Greg Page is really bothering me!

[mking55]

Greg Page is rated a 10 in the game. There are only 18 HW's who are rated higher and 3 of them are named Muhammad Ali. Other 10's are fighters such as Ezzard Charles, James Corbett, and Jersey Joe Walcott.

Why is Greg Page rated so high? Surely something is amiss? But, how could I back this up?

Looking at Page's record from his beginning in 1979 until his final fight in 1993 before a 3-year layoff, I find he lost 12 fights. Two of the losses came against a fighter named Mark Wills who is not rated in the game. (More on him after Page).

That left 10 fighters who Page lost to. I set him to replay those matches 100 times each. Both fighters fought in Top Condition. Let us see how Greg Page fared against those fighters he lost to in real life.

The columns are his opponent, how the game rates them, the date of the real fight, the decision, and then the wins, losses, and draws in the 100 sims.
Trevor Berbick (7)...06/11/82...UD10...86-9-5
Tim Witherspoon (8)...03/09/84...MD12...84-11-5
David Bey (4)...08/31/84...UD12...97-3-0
Tony Tubbs (7)...04/29/85...UD15...83-13-4
Buster Douglas (8)...01/17/86...UD10...69-24-7
Mark Wills (unrated)...06/12/86...TKO9
Joe Bugner (8)...07/24/87...PTS10...85-12-3
Orlin Norris (3)...04/25/89...UD12...98-1-1
Mark Wills (unrated)...05/19/90...TKO6
Razor Ruddock (8)...02/15/92...TKO8...73-23-4
Francesco Damiani (6)...09/12/92...PTS10...86-10-4
Bruce Seldon (7)...08/06/93...TKO9...83-13-4

Greg Page seriously dominates in the sims. In real life Orlin Norris beat him. In the 100 sims, Orlin Norris beat him too...once. This bothers me in that I don't understand why the game is at such odds with real life.

Mark Wills, who won by TKO twice in his matches with Page was a lifetime 14-18 fighter. Here are his fights in real life against fighters rated in the game.

Tim Witherspoon (8)...03/25/85...L-TKO9
Greg Page (10)...06/12/86...W-TKO6
Tim Witherspoon (8)...08/04/87...L-TKO1
Greg Page (10)...05/19/90...W-TKO6
Bonecrusher Smith (6)...02/15/92...L-UD10
Garing Lane (1)...09/22/92...W-UD8
Ray Mercer (5)...10/06/93...L-UD10
Jeremy Williams (4)...01/28/94 ...L-KO9
Jeremy Williams (4)...08/02/94 ...L-KO6
Wladimir Klitschko (8)...05/10/97...L-KO1

Mike Wills beats Greg Page twice and the formidable Garing Lane once, and loses to everyone else.

What does this mean? Is Greg Page rated incorrectly? Personally, I prefer Lem Franklin, but Lem and I have been together for a while and I am kind of partial to him.

Seriously, I am interested in some comments on this, if I am not invisible.

Thanks.

[Claybor]

I am the first to admit my boxing knowledge is far from adequate, but I have thought Page considerably overated from the beginning. I was unsure as to what to do with him, so I just knocked him down to an 8 with some minor adjustments. Not acurate, but I feel better about it.

I had similar thoughts on Bowe and Holyfield, but their stats seem to back the #'s up more.

[PittPanther]

Agreed........10 for Page way too high.

12 for Bowe = way too high.

[maxx]

You know, I ended up downgrading Page as well. From an historical perspective, I think the problem with Page is the substantial gap between potential and reality. I followed Page since his days as an amateur, and I can't remember a more frustrating career to watch. He had the potential and the skills to be a great heavyweight and deserve every bit of a 10 rating.

The problem, though, is that Page just didn't tap into that potential too often. Instead, he was lazy in the ring, frequently came in out of shape and was seemingly content with a career of mediocrity. He came around at a time when the heavyweight division was weak, and was given plenty of chances to excel in his prime (for some reason, ABC loved the guy). If Page had just fought to his ability he may even have become a dominant heavyweight during that period.

So, if you evaluate his skills individually, I can certainly see how you'd come up with a 10 rating. If you take him as the whole, unsatisfactory package he allowed himself to become, though, my opinion is you have to downgrade him.

As Claybor suggests, it's hard to make those adjustments in an historically accurate way because Page was very skilled. However, I think this is one of those cases where you adjust the ratings to get the result you want rather than to reflect actual skill level.

[BrocktonBlockBuster]

After reading this post,it looks as though I'll have to re-evaluate Mr. Page. Maxx,I've made adjustments on a number of fighters. I think even Jim and Tom Trunzo would tell you to feel free and adjust things to your liking. I already downgraded Riddick Bowe[made him an 11,I think?]. Thanks for giving us some Really Good Info! The fact that Joe Bugner beat him in 1987 also says alot about Bugner! Looks to me like Page should be a 7 or 8,who shows up out of shape alot?

[Cap]

I remember thinking way back then that Page was somebody with an enormous amount of God-given talent but only a thimble-full of ambition. As a chest-thumping Canadian I took ridiculous pride in Trevor Berbick's surprise win over Page. I liked Berbick, having followed his career from his win over Earl McLeay, but I quite frankly, thought that he had too much in front of him that night with Page. I saw the fight in a hall on closed circuit TV, and when Trevor belted Page around, the room erupted in animal-like howling.

I don't know what the designers were thinking when they rated some of the fighters, but I have no trouble at all with altering boxers to suit my own myopic opinion of their talent.

In any case, I don't bother with the modern era. My peculiar preference is for the Golden Age of Jeffries, Burns, Johnson, Dempsey, Louis et al.

Cap

[GDE]

Is it possible that Page lost most of his fights due to being out of shape? If so, maybe his conditioning rating should be adjusted so hes out of shape more often.

[mking55]

A fighter's ratings should be reflective of his career and not his potential. Potential is meaningless when the career is over. If Greg Page is a fighter who didn't show up to fight a lot of nights but 'could have won if he did', who cares. To me, it means he did not have the ability to win and his rating should reflect his record.

As for the Riddick Bowe comments, all I know is Riddick Bowe lost one fight in his career to Evander Hoyfield and he beat all others he fought. If his ratings are high, I can't really make an argument against them, nor do I feel qualified. How can you downgrade a fighter who didn't lose?

With Page, I can look at his record and sim fights against those he lost against in real life and do a comparison. With Bowe, I can't do that because he should beat everyone when simmed against them.

I think it's great that so many people want to 'tweak' ratings. I myself am not comfortable doing that for a few reasons. The main one is I am not knowledgeable enough to do it. Looking at a fighters record and comparing it to other's is good, but not good enough for me.

There is, I assume, a total interaction between each 2 fighters in the game. A fighter rated 10 may beat one fighter rated 7 almost all the time, but a different fighter rated 7 may win the majority of his fights against that same 10 rated fighter.

I think you have to study how each fighter performs against the different types of fighters and learn how they fought against each type and then quantify some numbers that will interact with other numbers to produce an accurate rating. And so on and so on. I can't do that. I am trying to understand how that all works.

That is why I point out these anomalies like Lem Franklin and Greg Page. If they are errors in ratings, then that is fine. Franklin was an error. Page probably is. What I am trying to do here is learn what these ratings mean and how I should be looking at them so I understand the matchups.

If the people who make the game (Trunzo's) can shed some light on this that I am most interested to learn. If, for whatever reason, they can't then I can live with that.

Boxing is fascinating. Making an accurate simulation and what goes into it is fascinating. Learning how it is all put together interests me and if pointing out these weird things gets me some answers and insight, then perhaps my knowledge can be upgraded and I can be rated a '15' in understanding all this.

[BrocktonBlockBuster]

My take on Riddick Bowe. 40-1,great record. Beat Holyfield 2 out of 3 fights. Other than that I wouldn't say he fought the greatest competition? He did however beat all of his other competion! Andrew Golota was out fighting him twice,before Golota was DQ. Maybe he should be a 12? When he beat Holyfield he was a dam GOOD fighter!

[maxx]

First, I have no idea as to the actual rationale behind giving Page a 10 rating & agree that it would be interesting to hear how that rating was developed.

For me, the odd thing about rating someone like Page is somehow duplicating his inconsistency. It wasn't just that Page had the potential to develop great skills . . . he actually HAD the skills. He'd beat guys like Coetzee, Snipes, Young, LeDoux, Tillis, Ward, etc. and sometimes look brilliant doing it, and then lose to guys like David Bey and Mark Wills. If you look at each of his ratings, it'd be hard to argue too much with any one of them (maybe his control factor is a little high). It's just that, when a computer program runs the numbers, it doesn't take into account Page's "thimble-full of ambition" as Cap so aptly put it.

Page tried to emulate Ali and was pretty good at it. I remember being really excited about him when he first came on the scene. However, he never took care of himself and always seemed to be out of shape. As a result, his stamina was terrible - after about 5 rounds, his offense disappeared.

[dempsonny]

Mking55,
The rating you were talking about is the first one, CF. This is the control factor of a fighter against a boxer and against a slugger. To give you a good example Ken Norton was great in his prime against a boxer (Ali) but much worse against a slugger (Foreman). Ali was in my view the opposite great against sluggers and worse against boxers. So to answer or back up your point on a 10 vs one 7 (a boxer) could be different against another 7 (a slugger).

Gus

[Jim Trunzo]

I agree - honestly. There are several fighters whose ratings do not correspond to their records as much as to their best performances. Part of the problem is that some of these guys were rated on composites from boxing insiders who may not have understood our stance on the fighters. Then - our fault entirely - they slipped through. Bowe and Page are two prime examples - although Bowe is a tough argument because, unlike Page, he showed more of his potential over more fights.

Please keep in mind that may of these fighters are rated AT THEIR BEST and need to be given Conditioni Checks or assigned conditions. If we rated them when they are out of shape, undertrained, etc. they would never win a big fight - as they often did. You need to give them a chance to come in and fight at their best but also give them the chance to come in as they often did - in less than their best condition.

[JCFLA]

Pretty much agree with everyone's assessments of Page. I think he was a "10" at his best, but that was probably only half a dozen or so nights in his whole career. Most often, it's probably best to use him at some reduced effectiveness/condition as some have suggested.

A thought for the Trunzos: Since there's obviously so much controversy about many of the cumulative rating numbers, how about publishing the formula you use to attain the final number?
I'm assuming it's a fairly simple mathematical formula encompassing all the other ratings. Might make a nice article in the "feature" section of the site, like the one's you did on the various rating categories.


Hey Gus;

Now you're making me think about Ali vs. boxers and sluggers.
It's been pretty much consensus around here that Ali had more trouble with sluggers as evidenced in his control ratings. Even with his noted success vs Liston, Frazier and Foreman, I've always thought he had more trouble with the guys that moved in on him relentlessly. Guys like Norton, Quarry, Bonavena, Chuvalo,Lyle ,Shavers and even Spinks who swarmed him, had better success vs. Ali even though he eventually beat all of them. Of course, most of these guys were very "awkward" fighters who usually made everyone else look bad, too.

On the other hand, Ali didn't have much trouble with Folley, Ellis or Terrell. Off the top of my head, perhaps the only boxer who gave him trouble was Mildenberger who, of course, was lefty AND awkward. I don't consider your buddy Larry's win over him as representative of anything.

Anyway, I'm not saying your thinking is wrong, just interested in your reasoning.

Another long post but all boxing this time. One step at a time, guys.

[mking55]

Originally posted by Jim Trunzo
You need to give them a chance to come in and fight at their best but also give them the chance to come in as they often did - in less than their best condition.

Jim,

If a fighter, or anyone else for that matter, fails more often than suceeds, then isn't their most common condition to be a failure?

I understand your point about 'best', however in the case of Greg Page alone, he appears to be someone who couldn't do the job. To me, using the best condition line, (and I know I am exagerrating), if I was 6' 5", 240 pounds, hit like Liston, take a punch like Chuvalo, and could control a fight like Ali, I would be the best. But I am not. And it appears Greg Page couldn't fight when he had to.

I know ratings are so subjective, but do you really rate fighters based on their best night? Shouldn't they be rated on their career. And if on their best night they were godlike, but they were less than adequate on a much higher percentage of nights, then shouldn't their rating reflect their many failures instead of their few successes?

[JeffR]

Well, what would be the point of including the conditioning and career stage options if you were going to rate fighters based on their 'whole career'? The way the Trunzos do it makes sense - give us the fighter at his best, and then give us the options that will reduce that if it's appropriate to simulating a historical fight.

Go back and run your simulations of Page with him out of shape and/or after his prime, and you'll get more realistic results. Maybe not perfect, but there's no point in claiming that his ratings aren't realistic if you're not setting the bouts up as they were historically. The only complaint I have about Page's rating is the '3' for conditioning - he's probably the textbook example of a 9 or 11, I think.

[mking55]

The reason for not basing it on the 'best', is that it becomes unrealistic for some fighters (i.e. Page).

If I want to set up fights, I want to leave some things to chance (like real life). I don't want to decide on what days Greg Page is in the mood to fight. (And it appears to be most days he doesn't want to fight).

There is still a reason for career stage and conditioning factor. I am not implying (as you imply) that I think there is no use for them. Of course there is.

However, even with them, Greg Page wins a vast majority of fights against those he lost to in real life. That is wrong.

I am not advocating an 'average' of their performances, but how they fought most often. If you look at Page's real life record against the fighters who are rated in the game (and I am assuming like Mark Wills, that if they are not in the game, there is not much to recommend them), his record is 10-10 up until the close of 1993. The victories include fighters like Stan Ward (4), Marty Monroe (3), and Larry Frazier (1).

I personally would like to see a 50% career fighter against fighters notable enough to be rated in this game by the developers, win at somewhere around a 50% rate, including the random element. I don't think them beating everyone they lost to in real life without my manipulating each fight is the way it should be.

If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, chances are it's a duck.

[wildhawke11]

On one of the threads where loads of guys are bringing and rating new fighters into the game i stuck my nose in so to speak, and told them in my opinion there going for quantity rather then quality. Any fool can stick fighters in the game, no problem, its getting them to perform overall against not just who they met in real life, but as you think they might have done facing other styles and awkward opposition. that is the problem.

My suggestion was forget bringing in new fighters in until they had tweaked refined and well tested the fighters that are there already in the game.

No matter what you do in a job in life if you don't get the basics right from the very start, there is no way the whole job can come together, and be good or as near perfect as it can get.
I spent nearly one whole year rating just the HWs and MWs in the old Title Fight Game, but in the finish i think i had as good a realistic simulation as was possible.

With all respect meant you have to have a good knowledge of how the
game works and also how the number in the game interact with each other, as well as more then a fair knowledge of the fighters in the game, Yes we know you can check records and such, but records alone do not tell the whole story.
One example you will see on Ali's record he easy beat Big Cat Williams. What that record does not tell you is in fact Williams was in no condition at the time to even be in the ring with any fighter let alone Ali

But in the end it does not matter if they think there right and are happy with there game. then that's fine with me.

You have to rate a fighter overall how he did in his prime. If he was inconsistent then try to reflect this in his conditioning rating. The only other way would be to adjust his ratings for ever fight the guy was in, but who the hell wants to take that route.

As for rating a fighter just on his very best only, you only have to look at Buster Douglas v Tyson on that performance Douglas would be rated much higher then in fact he is in the game, and that would be wrong of course.
My Thoughts anyway for for its worth.

[mking55]

Mr. Wildhawke,

I am in agreement with you. Although I feel there is nothing wrong with people rating the fighters the way they see fit, I don't think it is for me.

As I mentioned earlier, I am not qualified to take on such a task and feel the same way about the difficulities and pitfalls as you do.

That is the reason for these posts I make (Lem Franklin and now Greg Page). I want to know if they are rated correctly in the game developers eyes (Trunzos) or not. If there is an error, they can correct it for me (such as Jim did with Lem Franklin). I don't want to have to figure out what to correct. "It's not my job".

If the rating is correct and I am wrong, then tell me why and I will adjust my thinking and understand the game better.

I do not want to 'tweak' fighters. I want the makers of the game to tell me exactly what to make the ratings. They are the 'experts' and I bought the product to use their expertise.

[Cap]

Gotta agree with you there, Martin. If you don't feel comfortable rating fighters, then you should be able to rely on the "Experts" from OOTP Developments Title Bout Championship Boxing.

It's nice that gamers on this forum want to share their rated fighters. Anyone who decides to use them is not harming anyone else.

I prefer to look at fighters in this game and alter anyone I think, in my own judgement, is not up to snuff or is overrated. That is why I will not be sharing my rated fighters. These guys are tuned to my mind's eye. Some would look at them and say,"You're crazy, no way is that guy....." I base my opinions on years of watching fighters, both in person and on the little screen, as well as many many hours of research with books, 8-mm movies, and old newspapers.

That is why I can guarantee you that any boxers mentioned on my website will bear the mark "Inspected and Approved by That Crazy Old Curmudgeon Cap"

'nuff said.

Cap