Boxing Wish List

DennisS · 04-04-2002, 02:47 PM

1. A stable game...current version is not.
2. Historical fighters, rated at the beginning of their careers.
3. Computer generated rookie fighters, similar to OOTP4, that you can watch and develop.
4. Cumulative records and rankings
5. Boxing cards auto-filled after your selections
6. Purse information for each fighter, cumulative
7. Out of ring shenanigans (truly a part of boxing, no?)
8. Training decisions, similar to OOTP4 spring training
9. Hidden abilities, visible ratings....again, similar to OOTP4
10. Ability to autosim bouts
11. Selectable rankings based on either:
a)ratings
b)abilities
c)won-loss percentage
1)vs.top fighters
2)indicating strength of competition
d)total money won
12. Trainers, cut-men, managers all costing money and taking their share of the purse
13. An invitation to the AI for fights...you select one from your stable, and the computer selects a representative opponent. This may or may not favor your guy.
14. AI NOT approving fights for fighters fighting opponents significantly worse in ratings/abilities than they are....or even better, you only getting a couple of attempts to schedule fights vs. computer opponents before the "boxing commission (AI) decides for you.
15. All fighters having "reputation" to help them attract better trainers and managers.
16. Having the ability to be a manager (a la Don King)in the game...and manage a stable of fighters
17. Owning a small run-down gym, and using that as your initial base of operations...gradually building up your business to bigger and better facilities, such as a better weight room (enhanced bonus to strength training?), or better morale.
18. Role playing elements for your fighters...Jimmy Fisticuffs buys a Bel-Air Mansion for $3.6 million dollars, or Jimmy is dating actress Wellen Dowd.
19. Everything, and I mean everything accessed from one screen, via pull-down menus
A.
1
2
B
1
2
C
1

Not:
A
1
a
b
b
1
a
b
Basically, have the screen selections only one layer deep. It can be done easily, and would make the game much more accessible. Having to back out to go somewhere else is a pain.

The current version of the game, by the Trunzo brothers, is awful in this regard, and really needs an upgrade.

And the number one, honest-to-god need wish is for this game to have better support.

The patches have been few and far between, and it is still very, very buggy, with features that do not work as advertised.

I have read not so mild complaints from the developers themselves about the actual software writer himself not getting the updates/patches done...despite the developers wishes.

Review the games current version at <a href="http://www.boxmag.com" target="_blank">www.boxmag.com</a>
and read through the site, and you will see what I mean. Version 1.31 patch was the latest, and it hasn't seen a patch for months. Marcus has us to patch "C" in the first month for OOTP4.

This wish list is not a slam, the game is still the best boxing simulation out there. But it could be so, so much better.

Thanks for letting me ramble.

John2412 · 04-04-2002, 08:02 PM

Some excellent ideas there...... but I hope they dont lose site of the true REPLAY aspect of the game if a lot of the "Management" aspects are brought in.

It still needs to have the "what if" based purely on the true fighters stats for a "rematch".

And as you say a cleaner interface and stable game along with that improved pbp.

John

Pretecf · 04-25-2002, 10:04 AM

Quite a list, Dennis, hehe. Wow, those would make some wonderful features. I have also experienced a broken handed fighter tearing an opponent limb from limb and feel that the likelihood of this is slim and needs to be curtailed. Injuries and career ending injuries would also be on my wish list.

And...hurry up, I miss my Title Bout.

04-25-2002, 04:51 PM

The bottom line for me is REALISM.

If a prime Mike Tyson loses on points to 175 pound Jim Corbett, that is a ridiculous outcome and should not happen (but it has happened with Title Fight).

Slick boxers should fight like boxers, sticking, moving and slipping punches, whereas aggressive sluggers should be constantly pressing forward. If fighters don't use the style we know they had, the bout is not realistic. I don't think the play-by-play in Title Fight accurately reflects this style factor.

JeffR · 04-25-2002, 06:53 PM

Well, one way to get around that is to rate pre-modern heavyweights in the division they'd be fighting in if they were around now - i.e., Louis, Marciano, Dempsey, etc. become cruiserweights, Corbett and Burns light-heavies, and Bob Fitzsimmons drops down to super-middle (he won the heavyweight title at 167.) I've fiddled around with this a bit on past versions of the Title Bout system. It looks a bit odd but I've been generally happy with the results. Doing that, however, still doesn't account for things like the cruder defensive techniques of turn-of-the century fighters. That might require something coded into the game to give Ali, for example, a realistic advantage over Jack Johnson, but still leave Johnson as dominant as he was over his contemporaries.

Cap · 08-16-2002, 05:39 PM

I've created a boxing universe that only contains fighters from my period of interest, 1890 to about 1955. Once in a while I match modern era fighters with old timers, but not often.

Cap

Cap · 08-17-2002, 06:40 PM

One other thing I'd like to see in Title Bout. If they have to keep the Fight Screen, add fighter portraits and get rid of the static ring scene. Oh yeah, how about animating the two fighter silhouettes so that if a fighter is knocked down, his shadow image drops to the ground too. There should also be a read-out showing what damage has been inflicted. The present one is woefully inadequate.

Cap

contention · 09-06-2002, 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 60'sfan
The bottom line for me is REALISM.

If a prime Mike Tyson loses on points to 175 pound Jim Corbett, that is a ridiculous outcome and should not happen (but it has happened with Title Fight).

Slick boxers should fight like boxers, sticking, moving and slipping punches, whereas aggressive sluggers should be constantly pressing forward. If fighters don't use the style we know they had, the bout is not realistic. I don't think the play-by-play in Title Fight accurately reflects this style factor.

*************************************************
I agree with you completely...it is absurd to think ANY of the turn of the century fighters could beat any of the modern fighters. Peter Jackson over Evander Holyfield? Come on...
If Corbett were to win a TKO over anyone, that would seem realistic. Often fighters from that era are given "legendary" status, and not just fighters that were at the top of the game "at that time"! Good post...thanks!
Eric

contention · 09-06-2002, 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by contention

*************************************************
I agree with you completely...it is absurd to think ANY of the turn of the century fighters could beat any of the modern fighters. Peter Jackson over Evander Holyfield? Come on...
If Corbett were to win a TKO over anyone, that would seem realistic. Often fighters from that era are given "legendary" status, and not just fighters that were at the top of the game "at that time"! Good post...thanks!
Eric

*************************************************
I meant to say, if Corbett beats ANYONE by TKO, that would seem UN-realistic. Sorry for the miss...

Cap · 09-06-2002, 11:06 PM

It would be interesting to see how Holyfield would fare if after winning some amateur title he were plucked out of his time period and dropped into say, San Francisco of the 1890s. I wonder how long he would last against Joe Choynski, Hank Griffin, Joe Lannon, George Godfrey, Big Joe McAuliffe, John L. Sullivan, Tom Sharkey, Bob Armstrong and the rest.

Cap

Mark42661 · 09-06-2002, 11:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by contention

*************************************************
I agree with you completely...it is absurd to think ANY of the turn of the century fighters could beat any of the modern fighters.

I totally disagree with that statement. Look at James Jeffries as just one example of a great turn of the century fighter. I don't think there is a heavyweight today who could have beaten him in his prime. Lennox Lewis vs Jim Jeffries? I'd put my money on Jeffries everytime. Jeffries would be just way too strong for him...same with Tom Sharkey.

I'll agree that the current play-by-play in Titlefight does a poor job of describing the geography of a fight in the ring....but I think the underlying game engine brings about very realistic results.

Just my opinion.

Mark

When They Were Kings

jrmorgan56 · 09-07-2002, 05:55 AM

Jake Kilrain, unlike most older fighters, appreciated the boxers of the 1930s. He felt that their attention to defense and technique was a worthy change from his own days of slugging it out in the late 1880s. He too, however, felt that fighters like Charlie Mitchell, from his own time, would have fit in nicely. It is overstated that ALL fighters in the bareknuckle days just stood there and took turns slugging it out. Charlie Mitchell, Joe Choynski, Peter Jackson, and Corbett are just a few of those notable examples.

Mitchell and Corbett frustrated John L. Sullivan with their hit and move style. Why could they not frustrate a slugger today? Also, a big slugger like Sullivan still has a puncher's chance, I don't care how lousy he boxes, against a sound boxer today.

I do totally agree that you CANT compare bareknuckle fighters to modern fighters in the way that Title Fight does. But I am not going to go as far as say that all bareknuckle fighters would do lousy against fighters of today.

My .02

04-04-2002, 02:47 PM	#1
DennisS Minors (Double A) Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 107	Boxing Wish List 1. A stable game...current version is not. 2. Historical fighters, rated at the beginning of their careers. 3. Computer generated rookie fighters, similar to OOTP4, that you can watch and develop. 4. Cumulative records and rankings 5. Boxing cards auto-filled after your selections 6. Purse information for each fighter, cumulative 7. Out of ring shenanigans (truly a part of boxing, no?) 8. Training decisions, similar to OOTP4 spring training 9. Hidden abilities, visible ratings....again, similar to OOTP4 10. Ability to autosim bouts 11. Selectable rankings based on either: a)ratings b)abilities c)won-loss percentage 1)vs.top fighters 2)indicating strength of competition d)total money won 12. Trainers, cut-men, managers all costing money and taking their share of the purse 13. An invitation to the AI for fights...you select one from your stable, and the computer selects a representative opponent. This may or may not favor your guy. 14. AI NOT approving fights for fighters fighting opponents significantly worse in ratings/abilities than they are....or even better, you only getting a couple of attempts to schedule fights vs. computer opponents before the "boxing commission (AI) decides for you. 15. All fighters having "reputation" to help them attract better trainers and managers. 16. Having the ability to be a manager (a la Don King)in the game...and manage a stable of fighters 17. Owning a small run-down gym, and using that as your initial base of operations...gradually building up your business to bigger and better facilities, such as a better weight room (enhanced bonus to strength training?), or better morale. 18. Role playing elements for your fighters...Jimmy Fisticuffs buys a Bel-Air Mansion for $3.6 million dollars, or Jimmy is dating actress Wellen Dowd. 19. Everything, and I mean everything accessed from one screen, via pull-down menus A. 1 2 B 1 2 C 1 Not: A 1 a b b 1 a b Basically, have the screen selections only one layer deep. It can be done easily, and would make the game much more accessible. Having to back out to go somewhere else is a pain. The current version of the game, by the Trunzo brothers, is awful in this regard, and really needs an upgrade. And the number one, honest-to-god need wish is for this game to have better support. The patches have been few and far between, and it is still very, very buggy, with features that do not work as advertised. I have read not so mild complaints from the developers themselves about the actual software writer himself not getting the updates/patches done...despite the developers wishes. Review the games current version at <a href="http://www.boxmag.com" target="_blank">www.boxmag.com</a> and read through the site, and you will see what I mean. Version 1.31 patch was the latest, and it hasn't seen a patch for months. Marcus has us to patch "C" in the first month for OOTP4. This wish list is not a slam, the game is still the best boxing simulation out there. But it could be so, so much better. Thanks for letting me ramble.

04-04-2002, 08:02 PM	#2
John2412 Bat Boy Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: UK Posts: 16	Some excellent ideas there...... but I hope they dont lose site of the true REPLAY aspect of the game if a lot of the "Management" aspects are brought in. It still needs to have the "what if" based purely on the true fighters stats for a "rematch". And as you say a cleaner interface and stable game along with that improved pbp. John __________________ Yesterday is History Tomorrow is a Mystery Today is a Gift Enjoy your present.... And never lose sight of your dreams

04-25-2002, 10:04 AM	#3
Pretecf Minors (Single A) Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: New Jersey Posts: 62	Quite a list, Dennis, hehe. Wow, those would make some wonderful features. I have also experienced a broken handed fighter tearing an opponent limb from limb and feel that the likelihood of this is slim and needs to be curtailed. Injuries and career ending injuries would also be on my wish list. And...hurry up, I miss my Title Bout. __________________ ENJOY THE CARNAGE

08-16-2002, 05:39 PM	#6
Cap Hall Of Famer Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Large Province in God's Country Posts: 7,913	I've created a boxing universe that only contains fighters from my period of interest, 1890 to about 1955. Once in a while I match modern era fighters with old timers, but not often. Cap __________________ "...There were Giants in Those Days.."

08-17-2002, 06:40 PM	#7
Cap Hall Of Famer Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Large Province in God's Country Posts: 7,913	Something I'd like to see.... One other thing I'd like to see in Title Bout. If they have to keep the Fight Screen, add fighter portraits and get rid of the static ring scene. Oh yeah, how about animating the two fighter silhouettes so that if a fighter is knocked down, his shadow image drops to the ground too. There should also be a read-out showing what damage has been inflicted. The present one is woefully inadequate. Cap __________________ "...There were Giants in Those Days.."

04-25-2002, 04:51 PM	#4
60'sfan Guest Posts: n/a	The bottom line for me is REALISM. If a prime Mike Tyson loses on points to 175 pound Jim Corbett, that is a ridiculous outcome and should not happen (but it has happened with Title Fight). Slick boxers should fight like boxers, sticking, moving and slipping punches, whereas aggressive sluggers should be constantly pressing forward. If fighters don't use the style we know they had, the bout is not realistic. I don't think the play-by-play in Title Fight accurately reflects this style factor.

04-25-2002, 06:53 PM	#5
JeffR FHM Producer Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Kelowna, BC Posts: 17,249	Well, one way to get around that is to rate pre-modern heavyweights in the division they'd be fighting in if they were around now - i.e., Louis, Marciano, Dempsey, etc. become cruiserweights, Corbett and Burns light-heavies, and Bob Fitzsimmons drops down to super-middle (he won the heavyweight title at 167.) I've fiddled around with this a bit on past versions of the Title Bout system. It looks a bit odd but I've been generally happy with the results. Doing that, however, still doesn't account for things like the cruder defensive techniques of turn-of-the century fighters. That might require something coded into the game to give Ali, for example, a realistic advantage over Jack Johnson, but still leave Johnson as dominant as he was over his contemporaries.

09-06-2002, 11:06 PM	#10
Cap Hall Of Famer Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Large Province in God's Country Posts: 7,913	Absurdity? It would be interesting to see how Holyfield would fare if after winning some amateur title he were plucked out of his time period and dropped into say, San Francisco of the 1890s. I wonder how long he would last against Joe Choynski, Hank Griffin, Joe Lannon, George Godfrey, Big Joe McAuliffe, John L. Sullivan, Tom Sharkey, Bob Armstrong and the rest. Cap

09-07-2002, 05:55 AM	#12
jrmorgan56 Major Leagues Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: New York Posts: 459	Jake Kilrain, unlike most older fighters, appreciated the boxers of the 1930s. He felt that their attention to defense and technique was a worthy change from his own days of slugging it out in the late 1880s. He too, however, felt that fighters like Charlie Mitchell, from his own time, would have fit in nicely. It is overstated that ALL fighters in the bareknuckle days just stood there and took turns slugging it out. Charlie Mitchell, Joe Choynski, Peter Jackson, and Corbett are just a few of those notable examples. Mitchell and Corbett frustrated John L. Sullivan with their hit and move style. Why could they not frustrate a slugger today? Also, a big slugger like Sullivan still has a puncher's chance, I don't care how lousy he boxes, against a sound boxer today. I do totally agree that you CANT compare bareknuckle fighters to modern fighters in the way that Title Fight does. But I am not going to go as far as say that all bareknuckle fighters would do lousy against fighters of today. My .02 __________________ CornerWork