Miscellaneous fighters

[John Dewey]

I've discovered that Ernesto Briceno is in the JBW thread already rated. Ignore my rating and adopt this one.

[John Dewey]

Levi Jackson* (0 HW 419547 North Carolina 2007) W0/L2(2)/D0
*not to be confused with the Levi Jackson in the New Heavyweights thread
Colin Foot (0 HW 310432 Australia 1954) W0/L1(1)/D0
Lewis Jackson (0 HW 152274 Kansas City, Mo 1939-43) W4(1)/L3(1)/D0
Greatest Crawford (1 MW 42752 Brooklyn. NY 1958-66) W17(3)/L9(1)/D2

[btown32]

John, was hoping you had or could create two fighter files for Jamaica Kid and Dave Sands at HW? I know both fighters fought primarily at lower weights, but they did venture into the hw division to fight fighters as most did back in the day. Also, if you could possibly create one for Al Norton, hw journeyman that fought some good opponents, Dillon, McCarty, Jack Johnson, Fireman Flynn, Dempsey, Bearcat Wright. I am surprised that Norton is not in the database. Thanks in advance.

[John Dewey]

I'll try to get them done tonight

[bear]

Originally Posted by btown32

John, was hoping you had or could create two fighter files for Jamaica Kid and Dave Sands at HW? I know both fighters fought primarily at lower weights, but they did venture into the hw division to fight fighters as most did back in the day. Also, if you could possibly create one for Al Norton, hw journeyman that fought some good opponents, Dillon, McCarty, Jack Johnson, Fireman Flynn, Dempsey, Bearcat Wright. I am surprised that Norton is not in the database. Thanks in advance.

Norton did pretty well in the AEF bouts held in Paris after the war. I'm shocked he wasn't included in the database too. Same with Jamaica kid who had at least one title bout in the 20's. I rated the Kid at LHW and
here is a link to that page

http://www.ootpdevelopments.com/boar...allengers.html

[btown32]

Okay John, I had this discussion with a lot of the long-time forum members when we were beta testing and getting ready to launch the new database. I am interested to see what your opinion is of Sam Langford's "10" rating? I do not feel that this is justified, specifically because most of the previous elite HW's were re-rated at a higher level. Peter Jackson went from a "12" to "13", others improved such as Norton, Holmes, Klitschko, Lewis, Frazier, Dempsey, etc. Langford was left untouched. Here is my opinion; I believe that Langford was one of the greatest fighters of all time. Again, I realize that he did a lot of his best work at the lower levels and was blind in one eye by the time that he had most of his fights at the HW's. I think that that point is a positive towards improving his rating along with the fact that most of his peers, McVey, Wills, Jackson, etc, considered him one of the best. He also had the respect of the "mainstream" fighting community at the time and wasn't given the opportunities like most of the black fighters at the time. If Oliver McCall has been re-rated as a "10," Langford is a historically better fighter than that! Floyd Patterson and Ken Norton went from a "9" to a "10" and I believe that Langford's body of work is much greater than those two (and I am a Ken Norton fan, just came along in a tough time otherwise I am sure that he would have been a world champion over a span of time). Sure he was a smaller built fighter but he is a much better boxer than some of the guys rated at the same level or better than him, Bowe, Holyfield, Klitschko, McCall, Norton, Uzcudun, Ellis. I only mention these modern fighters because I am not really sure how to compare them against the older fighters that I didn't really get a chance to see. Thanks

[John Dewey]

I really don't like giving my opinion on past fighters because I've got into some nasty arguments. However, it is my general opinion stated at length elsewhere on this forum that ALL old timers are overrated. What film we have of them be it Jack Johnson, Joe Gans, Benny Leonard, or Sam Langford, it's always the same. No combination punching, no lateral movement, slow pace. TBCB best represents "modern" boxing (post 1920). Old timers should be at a disadvantage. In the old days fights were often scheduled for longer then the 15 rounds allowed in the game. Fights were almost never stopped on cuts. No mouth pieces or regulation sized gloves. Fouls were more tolerated (especially if committed by the local favorite). Old timers if transported to today's ring would find themselves outhussled by fighters who they should have been able to beat and, consequently losing many decisions.
When guys like Harry Greb, Jack Dempsey and (after being taken to school by Greb) Gene Tunney came along the era of modern boxing began. This is my opinion which is based on the opinions of other very knowlegable people. To anybody who disagrees with me, there's plenty of film evidence on You Tube. Please view it and decide for yourselves.

[John Dewey]

Jamaica Kid, who wasn't all that good to begin with, was dismal as a HW often losing by KO. I don't know whose rating I based his on but here it is. Sands' career as a HW was cut short by a fatal car accident but he seemed to be able to handle himself at that higher weight.
Jamaica Kid (0 HW 35817 Belize (British Honduras at that time) 1916-28) W8(KO3)/L35(KO15)/D3 Newspaper Decisions: W11/L26/D6
Dave Sands (6 HW 24688 Australia 1941-52) W97(63)/L10(2)/D1

[btown32]

Originally Posted by John Dewey

I really don't like giving my opinion on past fighters because I've got into some nasty arguments. However, it is my general opinion stated at length elsewhere on this forum that ALL old timers are overrated. What film we have of them be it Jack Johnson, Joe Gans, Benny Leonard, or Sam Langford, it's always the same. No combination punching, no lateral movement, slow pace. TBCB best represents "modern" boxing (post 1920). Old timers should be at a disadvantage. In the old days fights were often scheduled for longer then the 15 rounds allowed in the game. Fights were almost never stopped on cuts. No mouth pieces or regulation sized gloves. Fouls were more tolerated (especially if committed by the local favorite). Old timers if transported to today's ring would find themselves outhussled by fighters who they should have been able to beat and, consequently losing many decisions.
When guys like Harry Greb, Jack Dempsey and (after being taken to school by Greb) Gene Tunney came along the era of modern boxing began. This is my opinion which is based on the opinions of other very knowlegable people. To anybody who disagrees with me, there's plenty of film evidence on You Tube. Please view it and decide for yourselves.

Thank you for your opinion. It is silly to get in arguments over such trivial matters. I totally agree that the modern techniques, and more importantly, the bigger, faster, stronger concepts would drastically impact the argument about then and now comparisons. But, I do believe that we also have to judge the ratings on how fighters fought in their eras equivalent to the greats of their own time. No boxers, or most other sports figures would have much of a chance or advantage over their modern day peers. Thanks again for your answer, and more importantly, for your continued quick turnarounds to requests for fighter files. I understand what you are saying, but how's about giving me your opinionized (is that even a word?) rating on Langford based on his fighting with the boxers in his era. So if Corbett, Jeffries, Sullivan, McVey, Wills, Jackson are rated as "such", then what should Langford's rating be. Just like Ali is a 15, Frazier 13, Foreman 12, Norton 10, Young 10, Shavers 9, etc. in their era, Tyson 12, Lewis 12, Bowe 11, Holyfield 11, etc in their era. Thanks

[IceTea]

Sam Langford is a 13 at HW. The 10 will keep showing up because it is in the loop of your game currently. The 13 rating will also be there. I think i adjusted his rating more than a year ago. He is also rating at MW, LHW, and LW.

Originally Posted by btown32

Okay John, I had this discussion with a lot of the long-time forum members when we were beta testing and getting ready to launch the new database. I am interested to see what your opinion is of Sam Langford's "10" rating? I do not feel that this is justified, specifically because most of the previous elite HW's were re-rated at a higher level. Peter Jackson went from a "12" to "13", others improved such as Norton, Holmes, Klitschko, Lewis, Frazier, Dempsey, etc. Langford was left untouched. Here is my opinion; I believe that Langford was one of the greatest fighters of all time. Again, I realize that he did a lot of his best work at the lower levels and was blind in one eye by the time that he had most of his fights at the HW's. I think that that point is a positive towards improving his rating along with the fact that most of his peers, McVey, Wills, Jackson, etc, considered him one of the best. He also had the respect of the "mainstream" fighting community at the time and wasn't given the opportunities like most of the black fighters at the time. If Oliver McCall has been re-rated as a "10," Langford is a historically better fighter than that! Floyd Patterson and Ken Norton went from a "9" to a "10" and I believe that Langford's body of work is much greater than those two (and I am a Ken Norton fan, just came along in a tough time otherwise I am sure that he would have been a world champion over a span of time). Sure he was a smaller built fighter but he is a much better boxer than some of the guys rated at the same level or better than him, Bowe, Holyfield, Klitschko, McCall, Norton, Uzcudun, Ellis. I only mention these modern fighters because I am not really sure how to compare them against the older fighters that I didn't really get a chance to see. Thanks

[IceTea]

IMOP big, faster, stronger or measurables such as how fast someone can run a 40 yard dash or how much someone bench presses doesn't factor on how skillful a boxer is or will become. Boxing has devolved rather than evolved as have training techniques. Most of the great trainers were out of the sport by the 1980s and only a few remain (Roach, Atlas, Richardson, and Manny). Just go to any boxing gym and you will discover what passes for a boxing trainer, instructing future pugilists how to lead with their faces. Most boxing trainers today are nothing but mediocre conditioners.

If you watch film of Jack Johnson, Tommy Laughran, Charley Burley, or Joe Louis you will see that they keep most of their weight inside their back knee unlike most of todays professionals who fight over their lead foot. Bernard Hopkins is one of the few exceptions. I believe that since WWII each generation of boxers are less skilled than the previous generations. This is due to several factors mainly lack of competition. In 1920s there were generally between 8 to 10 thousand professional boxers licensed each year and today there are barely 2 thousand. That means there are less capable trainers, less gyms, less shows, and boxers are not fight as frequently. Some of this is due to most being over protected.

I think boxing reached its zenith skill wise sometime between the end of WW I and the start of WW II.

[dragon29]

Hi John,

Do you or anyone else have a rating for Julio Cesar Chavez @ welterweight? I know the database used to have a rating for him there but his rating now only goes to JWW. Thanks!

[bear]

When I am thinking about comparisons of fighters and rankiing the top men in weight classes one of the sources I always consult is:

Champions and Challengers: 100 Years of Queensberry Boxing.
Haldane, Robert A.
Stanley Paul & Co. Ltd., England, 1967

Long out of print and not easily found these days he examines fighters from the dawn of the Queensbury era through 1965. Discusses the top men by weight class and discusses both the World's best and the UK's best.

[btown32]

Originally Posted by IceTea

Sam Langford is a 13 at HW. The 10 will keep showing up because it is in the loop of your game currently. The 13 rating will also be there. I think i adjusted his rating more than a year ago. He is also rating at MW, LHW, and LW.

Thanks, I will look into it.

[John Dewey]

I don't rate fighters by how great they were during their respective eras. I rate them according to how I think they would do if pitted against each other during their primes. I don't have a top ten Heavyweight list so to speak but if I did i doubt that either Sam Langford or Jack Johnson would make it. I rate Ali #1, Louis #2, and then, in no particular order, I'd have Holmes, Frazier, maybe Foreman and Liston, possibly Marciano and Dempsey, maybe Tyson, and maybe, just maybe, Lennox Lewis and one or other of the Klitchko brothers (please, I know, but I don't want go there!). Below is how I'd rate Langford in the game by applying my formula detailed elsewhere in the forum. Unfortunately, if you want to maintain consistency, you have to rate ALL of the old time fighters with my formula if you rate any so that they remain proportionately competitive with their contemporaries.

[John Dewey]

This is how I'd rate Chavez as a WW. Remember, he was a little past his prime at this time in his career.

[hamed2]

Originally Posted by dragon29

Hi John,

Do you or anyone else have a rating for Julio Cesar Chavez @ welterweight? I know the database used to have a rating for him there but his rating now only goes to JWW. Thanks!

Really? I missed that.

[btown32]

I was looking at the OOTP TBCB website and came across a nice article about Australian heavyweight fighters with biographical information. There are two fighters not in the database, Ambrose Palmer and Vince Cervi, that I was hoping you could rate when you have time. Thanks

[IceTea]

Originally Posted by btown32

I was looking at the OOTP TBCB website and came across a nice article about Australian heavyweight fighters with biographical information. There are two fighters not in the database, Ambrose Palmer and Vince Cervi, that I was hoping you could rate when you have time. Thanks

Palmer is in the database as a LHW.

[Shaft081]

IF you can, could you create these guys. Im looking to sim an early 60's uni

Tommy Thibault 10-6-1 2 Lightweight
Tommy Thibault - Boxer
Bob Shaughnessy 11-17-1 5 [at Junior Lightweight]
http://boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=49629&cat=boxer
Mercer Smith 19-7-4 7 Lightweight
Mercer Smith - Boxer

Matt Mullane 9-2 0 Featherweight
Matt Mullane - Boxer