boxing
Forum Home Boxing Forum European British Classic Aussie MMA Training
Go Back   Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > Classic Boxing Forum


Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 11-25-2012, 12:05 PM   #1
LittleRed
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Yoknapatawpha
Posts: 3,479
vCash: 475
Default Let's discuss Ring Generalship

Every way we can. There's always a thread on the best punchers, the fastest hands, the toughest beards (I expect a gif here BE that's beard related): let's talk something else.

Define ring generalship. Who are boxings greatest ring generals (Red I expect you to wax poetic on Monzon)? Some underrated ring masters? Failing that post some fights where you feel excellent ring generalship was displayed. If you find yourself unable to do any of the above just post, 'Ring generalship is an intangible possessed by all great fighters.'
LittleRed is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 11-25-2012, 12:10 PM   #2
Nightcrawler
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Canada!!!!
Posts: 2,215
vCash: 500
Default Re: Let's discuss Ring Generalship

i like this one a lot. ring generalship is discussed quite a bit but hardly defined.

ricardo lopez imo was a great ring general because:
1)he rarely if ever fought his opponents fight
2)he controlled the pace and distance masterfully
3)he was able to reset the fight when needed, in order to re-establish control
4)he controlled the texture of the fights cater to his OWN strengths
5)he would minimize his opponents strengths or take them away

those are aside from strict offense and defense but tells "the story" of the fight. ricardo lopez was always the author of his own fight, his opponent merely a character
Nightcrawler is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2012, 12:12 PM   #3
red cobra
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: The Sea of Tranquility
Posts: 13,578
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Let's discuss Ring Generalship

Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleRed View Post
Every way we can. There's always a thread on the best punchers, the fastest hands, the toughest beards (I expect a gif here BE that's beard related): let's talk something else.

Define ring generalship. Who are boxings greatest ring generals (Red I expect you to wax poetic on Monzon)? Some underrated ring masters? Failing that post some fights where you feel excellent ring generalship was displayed. If you find yourself unable to do any of the above just post, 'Ring generalship is an intangible possessed by all great fighters.'
Yes, of course Monzon, he was a master at controlling a fight via the 15 round distance and NEVER getting ruffled or out of control, but you can also include Sal Sanchez here as well. He was another cool customer who stayed in control and seemed to dictate the tempo and events of a fight. I'll think of some others later. Great basic thread idea LR!
red cobra is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2012, 12:13 PM   #4
salsanchezfan
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Auburn, WA
Posts: 4,301
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Let's discuss Ring Generalship

I guess the best way I could describe ring generalship is simply getting your opponent to move and act the way you want him to. Make him react to what you do.

Sanchez was great at this, as was Napoles, Chavez........god, so many. Too many to name, really.
salsanchezfan is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2012, 12:18 PM   #5
LittleRed
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Yoknapatawpha
Posts: 3,479
vCash: 475
Default Re: Let's discuss Ring Generalship

That's a beautiful way if putting it (and i'm not sure I would define ring generalship any differently). However... The guys most mentioned in this thread will probably (and rightly) be boxers. Lopez, Monzon, Burley, Leonard, Whitaker, Gans, etc. but aren't swarmers guys who by definition control the pace and distance of the fight. Because pretty much every Henry Armstrong fights looks the same: Armstrong bobs into range and unleashes with both hands forcing every fight into a war. Do those guys lose credit because they rely so heavily on one tactic to make their fight, their fight (unlike say Whitaker who could do it backwards and forwards)? Or am I limiting the definition unnecessarily?
LittleRed is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2012, 12:24 PM   #6
McGrain
Diamond Dog
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 38,055
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Let's discuss Ring Generalship

Ring generalship is the control of temp and range.
McGrain is online now  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2012, 12:24 PM   #7
salsanchezfan
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Auburn, WA
Posts: 4,301
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Let's discuss Ring Generalship

Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleRed View Post
That's a beautiful way if putting it (and i'm not sure I would define ring generalship any differently). However... The guys most mentioned in this thread will probably (and rightly) be boxers. Lopez, Monzon, Burley, Leonard, Whitaker, Gans, etc. but aren't swarmers guys who by definition control the pace and distance of the fight. Because pretty much every Henry Armstrong fights looks the same: Armstrong bobs into range and unleashes with both hands forcing every fight into a war. Do those guys lose credit because they rely so heavily on one tactic to make their fight, their fight (unlike say Whitaker who could do it backwards and forwards)? Or am I limiting the definition unnecessarily?
No, I think it's telling that we've all (perhaps incorrectly) mentioned only boxers. Armstrong is a fantastic mention. Maybe we think of ring generalship as a thinking-man's quality, and when we think of "thinking-man's fighters" we assume he is a boxer because it's perceived that is the way an intelligent man would approach things.......hit and not be hit.
salsanchezfan is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2012, 12:25 PM   #8
Nightcrawler
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Canada!!!!
Posts: 2,215
vCash: 500
Default Re: Let's discuss Ring Generalship

Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleRed View Post
That's a beautiful way if putting it (and i'm not sure I would define ring generalship any differently). However... The guys most mentioned in this thread will probably (and rightly) be boxers. Lopez, Monzon, Burley, Leonard, Whitaker, Gans, etc. but aren't swarmers guys who by definition control the pace and distance of the fight. Because pretty much every Henry Armstrong fights looks the same: Armstrong bobs into range and unleashes with both hands forcing every fight into a war. Do those guys lose credit because they rely so heavily on one tactic to make their fight, their fight (unlike say Whitaker who could do it backwards and forwards)? Or am I limiting the definition unnecessarily?
lopez got in **** a bit by only have one way of fighting, he was just such a great ring general who could always get others to play right into his hands and fight the way he wanted them to.

you have a good point and it's similar to what duran did with leonard: he swarmed him and forced him into a short/middle distance shoot out.

frazier forced ali in the first and the third fights to battle in close, an all frazier fight. in fact the third fight was done wth frazier head almost constantly in ali's chest. ali, even at that stage, wanted distance. wanted to move and frazier took away his legs and made him fight a brawl damn good accomplishment against the greatest heavy ever
Nightcrawler is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2012, 12:35 PM   #9
red cobra
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: The Sea of Tranquility
Posts: 13,578
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Let's discuss Ring Generalship

An example of an underrated ring general would be Eusabio Pedroza. His well known dirty tactics were just part of the mechanics he used in steering a fight his way. He did this so well for the nearly 7 years of his reign.
Napoles and Carlos Ortiz were two other great examples, but as it's been noted alrady, there were so many others that I'm sure will be named. Eder Jofre is yet another.
red cobra is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2012, 12:45 PM   #10
lora
Fighting Zapata
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 4,657
vCash: 500
Default Re: Let's discuss Ring Generalship

Ring General is vastly underused as an insult against *******uals.
lora is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2012, 12:57 PM   #11
LittleRed
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Yoknapatawpha
Posts: 3,479
vCash: 475
Default Re: Let's discuss Ring Generalship

I thought that was light in the loafers.
LittleRed is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2012, 01:03 PM   #12
LittleRed
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Yoknapatawpha
Posts: 3,479
vCash: 475
Default Re: Let's discuss Ring Generalship

Quote:
Originally Posted by McGrain View Post
Ring generalship is the control of temp and range.
Dammit McGrain more! Is Burley a better ring general than Holman Williams? Was Sammy Angotts spoiling better than Peps boxer? Why don't I know any Scottish people? Give me something!
LittleRed is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2012, 01:05 PM   #13
Nightcrawler
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Canada!!!!
Posts: 2,215
vCash: 500
Default Re: Let's discuss Ring Generalship

Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleRed View Post
Dammit McGrain more! Is Burley a better ring general than Holman Williams? Was Sammy Angotts spoiling better than Peps boxer? Why don't I know any Scottish people? Give me something!
he won didn't he
Nightcrawler is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2012, 01:06 PM   #14
Nightcrawler
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Canada!!!!
Posts: 2,215
vCash: 500
Default Re: Let's discuss Ring Generalship

Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleRed View Post
I thought that was light in the loafers.
still say **** in the mouth makes more sense...
Nightcrawler is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2012, 01:09 PM   #15
LittleRed
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Yoknapatawpha
Posts: 3,479
vCash: 475
Default Re: Let's discuss Ring Generalship

Well I think Angotts size might have something to do with that...

Also great call on Pedroza. Guy I totally wouldn't of (you see it BE) but a great choice. Copious amounts of fouls doesn't mean he didn't know how to fight.
LittleRed is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Reply

Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > Classic Boxing Forum

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump






All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:24 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Boxing News 24 Forum 2015