On Rating Fighters

[Jim Trunzo]

Now that I am finding the time and health to once again become more active on the boards, I want to do a "flashback" to one of my favorite topics: Rating Fighters.

More specifically, I want to re-heat my frequent rant on the importance of accurately judging competition. For those of you new to this board, I simply want you to know that I consider a fighter's competition to be the key element when it comes to rating a fighter. For those of you who have heard this before, let it serve as a gentle reminder . . . or ignore this post completely because you can repeat it verbatim !

You simply can't go by a fighter's numbers and accurately rate him because the numbers are frequently misleading and sometimes as close as a number can come to an out-and-out lie.

Here's a perfect example of why competition must always be considered when rating your own fighters (or re-rating mine!):

Super Middleweights:

Willie Gibbs (17-0, 14 knockouts) vs. Daniel Edouard (15-0-2, 9 knockouts). This looks like a great fight, fairly even, with Gibbs having an edge in power, along with several more wins. RESULT? Edouard won a TKO in just four rounds. Edouard must be a real up-and-comer!

Edouard (16-0-2, 10 knockouts) vs. Jermain Taylor (22-0, 16 knockouts): another sizzling bout, if you go by the numbers. Again, an edge in experience and power to Taylor but we saw what happened to Gibbs, who also had a bigger punch . . . on paper. RESULT? Hard-punching, strong-chinned Edouard gets destroyed in just 3 rounds by the proven and battle-tested -- due to the level of his competition -- Taylor.

"There are liars, damn liars and statistics"

Don't just look at the numbers when it comes to rating fighters! It's not the number of fights a fighter has had but who he's fought in those fights that tell the truth behind the stats.

Sermon #1013 - over!

Until the next time, keep your chin up!

[IceTea]

Must have been my rating of James Harrison. I didn't see him listed in the game.

MJ

[Buddy Whatshisname]

Thanks for the tip, Jim.

Now, about tbcb2. Will there be any new animation or audio features? We made quite a few excellent suggestions.

Buddy

Originally Posted by Jim Trunzo

Now that I am finding the time and health to once again become more active on the boards, I want to do a "flashback" to one of my favorite topics: Rating Fighters.

More specifically, I want to re-heat my frequent rant on the importance of accurately judging competition. For those of you new to this board, I simply want you to know that I consider a fighter's competition to be the key element when it comes to rating a fighter. For those of you who have heard this before, let it serve as a gentle reminder . . . or ignore this post completely because you can repeat it verbatim !

You simply can't go by a fighter's numbers and accurately rate him because the numbers are frequently misleading and sometimes as close as a number can come to an out-and-out lie.

Here's a perfect example of why competition must always be considered when rating your own fighters (or re-rating mine!):

Super Middleweights:

Willie Gibbs (17-0, 14 knockouts) vs. Daniel Edouard (15-0-2, 9 knockouts). This looks like a great fight, fairly even, with Gibbs having an edge in power, along with several more wins. RESULT? Edouard won a TKO in just four rounds. Edouard must be a real up-and-comer!

Edouard (16-0-2, 10 knockouts) vs. Jermain Taylor (22-0, 16 knockouts): another sizzling bout, if you go by the numbers. Again, an edge in experience and power to Taylor but we saw what happened to Gibbs, who also had a bigger punch . . . on paper. RESULT? Hard-punching, strong-chinned Edouard gets destroyed in just 3 rounds by the proven and battle-tested -- due to the level of his competition -- Taylor.

"There are liars, damn liars and statistics"

Don't just look at the numbers when it comes to rating fighters! It's not the number of fights a fighter has had but who he's fought in those fights that tell the truth behind the stats.

Sermon #1013 - over!

Until the next time, keep your chin up!

[bear]

Jim
Very nice to hear from you on the boards. Always appreciate insights into ranking fighters.

Your point might be further illustrated if members consider the bouts ESPN televised from Turning Stone Casino during the IBHOF induction weekend.
I attended the bouts and later watched a tape. The African Assassin, Okine, was pitted against Shannon Briggs. On paper Okine's record looked good--14 and 0. Unfortunately one of his recent wins was a split decision win over Adam Smith of Youngstown, Ohio. Smith was on the un-televised portion of the undercard. In 50 years of watching fights he may, arguably, have been the most pathetic fighter I have ever seen. Smith had a 4 and 5 record going in to his bout. I have tried to challenge myself, but have failed to imagine anybody bad enough to loose to him. I simply can't. Yet when I watched the tape of the bout I found out Okine was only able to secure a split decision win. You difinitely have to be aware of the level of competition.

Bear

Originally Posted by Jim Trunzo

Now that I am finding the time and health to once again become more active on the boards, I want to do a "flashback" to one of my favorite topics: Rating Fighters.

More specifically, I want to re-heat my frequent rant on the importance of accurately judging competition. For those of you new to this board, I simply want you to know that I consider a fighter's competition to be the key element when it comes to rating a fighter. For those of you who have heard this before, let it serve as a gentle reminder . . . or ignore this post completely because you can repeat it verbatim !

You simply can't go by a fighter's numbers and accurately rate him because the numbers are frequently misleading and sometimes as close as a number can come to an out-and-out lie.

Here's a perfect example of why competition must always be considered when rating your own fighters (or re-rating mine!):

Super Middleweights:

Willie Gibbs (17-0, 14 knockouts) vs. Daniel Edouard (15-0-2, 9 knockouts). This looks like a great fight, fairly even, with Gibbs having an edge in power, along with several more wins. RESULT? Edouard won a TKO in just four rounds. Edouard must be a real up-and-comer!

Edouard (16-0-2, 10 knockouts) vs. Jermain Taylor (22-0, 16 knockouts): another sizzling bout, if you go by the numbers. Again, an edge in experience and power to Taylor but we saw what happened to Gibbs, who also had a bigger punch . . . on paper. RESULT? Hard-punching, strong-chinned Edouard gets destroyed in just 3 rounds by the proven and battle-tested -- due to the level of his competition -- Taylor.

"There are liars, damn liars and statistics"

Don't just look at the numbers when it comes to rating fighters! It's not the number of fights a fighter has had but who he's fought in those fights that tell the truth behind the stats.

Sermon #1013 - over!

Until the next time, keep your chin up!

[CONN CHRIS]

Good point Jim,

The problem that I always face is the ultimate subjectivity involved in rating. In real life, boxer A beat boxer B by decision/KO/TKO/et cetera. When creating the fighter rating and subjecting it to testing, I always have to determine what results I am looking for. That is, If boxer A KO'd boxer B in the 8th round in real life, what should that look like over 100 hypothetical fights? What % of the time should it be a decision? How many draws? How many times would you expect the result to be just the opposite were they to fight 100 times? Then if you are fortunate enough to have 6 to 10 real life opponents already rated who can be play tested against, it is nearly impossible to get each match-up generating the results you want, so again you have to rely on subjectivity to determine where you can bend or accept a 'good enough' result.

So in the end, a good rating will always fall to one lynch pin - a better-than-average ability to manage the subjective aspects of the rating for a particular fighter. That is why we will always trust your ratings over anything we come up with (mine in particular ). I for one am thrilled to hear that you are going to rate a new batch of fighters!

Christopher

[Jim_Kidd]

Either way you cut, ratings will always be subject to controversy. Take Roberto Duran, for instance. Tommy Hearns brutalizes him. Hagler never comes close but takes a decision. Does Duran have trouble with sluggers? His title winning effort against Davey Moore (at the same weight) doesn't suggest so.

Or, did Hearns get lucky against someone with the "1" KDR 1 rating. Or, does Duran have a good KDR 1 and a bad KOR rating? They only fought once... but it only takes one fight to call a dozen others into question.

It's much easier rating the retired guys. At least, with those fighters, there are no more "surprises" in store - good or bad.

Jim

[BradS]

Originally Posted by Jim_Kidd

Either way you cut, ratings will always be subject to controversy. Take Roberto Duran, for instance. Tommy Hearns brutalizes him. Hagler never comes close but takes a decision. Does Duran have trouble with sluggers? His title winning effort against Davey Moore (at the same weight) doesn't suggest so.

Or, did Hearns get lucky against someone with the "1" KDR 1 rating. Or, does Duran have a good KDR 1 and a bad KOR rating? They only fought once... but it only takes one fight to call a dozen others into question.

It's much easier rating the retired guys. At least, with those fighters, there are no more "surprises" in store - good or bad.

Jim

Interesting comments and fascinating aspects that make boxing the sport were styles truly make fights. Although i dont think you could ever put Davey Moore in the same class as Hagler or Hearns, hence a seasoned and in shape Duran was poised to take a not-so-polished Moore's title. With 20/20 hindsight of course you would probably need ro raise Duran to a KDR 1 of 2 at JM. Maybe raise his KOR as well, not sure. But then you see a resourceful Duran handle Iran Barkley and take his MW title, go figure.


Although KD rating of 1 would be pretty accurate for Duran the WW. Which will make for an interesting fight when Duran faces Hearns at WW in my universe. Often wondered how a younger, angry, and motivated Duran that took Leonard's belt, would have fared against Hearns at 147. I look at Hearn's KD rating of 3 and cringe a little because it really makes him somewhat vulnerable to anyone with hitting power. While it took a great fighter like Leonard to put Hearns in dire straits yet no other welter came close to putting Tommy on the canvas. Again, makes boxing all the more fascinating and keeps me playing a great game.

[PulpFact]

[Marciano6]

news is great i am extremely excited for the news and such, however plz Jim do not alter Marciano in any way because he is tearin up my current universe.

[mh2365]

Originally Posted by Marciano6

news is great i am extremely excited for the news and such, however plz Jim do not alter Marciano in any way because he is tearin up my current universe.

I think you'll be okay, I seriously doubt he'll do anything with any of the long retired fighters as a ton of work went into those guys originally.

My understanding of what he said is that the game will come with a whole bunch of new fighters, and any fighter who has retired since the last ratings update or due to inactivity that would now get a retired prime rating will come in an update later ... did I read that right?

[Jim_Kidd]

Originally Posted by BradS

Interesting comments and fascinating aspects that make boxing the sport were styles truly make fights.

Although KD rating of 1 would be pretty accurate for Duran the WW. Which will make for an interesting fight when Duran faces Hearns at WW in my universe. Often wondered how a younger, angry, and motivated Duran that took Leonard's belt, would have fared against Hearns at 147.

A good example of accurately rating fighters (in my opinion) can be illustrated by the Tony Zale - Rocky Graziano trilogy. Their first fight was a war with Zale coming back from the brink of defeat to starch Rocky. In the second fight, Rocky returned the favor and stopped Zale in the same round (the sixth).

Rocky was favored to beat a rusty, somewhat tired, Tony Zale in their first matchup that took place in Yankee Stadium. Had he stopped Zale as he did in the rematch during their first encounter, history would have shown that a young hungry Graziano had [as the expert predicted] too much for an aging Tony Zale.

When you plug in the best out of 3 scenario, however, everything changes.

Zales stops Graziano in 2 of their 3 meetings. It almost suggests that, Graziano has the catch Zale "just right" to stop him. Otherwise, Zale's ability to recover will guide him to a stoppage victory more often than not.

What if Joe Frazier retired after his initial "Fight of the Century" against Muhammad Ali? No rematches, no George Foreman, etc.

Frazier would be considered one of the best of all-time! So you can see how a 3 fight series between two top notch fighters can make the rating process a little easier.

Sometimes all it takes is two fights to put things into perspective. A fighter can struggle to beat a certain opponent the first time around, but easily defeat him on the second try.

When rating a fighter like Holyfield, I look at his fights with Riddick Bowe and Lennox Lewis (although he was probably a little past his prime against Lewis). In three fights, it took Holyfield a whole lot of punches to finally get Bowe on the deck. And that didn't happen until their third fight.

With Lewis, he had enough power to make Lewis respect him and fight accordingly. And against Tyson, he hit him quite a bit before the stoppage finally came.

With newer fighters, like Cotto, you don't have the luxury of making these types of assessments. They haven't been in their with enough quality opponents yet. Basically, a lot is guesswork, gut feelings, etc. At that stage, a fighter is "one step away" from "Greatness," or one punch away from Palookaville.

Okay, I've said enough. I'm drinking beer and may not be making sense. Thanks for bearing with me.

Jim

I once read somewhere online (it may have been Monte Cox) that there are three basic styles of fighters, boxers, swarmers, and boxer/punchers.

Boxers generally do best against boxer/punchers, as they can pick them apart with counterpunches and boxer/punchers are usually not great in cutting off the ring. Boxers do worst against swarmers.

Swarmers do best against boxers, as they can cut off the ring and force the boxers to swap punches with them. Swarmers do worst against boxer punchers.

Boxer/punchers do best against swarmers, as they can use their boxing skills to beat swarmers to the punch and they tend to be hard punchers. Also, swarmers know one way to fight - coming in. Boxer/punchers do worst against boxers.

So it's not uncommon that a good boxer (Ali) can beat a good boxer/puncher (Foreman) but lose to a good swarmer (Frazier), who gets taken apart by the same boxer/puncher that lost to the boxer.

[bear]

It was from Cox's Corner--Monte Cox.

Here is a link to the archived article:

http://coxscorner.tripod.com/styles.html

Bear

Originally Posted by 60'sfan

I once read somewhere online (it may have been Monte Cox) that there are three basic styles of fighters, boxers, swarmers, and boxer/punchers.

Boxers generally do best against boxer/punchers, as they can pick them apart with counterpunches and boxer/punchers are usually not great in cutting off the ring. Boxers do worst against swarmers.

Swarmers do best against boxers, as they can cut off the ring and force the boxers to swap punches with them. Swarmers do worst against boxer punchers.

Boxer/punchers do best against swarmers, as they can use their boxing skills to beat swarmers to the punch and they tend to be hard punchers. Also, swarmers know one way to fight - coming in. Boxer/punchers do worst against boxers.

So it's not uncommon that a good boxer (Ali) can beat a good boxer/puncher (Foreman) but lose to a good swarmer (Frazier), who gets taken apart by the same boxer/puncher that lost to the boxer.