Ring Generalship, is it even a factor today?

[caldo2025]

Do you remember when this thing existed? Do you remember when it was a huge factor in determining which boxer got his hand raised? Like the rotary phone, younger boxing fans have probably heard of it but have never seen it used. So here's a quick recap for those who don't know what Ring Generalship is:

The ability of a boxer to DICTATE the pace, style or tactics of a bout vis-a-vis his opponent. In 1929 the rules of NYSAC described Ring Generalship as "such points as the ability to quickly grasp and take advantage of every opportunity offered, the capacity to cope with all kinds of situations which may arise; to foresee and neutralize an opponent’s method of attack; to force an opponent to adopt a style of boxing at which he is not particularly skillful"

The problem is that this IS still part of how a judge is SUPPOSED to score a boxing match today. It was never retired or updated, judges have just decided not to use it today for some reason or another. Why is that exactly? Scoring today is all about quantitative punches with punch stats and dictating the pace has nothing to do with it. I think that this is the main reason why seeing a really exciting fight these days is as rare as a bigfoot sighting. Judges keep awarding boxers for running the whole fight and give zero points to the boxers trying to make an entertaining fight (excluding Canelo/Lara of course).

I'd love to see Boxing take a minute to refocus everyone, judges, trainers, boxers and fans on exactly how a fight is currently scored. Let's reset and get everyone on the same page. Boxing is not changing a thing but i'd just like to see them consider their own rules in place for almost a 100 years.

Do you think Ring Generalship is still a factor in scoring fights today?

[Tarkus]

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.

[Ricky_]

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.

I tend to agree, I can't fathom why in rounds where no a lot happens, the consensus among judges and some fans (who fancy themselves as pureists) will be to award a 10pt to the guy doing the running/spoiling.

[caldo2025]

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.

I tend to agree, I can't fathom why in rounds where no a lot happens, the consensus among judges and some fans (who fancy themselves as pureists) will be to award a 10pt to the guy doing the running/spoiling.

I completely agree. I also hate how judges feel that they have to award the round to one of the boxers instead of just calling the round a draw. The Wlad/Fury fight is a perfect example. Neither one of those guys deserved to win a majority of those rounds. I think that decisions would end up being a lot more accurate if they scored more even rounds. Honestly, you give two even rounds to one boxer just because you have to, that's equivalent to a knockdown in terms of points. Silly.

[PsychoGamerTwo]

I want 10-9.5 rounds... and 10-8.5

10 - 9.5 = close round
10 - 9.0 = average winning round
10 - 8.5 = beaten up without KD's
10 - 8.0 = beaten up with knockdown.

And a round you dominate for 2 & 1/2 minutes, and getting flash KD'd in the last seconds should NEVER be scored 10-8.

[Noxy]

I think it is still a factor, although you don't hear it talked about much. However, if you see a close fight and one boxer tries to impose his style, pace etc. and it doesn't really work that fighter is more likely to end up on the wrong side of the decision. It works the other way too. Scoring loads of rounds equal isn't really viable by the way, people don't want to see that.

[gilgamesh]

The only thing that really matters in scoring a fight is who's doing more damage. Scoring a fight doesn't need to be all that complicated. Who do you think is kicking the other guys ass worse? That's who's winning.

[Chepppaaa]

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.

[campfire]

Do you remember when this thing existed? Do you remember when it was a huge factor in determining which boxer got his hand raised? Like the rotary phone, younger boxing fans have probably heard of it but have never seen it used. So here's a quick recap for those who don't know what Ring Generalship is:

The ability of a boxer to DICTATE the pace, style or tactics of a bout vis-a-vis his opponent. In 1929 the rules of NYSAC described Ring Generalship as "such points as the ability to quickly grasp and take advantage of every opportunity offered, the capacity to cope with all kinds of situations which may arise; to foresee and neutralize an opponent’s method of attack; to force an opponent to adopt a style of boxing at which he is not particularly skillful"

The problem is that this IS still part of how a judge is SUPPOSED to score a boxing match today. It was never retired or updated, judges have just decided not to use it today for some reason or another. Why is that exactly? Scoring today is all about quantitative punches with punch stats and dictating the pace has nothing to do with it. I think that this is the main reason why seeing a really exciting fight these days is as rare as a bigfoot sighting. Judges keep awarding boxers for running the whole fight and give zero points to the boxers trying to make an entertaining fight (excluding Canelo/Lara of course).

I'd love to see Boxing take a minute to refocus everyone, judges, trainers, boxers and fans on exactly how a fight is currently scored. Let's reset and get everyone on the same page. Boxing is not changing a thing but i'd just like to see them consider their own rules in place for almost a 100 years.

Do you think Ring Generalship is still a factor in scoring fights today?

It's a outdated silly rule

[squiggy]

I feel like it's a concept that works well as a tie-breaker in the absence of a surfeit of telling blows. If we fight a round and neither of us particularly lands any punches worth taking note of, and it's apparent that you were imposing your style and making me fight your fight, then that's your 10-9 round.
On the other hand, if you imposed your style but I landed telling blows while you didn't, I'm more than happy to throw ring generalship out the window and score in favor of the landed blows.

[Tarkus]

I think it is still a factor, although you don't hear it talked about much. However, if you see a close fight and one boxer tries to impose his style, pace etc. and it doesn't really work that fighter is more likely to end up on the wrong side of the decision. It works the other way too. Scoring loads of rounds equal isn't really viable by the way, people don't want to see that.

What people dont want to see more is score cards that are all over the place. If close rounds were scored even it would make judges scorecards comparable and credible. Almost everyone can score a round when it is clear. There is no point giving the even round to someone. This is a fight not a dance contest.

[Undefeated49-0]

Honestly I believe the Sweet Science is vastly underappreciated today by even those who claim to be boxing fans for years, most people want to see a brawl(b@ll$ to the wall using no skills or defense whatsoever) or a fight (one guy stands toe to toe with one another going blow for blow) and they often confuse that as "Boxing" (the Art of hitting without being hit).

So Ring Generalship is so much a part of the Sweet Science that it as well as the rest of the Sweet Science will go vastly overlooked especially by today's so called "boxing fans".

The only time I think Ring Generalship becomes a factor in judging who won is when the fight is so close in punches landed and damage from those shots that you have to focus the score on some other factor.

[jas80s]

Boxing as opposed to fighting involves a match up of styles. Like most fans, I am more fascinated by high contact fights and the occasional highlight reel KO, but to be fair, Boxing is a sport and the ability to defend and utilize distance and angles to blunt an attack is an integral part of the game. Often, it bores the crap out of me, but I think out boxing an opponent should result in a win and it's a travesty when it doesn't.

Having said that, the only thing that annoys me more is when a guy does everything in his power to avoid getting hit, but never counters with anything of remote consequence, and then tries to claim he put on a boxing clinic and got robbed. The game is still about landing punches, I just think it is important to remember that if a guy controls the pace and distance and avoids taking shots and is able to land more than his opponent, he should win, even if he doesn't have power to speak of. Placing too much emphasis on punching only might skew rounds toward guys with more power and guys who throw more punches (even if they miss). Nuance need not be banned from the process completely.

[Tarkus]

Boxing as opposed to fighting involves a match up of styles. Like most fans, I am more fascinated by high contact fights and the occasional highlight reel KO, but to be fair, Boxing is a sport and the ability to defend and utilize distance and angles to blunt an attack is an integral part of the game. Often, it bores the crap out of me, but I think out boxing an opponent should result in a win and it's a travesty when it doesn't.

Having said that, the only thing that annoys me more is when a guy does everything in his power to avoid getting hit, but never counters with anything of remote consequence, and then tries to claim he put on a boxing clinic and got robbed. The game is still about landing punches, I just think it is important to remember that if a guy controls the pace and distance and avoids taking shots and is able to land more than his opponent, he should win, even if he doesn't have power to speak of. Placing too much emphasis on punching only might skew rounds toward guys with more power and guys who throw more punches (even if they miss). Nuance need not be banned from the process completely.

Of course. Hence the boxer with better defense will get hit less. There is no need to score a "defense" or "attack" when they have already been scored by assessing the damage taken and given.

[caldo2025]

Boxing as opposed to fighting involves a match up of styles. Like most fans, I am more fascinated by high contact fights and the occasional highlight reel KO, but to be fair, Boxing is a sport and the ability to defend and utilize distance and angles to blunt an attack is an integral part of the game. Often, it bores the crap out of me, but I think out boxing an opponent should result in a win and it's a travesty when it doesn't.

Having said that, the only thing that annoys me more is when a guy does everything in his power to avoid getting hit, but never counters with anything of remote consequence, and then tries to claim he put on a boxing clinic and got robbed. The game is still about landing punches, I just think it is important to remember that if a guy controls the pace and distance and avoids taking shots and is able to land more than his opponent, he should win, even if he doesn't have power to speak of. Placing too much emphasis on punching only might skew rounds toward guys with more power and guys who throw more punches (even if they miss). Nuance need not be banned from the process completely.

Reading your comments here got me thinking about the Cotto/Canelo fight specifically. That was a very confusing fight to score for me for the reasons you illustrate. Cotto spent most of those rounds moving nicely and staying busy with the jab and then Canelo would land a big shot or two in the final 20 seconds of round and win the round. How many jabs equal a power shot? Who knows right?

I think the judges got that fight right because in my opinion, you can't win a fight on jabs alone. Jabs are there to set up shots and distance, boxers shouldn't lean it primarily for a win. But I do agree that you can't just give the fight to the most powerful puncher of the two. But there's a fine line on how many jabs equal power shots. It's confusing.

[sucracristo]

it's also in the rules to warn boxers and take points away for not fighting and spoiling.
they do it in the amateurs. that solves the running and spoiling problem right there,
and the whole judging interpretation becomes moot. if you bend over at the waist and
turn your back so there is no scoring surface for your opponent to even hit except
places he will get penalized for hitting, the ref needs to immediately shut that crap
down. the hugging is also illegal by the rules. if a boxer moves away from the other
boxer just to avoid exchanges altogether for more than 20-30 seconds the ref needs
to call time and tell the boxer, "hey lara, this isn't a marathon. it's boxing." start
suspending judges who don't maintain order in the ring and allow these stinker spoiler
fighters to get away with the bending, turning, holding, running, butting, and you will
start to see real boxing again.

[Tony1244]

Ring generalship is kind of like judicial temperament. I'm not sure anyone knows exactly what they mean.

If you're dictating the fight and hitting more than you're getting hit, I suppose you have ring generalship. If you like the outcome of a case, you'd say the judge showed good judicial temperament.

[diddy]

It's only a factor when it involves the house fighter with all the money behind him. Otherwise, not a factor.

[diddy]

Ring generalship is a fancy word for spoiling, moving a lot, trying to take the fight out of a fight. That's ring generalship.

[diddy]

Boxing needs .5 point round scoring. Would solve all its problems. If you barely nick a round. It's 9.5-9. Or 10-9.5. Same difference. If you win a round in clear fashion it's 10-9. If you score a KD its 10-8, 10-7 and so on. Problem is this makes too much sense. The biggest problem with it is it would hurt the chances to influence scorecards via corruption. With the full 10-9 system it's much easier to rob fighters and aid corruption. That's why the system isn't going anywhere. Let's keep it real. Boxing stopped being a sport a long time ago. It's nothing but a cash business now that's nothing but 95% awful hand-picked, pointless matchups.

[Kootenay47]

Ring generalship is a fancy word for spoiling, moving a lot, trying to take the fight out of a fight. That's ring generalship.

It is dictating the pace of the fight . It can mean slowing a fight down or speeding a fight up . If a boxer consistently dominates their opponents and for the majority of the fight they initiate the meaningful exchanges then that is ring generalship.

GGG is the best example in recent memory of superb ring generalship , a highly offensive style combined with good defence and the best KO percentage .

[jas80s]

Boxing as opposed to fighting involves a match up of styles. Like most fans, I am more fascinated by high contact fights and the occasional highlight reel KO, but to be fair, Boxing is a sport and the ability to defend and utilize distance and angles to blunt an attack is an integral part of the game. Often, it bores the crap out of me, but I think out boxing an opponent should result in a win and it's a travesty when it doesn't.

Having said that, the only thing that annoys me more is when a guy does everything in his power to avoid getting hit, but never counters with anything of remote consequence, and then tries to claim he put on a boxing clinic and got robbed. The game is still about landing punches, I just think it is important to remember that if a guy controls the pace and distance and avoids taking shots and is able to land more than his opponent, he should win, even if he doesn't have power to speak of. Placing too much emphasis on punching only might skew rounds toward guys with more power and guys who throw more punches (even if they miss). Nuance need not be banned from the process completely.

Of course. Hence the boxer with better defense will get hit less. There is no need to score a "defense" or "attack" when they have already been scored by assessing the damage taken and given.

I agree with 99 percent of that, but I think "damage" need not be present to win, if you hit your opponent enough to blunt his attack and make him regroup to try and mount an attack again, that constitutes a scoring blow and should be rewarded. And again, this from a guy who like most fans, prefers guys who can deliver a KO in the ring....just saying there is science and even artistry to boxing, that can and should be appreciated (not saying you can't of course). It's kind of like pitching in baseball, some guys can blow dudes away with 100 mph stuff, and some guys find success more on changing speeds and locating pitches. It's not all about power, an out is an out. The key here is, you have to land punches though, I think we agree on that.

[gilgamesh]

Ring generalship is a fancy word for spoiling, moving a lot, trying to take the fight out of a fight. That's ring generalship.

It is dictating the pace of the fight . It can mean slowing a fight down or speeding a fight up . If a boxer consistently dominates their opponents and for the majority of the fight they initiate the meaningful exchanges then that is ring generalship.

GGG is the best example in recent memory of superb ring generalship , a highly offensive style combined with good defence and the best KO percentage .

Bernard Hopkins was almost always able to lure his opponent into fighting at a pace that favored him. He didn't always win, but he almost always got the fight at the pace he liked.

[man]

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.

[jas80s]

Ring generalship is a fancy word for spoiling, moving a lot, trying to take the fight out of a fight. That's ring generalship.

It is dictating the pace of the fight . It can mean slowing a fight down or speeding a fight up . If a boxer consistently dominates their opponents and for the majority of the fight they initiate the meaningful exchanges then that is ring generalship.

GGG is the best example in recent memory of superb ring generalship , a highly offensive style combined with good defence and the best KO percentage .

Bernard Hopkins was almost always able to lure his opponent into fighting at a pace that favored him. He didn't always win, but he almost always got the fight at the pace he liked.

Exactly why I always argued that Calzaghe's win over him was legit. The only guy (save maybe Kovalev later) who clearly pushed Hopkins into a fight he didn't want...even if it was ugly as hell...