View Single Post
Old 01-10-2010, 06:08 PM   #69
professordp
Hall Of Famer
 
professordp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 2,006
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigBoyBrackey View Post
Prof -

I'm a novice at rating fighters or tweaking ratings, and was wondering what you, as well as those reading, think of the Mayweather and Pacquiao ratings in the db. Given circumstances, it looks like this might be a good one for my 'Shoulda but Didna' thread, but I want to take a good look at the ratings before doing so.

Their welter ratings look pretty accurate, but I have a few areas I'm wondering about.

---Pacquiao has a hp of 8, while Mayweather is a 7. Floyd can crack when he wants to, as shown by the hook that floored Marquez, but rarely does. Is Pacquiao high enough, given the two knockdowns against Cotto? Is Floyd too high?

---Mayweather is also a 7 for aggressiveness and killer instinct. That's the same rating Sugar Ray Leonard had at welter, which seems odd. Floyd can be lowered to 6 in both categories without lowering his overall 13. For that matter, his hp can also be cut to 6, along with aggressiveness and killer instinct, without lowering the 13.

I'm going to take a few days to consider any feedback (I'm also posting this on a couple other mod threads - identically, to save the time of trying to paraphrase myself) before simming and posting the fight.

Thanks,
BBB
Here I'd have to defer to Conn Chris, Dean, Bear, or John Dewey. My interest in boxing is pretty much historical and limited to the Post-World War II 1940s to the very early 1980s. I tend to do a lot of research (old boxing magazines, etc.) to get a sense of a fighter's style/ability and then match that with my evaluations of what I find in BoxRec. I just don't have the resources to make any judgement on your specific question.

But in a general sense, when I'm doing a rating, I don't consider HP in isolation. I work it in with CF and PL/CP ratings. A number of the HP ratings that appear seem to follow the suggested forumla in the TBCB 2.0 Manual which I find rather troublesome in some instances. Later today I plan to post my rating of late 1960s heavyweight Terry Krueger which ironically addresses most of the points that you raised.

One final point concerning the "overall" rating. I've pretty much always considered it a rough guide (a very rough guide) concerning a boxer's abilities. When rating a particular boxer, you have to be careful that it doesn't affect your thinking in the sense that you see the overall rating as being "too low" or "too high" and then make unwarrented adjustments to make a boxer "fit". With more than two dozen variables at play, it often comes down to how two fighters mesh rather than their overall ratings.

I think that Conn Chris's "Sub-Zero" templates demonstrate one facet of this problem.

And by the way, rating boxers is often hightly subjective and rather intuitive.
professordp is offline   Reply With Quote