Quote:
Originally Posted by tmax11
Nice ratings. I always like to see how others go about compiling their ratings. I agree with almost all of your assessments. For my 2 cents, I have Lamar Clark as a 1. I kept the same control factors(4,4), I couldn't justify any higher as he fought the weakest competition I have ever seen. If his CF is much higher he is going to defeat way too many fighters that are on a level he never proved he could beat. Maybe he could have beaten them, we just don't know.
The most glaring problem I see with the DB is the inconsistency. The areas I usually disagree with the most are the HP ratings and the chin ratings. I also ran into numerous issues where fighters were placed in divisions that did not reflect their best weight.
I'm in the process of updating my DB(11,000 fighters), I usually plug away until I get burned out and then return a few months later. Anyway this is how I'm going about it, if anyone is interested. One of the first things I did was take the 2003 list of the greatest punchers compiled by the Ring(admittedly a poll). I gave the top 5 or so the highest rating and then scaled down until the 100th fighter was a 10. Anyone else I rate or re-rate who retired prior to 2003 automatically gets below a 10. I usually try to stick to the formula from the manual for those fighters.
For contenders I give them a baseline CF of 9. By contender I usually mean someone ranked in the top 10 in the ring's year end ratings. Now, if someone is a long time contender, or was very highly ranked, I'll probably move his CF to 10 or maybe 11 if he is a weak puncher, but I try and reserve 10 and up for world champions. Therefore if someone is a World Champ for a credible org he'll start with a CF of 10, and I'll adjust off of that based on length of reign, competition, etc(these of course can move the CF either up or down). Now a fighter could still have a CF of say 8 vs boxer and 10 vs slugger, that would depend on the styles of those he fought and his results. Also, if someone is a big power puncher with large 3 pt ratings, I may adjust his CF downward slightly if he is too dominant, play-testing determines this.
As far as the chins, I try to break it down if possible. I did Primo Carnera not too long ago and this is what I came up with. I know not everyone will agree with this, but I'm happy with it. For the record, I disregarded the notion of fixed fights. Chin KD-5, this could be higher, Chin KO-0 from what I can tell he was never knocked cold, Recovery-4 maybe should be higher, AP-1 he kept getting up and up and up, plus, 5 TKO's in 100+ fights is a very small number. These ratings are dependent on other factors as well, multiple knockdowns in a round, times knocked down in fights that went the distance or that he won, who knocked him down, etc. Needless to say a guy knocked out by Frazier and Liston may not have the same chin as someone knocked out by two stiffs.
By doing all this, the one thing that I do get is consistency. Play-testing helps iron out any problems. That's the great thing about TB, you can rate the fighters any way you see fit. The bottom line is you could get four of the best TB raters, ask them to rate a fighter and almost inevitably they will come up with 4 different ratings. There's really no way to remove subjectivity from the ratings.
|
Hey mate, yes totally agree that consistency is the problem with the ratings. If you go way back into the history of the game back to the board game the old retired card "yellow" ratings generally worked really well as they were from the same hand Jim and his brother. The active "blue" card ratings varied wildly from set to set on individual ratings as knowledge and opinion on active fighters changed. But as a "snapshot" on a division at that point of time they again worked as they had one consistent vision.
The trouble with the computer game is that over the years so many people have had a hand in the database ratings that the consistent vision went out of the window and for some reason much of the original thinking behind the card ratings were changed for the computer version for reasons im not sure about.
A big example was the huge argument caused by Jim's new computer version of Jack Dempsey he lowered Jack's power to a ridiclous level in many peoples opinion including my own, but this was never a problem in the board game and the ratings were by the same person?
I suspect the different way the game system ran on the computer caused many problems with individual ratings so ratings had to be changed.
But then over the years more and more people got involved with obviously wildly differeing opinions on fighters.
consistency is the key as all ratings have to make sense stacked up against their opponents and not in isoltion. Yes it is good to have a base system to rate guys I sort of you one myself, but then never be afraid to research the guy you are ratings as heavily as you can then test him and then be willing to change him to account for his own individuality.
The thing that comes home to me more and more as I rate guys into the title bout system is that boxers are individuals and the more you can bring that out in their ratings and fight against your urge to slide them towards the average then they will cease to be mediocre in the game and even the worst fighters will have pronounced strengths and weaknessess as in life and they will be brought to life on your pc and give you so much more colour, realism and enjoyment.