Quote:
Originally Posted by djday45
My advice is dont get caught up in formulas and calculations rating fighters in this game is much more than a science. It's what "feels" right that you feel in your bones thats what the fighter was like.
Now the more you research fighters and boxing in general you will find its a game of opinions, sometimes flatly contradictory ones lol.
My other golden rules is to test, test and test your ratings again and again.
But and here is the other killer it is very very easy to make many fighters very very average so to make it possible to account for very weird results in their careers, that is a mistake.
Take for example the Hart-Johnson result, now as I have rated them their is very little chance of their historical result being repeated as it should be, this does not mean that Hart is badly underated or Johnson the opposite, sometimes especially in boxings distant past results are just unexplainable apart from looking at more dubious answers.
|
Some fighters, like Dempsey, almost certainly took dives and threw fights. That's pretty much an accepted fact. Johnson may have allowed certain fights to be more competitive than they should have been, too. Boxing and survival went hand-in-hand in those days for a lot of fighters. You did what you had to do and gambling certainly was a part of the equation.
When it comes to hitting power, I look at that number as the fighter's power in terms of a single, solid, concussive punch. George Foreman could get you out of there with a single shot. And his rating reflects that. Other fighters do their damage over the course of rounds. They can have a very good 3 punch ratio but an HP that's between 6 & 8. Playtesting, though, is very important to get it right.