
I didn not say number. I said number and power. In other words amount of damage.
Re: Ring Generalship, is it even a factor today?
Posted: 24 Jan 2016, 05:04
by man
Tarkus wrote:man wrote:Tarkus wrote:It is a factor and it is a problem. Get rid of it. Get rid of defense and effective aggression fantasies as well. Just leave objective criteria. That is number and power of punches landed.
totally disagree. the number of punches
is horribly overrated.
I didn not say number. I said number and power. In other words amount of damage.
well, the only
objective in these
criteria
is the
number. last time i checked
compubox did not report figures on
the power of punches.
Re: Ring Generalship, is it even a factor today?
Posted: 24 Jan 2016, 08:08
by squiggy
The scoring criteria will never be objective.
Re: Ring Generalship, is it even a factor today?
Posted: 24 Jan 2016, 08:21
by palooka
Tarkus wrote:It is a factor and it is a problem. Get rid of it. Get rid of defense and effective aggression fantasies as well. Just leave objective criteria. That is number and power of punches landed. That would be the first right step towards making scoring reflective of the ring action.
If you want to make fights more action packed there are other things that can be done. No need to introduce more vague, subjective criteria that no two people can agree upon.
Tarkus - I'm not sure whether you are serious or baiting? I enjoy watching a nuanced bout where an experienced boxer can outwit and outgame a younger, more powerful and energetic fighter. It is also enjoyable to see a boxer who starts out with gameness and not much of a clue develop into a ring wise veteran who can give much younger boxers fits.
Re: Ring Generalship, is it even a factor today?
Posted: 24 Jan 2016, 09:25
by Tarkus
man wrote:Tarkus wrote:man wrote:
totally disagree. the number of punches
is horribly overrated.
I didn not say number. I said number and power. In other words amount of damage.
well, the only
objective in these
criteria
is the
number. last time i checked
compubox did not report figures on
the power of punches.
Who said anything about compubox.
Re: Ring Generalship, is it even a factor today?
Posted: 24 Jan 2016, 09:27
by Tarkus
palooka wrote:Tarkus wrote:It is a factor and it is a problem. Get rid of it. Get rid of defense and effective aggression fantasies as well. Just leave objective criteria. That is number and power of punches landed. That would be the first right step towards making scoring reflective of the ring action.
If you want to make fights more action packed there are other things that can be done. No need to introduce more vague, subjective criteria that no two people can agree upon.
Tarkus - I'm not sure whether you are serious or baiting? I enjoy watching a nuanced bout where an experienced boxer can outwit and outgame a younger, more powerful and energetic fighter. It is also enjoyable to see a boxer who starts out with gameness and not much of a clue develop into a ring wise veteran who can give much younger boxers fits.
So do I.