Just like total punch stats don't show "Ring Generalship" in boxing.

misterearl wrote:Intensity

VCoug wrote:The one where I used the box score to show he shot 8 times in 30 minutes? All I said was that I thought he played a really good game even though I wasn't able to watch. I compared it to the other games this season, when I was able to watch, and said this is how I'd like Felton to play the rest of the season.

You cannot see the fire in Raymond Felton's eyes from a box score.

Not can a box score describe him fighting over a pick. In one defensive sequence he held his ground and damn near knocked te much bigger Lopez to the floor.

Yeah, we are tough.

Are you guys so stupid that you can't understand that I said I thought he played a very good game and that I hope he continues to play like that? Or, are you so desperate to prove to everybody that your such a good fan that you insist on lying about what I said? If you're unable to have an honest discussion about this team and you feel the need to lie about what was said then please stop responding to me. I have no patience for liars and have better things to do with my time than argue with them.

fishmike wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:Numbers don't do Felton justice.

Just like total punch stats don't show "Ring Generalship" in boxing.

agree. Also Felton has what I would call good misses. He's not the best finisher, but when he attacks like that he breaks up the defense and our bigs crash the glass really well (Kidd also!). Good things happens Felton attacks and when they give him space he's pretty solid nailing those jumpers, and those shots are important (if it feels like he takes too many). Felton gets and A+ right now

Agree with the "good misses" statement.

Felton basically keeps the defense honest. When teams collapse the inside or zone out Melo like the San An game, he'll have some openings to the paint he can exploit, and this also opens up the PnR game, as well as, the drive and kick out 3 game:

martin wrote:

VCoug wrote:

misterearl wrote:Intensity

VCoug wrote:The one where I used the box score to show he shot 8 times in 30 minutes? All I said was that I thought he played a really good game even though I wasn't able to watch. I compared it to the other games this season, when I was able to watch, and said this is how I'd like Felton to play the rest of the season.

You cannot see the fire in Raymond Felton's eyes from a box score.

Not can a box score describe him fighting over a pick. In one defensive sequence he held his ground and damn near knocked te much bigger Lopez to the floor.

Yeah, we are tough.

Are you guys so stupid that you can't understand that I said I thought he played a very good game and that I hope he continues to play like that? Or, are you so desperate to prove to everybody that your such a good fan that you insist on lying about what I said? If you're unable to have an honest discussion about this team and you feel the need to lie about what was said then please stop responding to me. I have no patience for liars and have better things to do with my time than argue with them.

VCoug, calm down bro, earl was agreeing with you. Move on please.

tkf wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:Numbers don't do Felton justice.

Just like total punch stats don't show "Ring Generalship" in boxing.

i don't want to go off topic, but that "ring generalship" in boxing is so overused... I know what they are trying to say, but in the end, in boxing, isn't it about punching, hitting the other guy and not getting hit.. I used to see that term used for guys like paulie malinaggi, when in essence the guy was just running.. LOL... I actually think some judges give points to guys for Ring Generalship... boxing needs some reform..

LOL.. ok, sorry for going off topic, I am a HUGE boxing fan..

This is creepy...I love boxing too!

Ring(Generalship) don't lie!

Perfect example is the Pacquiao - Alexander fight. Pac clearly landed the harder blows, absorbed the lighter jabs from Alexander, and finished each round stronger than his opponent. Howard Lederman, my favorite boxing analyst, uses this term to a fault and backs it up with examples during the fight. Lederman had it for Pacquiao and the Nevada judges, after reviewing the incorrect outcome, gave the fight to Pacquiao due to his Ring Generalship.

Of course Mayweather, is a Ring Generalship genius, even though his punch volume does not reflect this. It's those wild misses by his opponents, followed by his counter pot shots, and his patented "shoulder roll". And his trademark punch "the check hook".

But I won't get into that anymore, because I hate that focker!

ChuckBuck wrote:

tkf wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:Numbers don't do Felton justice.

Just like total punch stats don't show "Ring Generalship" in boxing.

i don't want to go off topic, but that "ring generalship" in boxing is so overused... I know what they are trying to say, but in the end, in boxing, isn't it about punching, hitting the other guy and not getting hit.. I used to see that term used for guys like paulie malinaggi, when in essence the guy was just running.. LOL... I actually think some judges give points to guys for Ring Generalship... boxing needs some reform..

LOL.. ok, sorry for going off topic, I am a HUGE boxing fan..

This is creepy...I love boxing too!

Ring(Generalship) don't lie!

Perfect example is the Pacquiao - Alexander fight. Pac clearly landed the harder blows, absorbed the lighter jabs from Alexander, and finished each round stronger than his opponent. Howard Lederman, my favorite boxing analyst, uses this term to a fault and backs it up with examples during the fight. Lederman had it for Pacquiao and the Nevada judges, after reviewing the incorrect outcome, gave the fight to Pacquiao due to his Ring Generalship.

Of course Mayweather, is a Ring Generalship genius, even though his punch volume does not reflect this. It's those wild misses by his opponents, followed by his counter pot shots, and his patented "shoulder roll". And his trademark punch "the check hook".

But I won't get into that anymore, because I hate that focker!

I love Mayweather...Boxing is a great sport..Ring Generalship is where it's at...Master is Bernard Hopkins who imposes his will on you...Ring Gerneralship is how a fighter carries himself and the fight..Basically dictates the pace and the action..In command if u will...But over the course of a fight what does it for me is when one imposes his will...To see a fight cower at the inflection of another's will...Mayweather an all time great just not enough great bouts tho..He is a businessman...Back to hoops..

ChuckBuck wrote:

tkf wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:Numbers don't do Felton justice.

Just like total punch stats don't show "Ring Generalship" in boxing.

i don't want to go off topic, but that "ring generalship" in boxing is so overused... I know what they are trying to say, but in the end, in boxing, isn't it about punching, hitting the other guy and not getting hit.. I used to see that term used for guys like paulie malinaggi, when in essence the guy was just running.. LOL... I actually think some judges give points to guys for Ring Generalship... boxing needs some reform..

LOL.. ok, sorry for going off topic, I am a HUGE boxing fan..

This is creepy...I love boxing too!

Ring(Generalship) don't lie!

Perfect example is the Pacquiao - Alexander fight. Pac clearly landed the harder blows, absorbed the lighter jabs from Alexander, and finished each round stronger than his opponent. Howard Lederman, my favorite boxing analyst, uses this term to a fault and backs it up with examples during the fight. Lederman had it for Pacquiao and the Nevada judges, after reviewing the incorrect outcome, gave the fight to Pacquiao due to his Ring Generalship.

Of course Mayweather, is a Ring Generalship genius, even though his punch volume does not reflect this. It's those wild misses by his opponents, followed by his counter pot shots, and his patented "shoulder roll". And his trademark punch "the check hook".

But I won't get into that anymore, because I hate that focker!

did you mean Bradley, but anyway, I do undestand the term, and how they are trying to apply it, but at some point you have to go with the more effective puncher and the guy that lands the most.. sometimes i see these analyst use that term for a fighter they like who is getting beat and they are trying to use the "ring generalship" to make up lack of punching....

As far as the pac fight.... that was bad judging.. pac won that fight..

IrishKnickFan wrote:

holfresh wrote:

misterearl wrote:Nasty Nate

IrishKnickFan wrote:I agree but Earl can be nasty sometimes as well. Anyway back to felton i have always been a fan and im happy he is playing like he did in 2010-2011. In fact he is playing smarter especially with kid

IKF - nasty? Never. Bluntly honest to the point it makes one uncomfortable? Sometimes. Will bust you inside with a fastball under your chin? Absolutely. It's just chin music. You dust your self off and get back in the batters box.

Please stop whining. This isn't personal. If you cannot let go of conversations that derailed weeks ago that is your issue, not anyone else's.

Happy Thanksgiving.

Yeah bro..Buck up and toughen up...U've been moaning a little of late...Healthy sparing is all it is...

Happy thanksgiving

Gooble Gooble..

tkf wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:

tkf wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:Numbers don't do Felton justice.

Just like total punch stats don't show "Ring Generalship" in boxing.

i don't want to go off topic, but that "ring generalship" in boxing is so overused... I know what they are trying to say, but in the end, in boxing, isn't it about punching, hitting the other guy and not getting hit.. I used to see that term used for guys like paulie malinaggi, when in essence the guy was just running.. LOL... I actually think some judges give points to guys for Ring Generalship... boxing needs some reform..

LOL.. ok, sorry for going off topic, I am a HUGE boxing fan..

This is creepy...I love boxing too!

Ring(Generalship) don't lie!

Perfect example is the Pacquiao - Alexander fight. Pac clearly landed the harder blows, absorbed the lighter jabs from Alexander, and finished each round stronger than his opponent. Howard Lederman, my favorite boxing analyst, uses this term to a fault and backs it up with examples during the fight. Lederman had it for Pacquiao and the Nevada judges, after reviewing the incorrect outcome, gave the fight to Pacquiao due to his Ring Generalship.

Of course Mayweather, is a Ring Generalship genius, even though his punch volume does not reflect this. It's those wild misses by his opponents, followed by his counter pot shots, and his patented "shoulder roll". And his trademark punch "the check hook".

But I won't get into that anymore, because I hate that focker!

did you mean Bradley, but anyway, I do undestand the term, and how they are trying to apply it, but at some point you have to go with the more effective puncher and the guy that lands the most.. sometimes i see these analyst use that term for a fighter they like who is getting beat and they are trying to use the "ring generalship" to make up lack of punching....

As far as the pac fight.... that was bad judging.. pac won that fight..

Yea, Bradley I meant...I was in Vegas at the time too, the whole place was in shock!

PatrickEwing33 wrote:Felton is a beast. To think we almost overpayed lin

The majority of us just got caught up in Linsanity and how he was a savior to our season to an extent. He brought a buzz to this team like never before and was a great story. He become an up-and-coming PG that just fell out of the sky. It was a once-in-a-liftime event. It was easy to dismiss bringing back Felton, especially after a poor season, but it was the right move and he is a very good point guard with still a lot of room to grow. It is safe to say this team would not be 8-1 with Lin as the PG.

IrishKnickFan wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

PatrickEwing33 wrote:Felton is a beast. To think we almost overpayed lin

The majority of us just got caught up in Linsanity and how he was a savior to our season to an extent. He brought a buzz to this team like never before and was a great story. He become an up-and-coming PG that just fell out of the sky. It was a once-in-a-liftime event. It was easy to dismiss bringing back Felton, especially after a poor season, but it was the right move and he is a very good point guard with still a lot of room to grow. It is safe to say this team would not be 8-1 with Lin as the PG.

I wish more posters had this type of attitude. I agree 100%

I felt like what this team lacked we are now loaded with, which are two-way players. We always had guys that were either all-offense types (crawford, Nate, Lee, etc), or the Jeffries' of the world who are solid defenders but liabilities on offense. JR Smith has become a two-way player, so has Melo, Felton definitely is, so is Kidd, and Chandler to an extent as well because of how efficient he is on offense. It is nice to have these types of players.