Home | Webstore
Latest News: OOTP Update 20.6 - OOTP 20 Available - FHM 6 Available

FHM 6 Available Now!

  

Go Back   OOTP Developments Forums > Prior Versions of Our Games > Title Bout Championship Boxing > TBCB Mods

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 07-27-2008, 02:35 PM   #41
Jersey-Jim
Hall Of Famer
 
Jersey-Jim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Toms River, NJ & Sarasota, FL.
Posts: 2,696
Thanks: 6
Thanked 46x in 44 posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by djday45 View Post
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.
Jersey-Jim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2008, 05:02 PM   #42
professordp
Hall Of Famer
 
professordp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 2,006
Thanks: 424
Thanked 548x in 346 posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by djday45 View Post
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.
Wiser words were never spoken! I really appreciate and respect what you are doing here, but trying to simulate boxing is really a subjective process---much more so than any other major sport simulation. I know that Data Boxing started to quantify the sport thirty years ago (I played the game back then as I did the board version of TBCB). I remember reading (it might have been Negamco/BLM's All Sports Digest) that Dating Boxing was a better game because it was more "accurate". That might have been the case, and perhaps it still is (I think Data Boxing is still around). But TBCB was and is a heck of a lot more fun. Data Boxing had a special Liston/Patterson rating that ensured that Sonny would always take Floyd out in the first round. Over the nearly thirty-five years I've been playing TBCB, I must have had at least twenty simulations of their fight. Generally, Floyd is gone by five--once or twice I recall the fight going the distance. And once, Patterson kayoed Liston!!!

Now, some would say that points to a deficiency in TBCB. I say no! I've been playing sports simulations since 1962, and personally I think that too often "accuracy" is substituted for realism---there is a difference I think.

For me the fun of sports simulations (like watching sports) is to see the unexpected take place. As long as there is some relationship between ratings and reality, it's okay with me if once in a while Patterson knocks Liston out!

Ratings are approximations. I give you a great deal of credit for recognizing that the "official" TBCB ratings are not sacrosanct and change them as you see fit.

Last edited by professordp; 07-27-2008 at 05:06 PM. Reason: typo
professordp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2008, 05:53 PM   #43
bdennis2
Minors (Triple A)
 
bdennis2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 241
Thanks: 1
Thanked 16x in 15 posts
DJ i like your ratings very much i use them all the time in most cases they are very much like my ratings my ratings of T.Sharkey and J.Jeffries were very close. I have been using the south paw rating a lot like you are doing. I would like your
opinion on another aspect on clinch and movement i thank stalking also should also been included for instance Liston would be PL-42,CP-42 Punch missed-61,clinch-65 and stalk-73 inother words Liston would land 42 miss 19 clinch 4 stalk 8 movement 5 also i use the movement rating for sluggers as well as boxers for sluggers at would be moving in for boxers moving left,right and back also dancing.I have Chuvalo clinching only 5 times and movement 9 as he is allways moving in to throw punches. In testing the fighters that i rate i test against his fights.in his prime also against a 600 fighter sch. from 1880 to present and top 30 fighters of his era if he passes all 3 then i do the top 3 or 4 matches during his prime. DJ keep the ratings coming.
bdennis2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2008, 05:59 PM   #44
bdennis2
Minors (Triple A)
 
bdennis2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 241
Thanks: 1
Thanked 16x in 15 posts
Professordp : Data Boxing has a computer version now. Data boxing was done by
a college professor J.C.Compton.
bdennis2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2008, 06:25 PM   #45
professordp
Hall Of Famer
 
professordp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 2,006
Thanks: 424
Thanked 548x in 346 posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by bdennis2 View Post
Professordp : Data Boxing has a computer version now. Data boxing was done by
a college professor J.C.Compton.
Thanks, I thought it was Julian Compton---correct? I heard about the computer version a few months ago--was tempted. But I guess I'm a TBCB kinda guy at heart---LOL!
professordp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2008, 08:07 PM   #46
Jersey-Jim
Hall Of Famer
 
Jersey-Jim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Toms River, NJ & Sarasota, FL.
Posts: 2,696
Thanks: 6
Thanked 46x in 44 posts
I like the idea that TBCB has the type of support from its fans as it does. I don't think there's another boxing game in existence that has the sort of fan/support base that this one has.

TBCB has benefited greatly, in my opinion, from those who frequent this board with all of the fighters, pictures, simulations, debates, etc. This game has a lot of "heart" in it thanks to who knows how many contributions.

I've been rating fighters since 1978 with this game (I will only admit that in this discussion forum where that's actually considered a GOOD thing) and some of you have been at it for even longer. I'm not trying to use the year to appear "old" or "wise" but to illustrate the point that this game has produced LIFE-LONG FANS.

How many of you have stuck with a game past your teens? As you pass through the decades, it's truly a rarity to find a game that still does the same thing for you today as it did 20, 30 years ago.

Title Bout, for a lot of "older guys" (past 35) does exactly that. So, when I hear things about other boxing games, I think, TBCB is like family. Scr*w Data Boxing. If anything, I guess I'd look at it with the idea of borrowing whatever ideas that wound enhance an already great game in TB.

It's funny, but, playing this game - running your own boxing universe, is very much like reading a good book. God knows how many good "reading" hours it's provided to me over the years?

No disrespect to J.C. Compton, but I don't think he could have done any better a job overall with the number of fighters, the ratings and the "re-ratings" than the guys on this board has done.

Does J.C. Compton have a "Corinthians" Era? Can you find Teofilo Stevenson as a pro? Does he have 9 Gazillion photos available for the players? Or, the Rocky characters? Does Two-Ton Tony Galento make comebacks in the Data Boxing World?

The defense rests.

Last edited by Jersey-Jim; 07-27-2008 at 08:08 PM.
Jersey-Jim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2008, 09:43 PM   #47
bdennis2
Minors (Triple A)
 
bdennis2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 241
Thanks: 1
Thanked 16x in 15 posts
TO Jersey Jim:To start with Data boxing and TBCB ARE TO COMPLETE DIFFERENT TYPE OF GAMES one is for universe,s and boxing mangment the other is for strictly for historcal type replays as to the loyal thing i have been a friend to Jim Trunzo all the way back to the mid 70,s when him and brother Tom was just starting the games i helped them rate some of the fighters i have kept in contect with him all throught the years from the 1st computer sim all the way to when they sold the game even last year when Jim was battling for his life after a turmor was removed for the bottom of his brain i talked to him 2 weeks ago he is improving also J.C.Compton is a friend of mind to Data boxing is only a hobby of his in no way is he in comption was TBCB all he ever intened was only a few of the top fighters also i help the TBCB team rate some of the fighters in the game there is no need for the defense to rest.No one is putting this game down i like both games for what they both bring to the table if you will go back to the post to Professordp all i did was give him some info i did not build the game up or did i take TBCB down. When you stop trying to improve a game that is when the game will start down.I have had my say this conversation is over.<BILL DENNIS> PS ABOUT OLD I AM
65 YEARS OLD "no one loves TBCB anymore than i do"
bdennis2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2008, 10:51 PM   #48
professordp
Hall Of Famer
 
professordp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 2,006
Thanks: 424
Thanked 548x in 346 posts
Data Boxing

I hope that my comments were not taken as a put down on Data Boxing or Julian Compton. I was strictly speaking from personal preference---which I think I stated clearly. There are different types of gamers, even within the TBCB world, and thankfully there are games to meet the various needs that are out there. I was just expressing what I look for as a youngster (I just turned sixty in May--lol).

Some people hate APBA baseball---I love it! It doesn't mean that it's better than all of the rest of the baseball simulations, just that it fits my particular interests and needs in a basball simulation.

As I said above, I played both games. Thirty-plus years ago, there weren't any decent boxing simulations (in 1967, I actually created my own heavyweight game---just for personal use). I came accross DB and TBCB around the same time. If you were inclined to enjoy very precise results and exacting accuracy among a limited number of boxers, you leaned toward DB. If you wanted a larger universe of boxers with a lesser degree of accuracy, you went for TBCB.

In the ensuing years, TBCB has become increasingly accurate but still fun. It would be unfair for me to speak about the current status of Data Boxing since the last time I played it was 1977 or 1978. I'm pleased to know that it is still around and confident that it, like TBCB, has improved through the years. And there is certainly a need for both games.

Last edited by professordp; 07-27-2008 at 10:54 PM. Reason: typo
professordp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2008, 11:35 PM   #49
professordp
Hall Of Famer
 
professordp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 2,006
Thanks: 424
Thanked 548x in 346 posts
Back to the Topic

I hope I can help tie this Data Boxing/TBCB discussion up with one final point that I neglected to mention, but works into the methodology employed to rate boxers.

Please correct me if I'm wrong (of course someone will, because I am usually wrong), as I recall Professor Compton bases a considerable portion of his ratings upon fight films he views and actually counts punches (type, power, etc.). I can't think of a system that would be more precise than his method of measurement.

Since TBCB involves a much larger universe, ratings are part quantification and part subjective impressionism (now ain't that a term!). The Compton approach wouldn't work for us. Christ, we can't find pictures for about 3/4 of all the fighters rated for the game---or articles, or web references of value---let alone fight films of them!

So djday45 hit the nail on the head---test it, test it, and test it. If it feels right---go with it. There's so much to a boxer (accuracy, power, defense, chin, etc.), and different people place empahasis upon different attributes.

If you've read the section on rating boxers (Appendix A) in the game manual, you'll recall the first line reads "There is probably nothing more difficult to rate in the world of sports simulations than a boxer....the best that one can do is to base a fighter's ratings on what we term 'intellegent speculation.'"

Speculate away, djday45---I'm running with you!
professordp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2008, 02:04 AM   #50
djday45
All Star Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,494
Thanks: 3
Thanked 49x in 32 posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by professordp View Post
I hope I can help tie this Data Boxing/TBCB discussion up with one final point that I neglected to mention, but works into the methodology employed to rate boxers.

Please correct me if I'm wrong (of course someone will, because I am usually wrong), as I recall Professor Compton bases a considerable portion of his ratings upon fight films he views and actually counts punches (type, power, etc.). I can't think of a system that would be more precise than his method of measurement.

Since TBCB involves a much larger universe, ratings are part quantification and part subjective impressionism (now ain't that a term!). The Compton approach wouldn't work for us. Christ, we can't find pictures for about 3/4 of all the fighters rated for the game---or articles, or web references of value---let alone fight films of them!

So djday45 hit the nail on the head---test it, test it, and test it. If it feels right---go with it. There's so much to a boxer (accuracy, power, defense, chin, etc.), and different people place empahasis upon different attributes.

If you've read the section on rating boxers (Appendix A) in the game manual, you'll recall the first line reads "There is probably nothing more difficult to rate in the world of sports simulations than a boxer....the best that one can do is to base a fighter's ratings on what we term 'intellegent speculation.'"

Speculate away, djday45---I'm running with you!
Lol thks guys but call me Dean! Ive been around the community enough years to call me by my first name!

Another thing that springs to mind for people to remember if you use mine or any other peoples ratings is that they will only really start to produce results for you and act as they should if you dont use them in isolation.

With that I mean for example my new johnson rating makes sense to me and produces excellent results but thats partly because im using it with my own Burns rating, Hart, Jeanette, Langford, McVey, Fitzsimmons, Ketchel, Willard and other fighters he faced etc etc.

No rating should be used in isolation they all branch out to each other and thats how you know a rating is working, not just in looking at the raw numbers on a page
djday45 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2008, 03:30 AM   #51
bdennis2
Minors (Triple A)
 
bdennis2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 241
Thanks: 1
Thanked 16x in 15 posts
Professordp: my post was nothing to do with you i value your input very much i injoy your Stevenson post very much i have been following it every day i used to
like watch Stevenson fight the very few times he was on TV if he had turned pro
he would have been a champion. Dean your ratings are pretty close to my rating
i have been using your Johnson rating vs Langford,Jeanette and have rated Ketchell at HW a fight that Johnson carried Ketchel until Ketchel made the mistake of knocking Johnson down.In using your Johnson rating he usely gets Ketchell out of there between the 3rd and 6th rds which sounds about right so i am going to go back to 60s and 70s for some more rerates and use your's for the early fighters so Dean keep them coming. Thanks for posting your ratings also icetea,s ratings work good with my ratings. <Bill> PS also Professor if i ever
do a project similar to yours i am going to get you to do the write up i realy injoy
yours.
bdennis2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2008, 08:03 AM   #52
djday45
All Star Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,494
Thanks: 3
Thanked 49x in 32 posts
Jess Willard

Willard is underated today and was a fighter with huge advantages and disadvantages a very individual fighter.

One thing im going to discuss here is how to model size advantages in the game. Now really this only comes up with the heavies as other divisions dont have the huge differences thrown up sometimes by the heavyweights.

Now 3 guys come to mind historically right away Willard, Carnera and Lewis as well as a lot more of the modern super heavies.

Willard and Carnera in particular were considered freaks of nature in their time but it has to be considered there huge advantage in physical height weight and reach was often a big advantage for them.

So how to model this within the game? as currently it has no catergories for relative size and strength. To my mind the blindingly obvious thing is to use Control Factor. If we already accept that control factors already model many variables that go into who is in control of a bout then size and strength advantages can go onto that list quite handily.

So in the following rating you will see Willards control factors increased quite handily, this does not model, skill, speed, or ring generalship, in his case it models sheer awesome size!

remember if a rating is not mentioned i agree with it.

CONDITIONING - 7 inactive - if ever a fighter deserves the inactive rating Willard does, he fought very few times, and as champ had to be practically dragged to the ring, putting the title in mothballs, he never liked or enjoyed boxing even less so after killing an opponent, he reportedly only fought because he had to.

CONTROL VS BOXER - 13 - Willards huge size and patient counter punching style was very, very effective against boxers and he had great success forcing fighters unused to it to punch and lead up at him, his truly massive size and strength and also that he had surpringly good footwork and mobility for a man his size made him hugely effective against them.

CONTROL VS SLUGGER - 10 - his size and style didnt help him nearly so much against sluugers and punchers however as they were quite happy coming foward and a fast slugger would beat him to the punch and his vast size became a distinct disadvantafe as the fights with Dempsey, Smith and Firpo proved. Truly a styles make fights type of fighter.

CHIN VS KNOCKDOWN - 2 - he had a good chin and was rarely hurt but could be reached.

CHIN VS KNOCKDOWN - 1 - very hard to stop and had great bravery he always got back up.

RECOVERY - 4 - here was his weakness, regarding his chin, when hurt he did tend to go into a kind of shocked stupor and could go down multiple times. he woul get back up but would take a pounding.

ABSORB PUNISHMENT - 1 - a dangerously brave man, Dempsey nearly killed him and still he wanted to fight on, with the above rating for his chin you should see Willard not hurt often but when he is taking a fearsome beating.

CUT RESISTANCE - 2 - was known to cut occasionally.

ENDURANCE - 10 - had amazing natural stamina and often simply out lasted and tired out his opponents letting his huge size do the work for him. The Johnson fight is a classic example.

DEFENSE - +4 - not exactly the fastest or most skilled fighter defensively, that huge body was a very temping target for a skilled, quick puncher.

FAST STARTER - 3 - a pretty well known slow starter who took him time to warm up, Dempsey didnt give him that time.

HITTING POWER - 11 - a huge thundering strong puncher with single shots, who killed a man and was never quite the same puncher afterwards, his right hand was said to be a chopping, heavy fight stopping punch.

PUNCHES LANDED - 34 - was terribly terribly slow especially when made to lead, he was only really and effective counter puncher, was pretty crude offense wise and missed often and badly.

COUNTERPUNCHING - 40 - the paradox was he was a talented counterer and had his most success here.

PUNCHES LANDED - 65 - to reflect his lack of technicue he will often be seen to be missing.

OVERALL RATING - 9 - a strange fighter who you will have a lot of fun with Willards fights will either be snorefests or wild see saw affairs or see him get pummeled from pillar to post.
djday45 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2008, 08:39 AM   #53
professordp
Hall Of Famer
 
professordp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 2,006
Thanks: 424
Thanked 548x in 346 posts
To bdennis2

I know that you didn't direct anything towards me. I just felt that I needed to offer additional comments since I opened up the Data Boxing can of worms.

And thank you very much for your gracious comments about the Stevenson simulation---I'm so pleased that you are enjoying it.

Now if I could only develop one-half the skill that Dean has for rating boxers, I'd die a happy man!

Last edited by professordp; 07-28-2008 at 08:44 AM. Reason: typo
professordp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2008, 08:46 AM   #54
Thunder
Hall Of Famer
 
Thunder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 3,862
Thanks: 116
Thanked 485x in 415 posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by djday45 View Post
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.
I think it is presumptuous to give someone advice who didn't ask for any.

I also find this to be a bit contradictory itself. You say "feel" is more more important than science in the game, but then go on to say how important testing (science) is.

It's all a mathematical representation of boxing, thus I would say the science is the important bit. I suppose the expected performance would involve some "feel", but there's a lot of logic and science to the whole package.

I have run millions of rounds to test various theories about how the game system works . .what effect does two points of HP have? what percentage of wins does a fighter of one level get against others? Does KO: 0 really do as much as it should?
I don't need to be talked down to.


Quote:
Originally Posted by professordp View Post
Wiser words were never spoken!
I suppose I don't need to do this given the rest of this post, but I obviously don't agree.
__________________
I am a player in your fictional OOTP Universe . . . who plays OOTP in his spare time.

Last edited by Thunder; 07-28-2008 at 09:10 AM. Reason: typo
Thunder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2008, 10:05 AM   #55
professordp
Hall Of Famer
 
professordp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 2,006
Thanks: 424
Thanked 548x in 346 posts
Guys just want to have fun---I think!

To each his own. This isn't worth battling over. Maybe we should all lighten up a little here (me included!). This is just a game, a diversion, a hobby. Something that's fun to do--and a welcome respite from the wife!

It's not a religion, ideology, political movement, alternative lifestyle, or sexual perversion (well not for most---lol).

Look, the forum should serve as a dialectic process where an exchange of experiences and views can ultimately promote increased enjoyment in a hobby that we all share. And overall, that's what happens here.

Unfortunately ego trips take place (once again, I'll include myself) where we engage in unproductive (sometimes destructive) one-upmanship: "I posted a better picture.", "My ratings are more accurate.", "My universe is superior.", "I've been a member longer.", "I'm older", etc. This only creates friction and works counter to the purpose of a forum.

To use the much hackneyed adage, "There's no 'I' in the word team."

We have a wonderful little sandbox here--let's all try to play nice!
professordp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2008, 10:50 AM   #56
djday45
All Star Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,494
Thanks: 3
Thanked 49x in 32 posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunder View Post
I think it is presumptuous to give someone advice who didn't ask for any.

I also find this to be a bit contradictory itself. You say "feel" is more more important than science in the game, but then go on to say how important testing (science) is.

It's all a mathematical representation of boxing, thus I would say the science is the important bit. I suppose the expected performance would involve some "feel", but there's a lot of logic and science to the whole package.

I have run millions of rounds to test various theories about how the game system works . .what effect does two points of HP have? what percentage of wins does a fighter of one level get against others? Does KO: 0 really do as much as it should?
I don't need to be talked down to.




I suppose I don't need to do this given the rest of this post, but I obviously don't agree.

Erm excuse me, I wasant talking down to you in the slightest, you seem to be in quite an agressive mood so im going to choose my words carefully, If you dont like or have no use for the ratings thats fine but pls dont keep posting on this thread in an agressive manner, I havent got the time or the energy to reply and I wont in future. what i will say is that the vast majority of guys here appreciate each other, they might not always agree but they appreciate the effort people put in. You wont find me berating people on other threads about their lack of understanding just because they dont agree with me, as i said boxing is a game of opinions and so by extension is title bout.

As I said all im doing here is providing alternative ratings, Ive not only just started doing it ive been involved here for a long time as many others will attest to, im NOT trying to say my ratings are better than anyone elses just that they work for ME.

And lastly im trying to give my thinking behind such ratings category by category post by post, both because thats makes the thread a bit unique and also it increases knowledge or both the fighters and the game and encourages discussion and debate im not here to get involved in flames and i refuse to.

I will debate with you the attributes of any boxer from history in a relaxed and friendly manner and respect your opinion but as soon as you make it personal i will shut down and not reply.

anyway back to the boxing lol.

Last edited by djday45; 07-28-2008 at 10:52 AM.
djday45 is offline   Reply With Quote
Thank you for this post:
Hootowl9 (11-19-2018)
Old 07-28-2008, 11:46 AM   #57
Thunder
Hall Of Famer
 
Thunder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 3,862
Thanks: 116
Thanked 485x in 415 posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by djday45 View Post
Erm excuse me, I wasant talking down to you in the slightest, you seem to be in quite an agressive mood so im going to choose my words carefully, If you dont like or have no use for the ratings thats fine but pls dont keep posting on this thread in an agressive manner, I havent got the time or the energy to reply and I wont in future. what i will say is that the vast majority of guys here appreciate each other, they might not always agree but they appreciate the effort people put in. You wont find me berating people on other threads about their lack of understanding just because they dont agree with me, as i said boxing is a game of opinions and so by extension is title bout.

As I said all im doing here is providing alternative ratings, Ive not only just started doing it ive been involved here for a long time as many others will attest to, im NOT trying to say my ratings are better than anyone elses just that they work for ME.

And lastly im trying to give my thinking behind such ratings category by category post by post, both because thats makes the thread a bit unique and also it increases knowledge or both the fighters and the game and encourages discussion and debate im not here to get involved in flames and i refuse to.

I will debate with you the attributes of any boxer from history in a relaxed and friendly manner and respect your opinion but as soon as you make it personal i will shut down and not reply.

anyway back to the boxing lol.
I will if you will. You addressed me first and giving advice and procedures the other party considers rudimentary can be considered aggressive.

:-) back to boxing

Edit: No, I guess my chart was first . . but it was a warm fuzzy chart :-)
__________________
I am a player in your fictional OOTP Universe . . . who plays OOTP in his spare time.

Last edited by Thunder; 07-28-2008 at 12:01 PM.
Thunder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2008, 05:24 PM   #58
lethal liberal
All Star Starter
 
lethal liberal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Logan,WV
Posts: 1,141
Thanks: 86
Thanked 26x in 11 posts
Been reading the posts on here regularly and enjoy the back and forth and various ideas on ratings. I too,have played the game since my early teens in the late 70's and have rated fighters since then. I remember cutting out index cards to put my fighter ratings on and they had to be exact size of those included with the game so they would all fit neatly into the little box and could go with the rest of the division cards held tight by rubber band(yeah,sophisticated eh). I am a TBCB loyalist having played most of the other sims that have come and gone,I always stick with TBCB. As noted earlier in this thread,the close and loyal community here bring so much to the table in terms of adding to the game(mods,pics,ratings etc.). I think as far as realism,TBCB stacks up well against anyone. No sport is more unpredictable than boxing. I like the fact that a journeyman,if the stars align properly,can beat or stretch to the limit a top notch fighter...just like the real thing. How many times have we stood astonished as a huge underdog seemed to put it all together for one big fight(think Tyson/Douglas)? I think that to make a sim where Liston takes out Patterson every time would be defeating the purpose of the simulation. I think were Patterson and Liston to fight 10 times,surely Patterson would have had one or two performances that would have exceeded his early exit. Sorry for rambling,however,I just had to chime in on this discussion. I have enjoyed reading this thread and hearing the different ways of rating fighters. I also care about little things like what kind of punches land and such. It is very hard to get a "perfect" rating for any fighter but I think that the current ratings are close enough so that we can "tweak away" and get most of the ratings that we desire without a ton of adjustments. Well,enjoy the fights...in both the real and the sim world. Peace.
__________________
Member of UTBA

Coach of Left Jab Inc (You have to be great to be consistently mediocre)

Title Bout devotee since 79

The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have little.
FDR
lethal liberal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2008, 12:05 AM   #59
Jersey-Jim
Hall Of Famer
 
Jersey-Jim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Toms River, NJ & Sarasota, FL.
Posts: 2,696
Thanks: 6
Thanked 46x in 44 posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by djday45 View Post
Willard is underated today and was a fighter with huge advantages and disadvantages a very individual fighter.

One thing im going to discuss here is how to model size advantages in the game. Now really this only comes up with the heavies as other divisions dont have the huge differences thrown up sometimes by the heavyweights.

Now 3 guys come to mind historically right away Willard, Carnera and Lewis as well as a lot more of the modern super heavies.

Willard and Carnera in particular were considered freaks of nature in their time but it has to be considered there huge advantage in physical height weight and reach was often a big advantage for them.

So how to model this within the game? as currently it has no catergories for relative size and strength. To my mind the blindingly obvious thing is to use Control Factor. If we already accept that control factors already model many variables that go into who is in control of a bout then size and strength advantages can go onto that list quite handily.

So in the following rating you will see Willards control factors increased quite handily, this does not model, skill, speed, or ring generalship, in his case it models sheer awesome size!

remember if a rating is not mentioned i agree with it.

CONDITIONING - 7 inactive - if ever a fighter deserves the inactive rating Willard does, he fought very few times, and as champ had to be practically dragged to the ring, putting the title in mothballs, he never liked or enjoyed boxing even less so after killing an opponent, he reportedly only fought because he had to.

CONTROL VS BOXER - 13 - Willards huge size and patient counter punching style was very, very effective against boxers and he had great success forcing fighters unused to it to punch and lead up at him, his truly massive size and strength and also that he had surpringly good footwork and mobility for a man his size made him hugely effective against them.

CONTROL VS SLUGGER - 10 - his size and style didnt help him nearly so much against sluugers and punchers however as they were quite happy coming foward and a fast slugger would beat him to the punch and his vast size became a distinct disadvantafe as the fights with Dempsey, Smith and Firpo proved. Truly a styles make fights type of fighter.

CHIN VS KNOCKDOWN - 2 - he had a good chin and was rarely hurt but could be reached.

CHIN VS KNOCKDOWN - 1 - very hard to stop and had great bravery he always got back up.

RECOVERY - 4 - here was his weakness, regarding his chin, when hurt he did tend to go into a kind of shocked stupor and could go down multiple times. he woul get back up but would take a pounding.

ABSORB PUNISHMENT - 1 - a dangerously brave man, Dempsey nearly killed him and still he wanted to fight on, with the above rating for his chin you should see Willard not hurt often but when he is taking a fearsome beating.

CUT RESISTANCE - 2 - was known to cut occasionally.

ENDURANCE - 10 - had amazing natural stamina and often simply out lasted and tired out his opponents letting his huge size do the work for him. The Johnson fight is a classic example.

DEFENSE - +4 - not exactly the fastest or most skilled fighter defensively, that huge body was a very temping target for a skilled, quick puncher.

FAST STARTER - 3 - a pretty well known slow starter who took him time to warm up, Dempsey didnt give him that time.

HITTING POWER - 11 - a huge thundering strong puncher with single shots, who killed a man and was never quite the same puncher afterwards, his right hand was said to be a chopping, heavy fight stopping punch.

PUNCHES LANDED - 34 - was terribly terribly slow especially when made to lead, he was only really and effective counter puncher, was pretty crude offense wise and missed often and badly.

COUNTERPUNCHING - 40 - the paradox was he was a talented counterer and had his most success here.

PUNCHES LANDED - 65 - to reflect his lack of technicue he will often be seen to be missing.

OVERALL RATING - 9 - a strange fighter who you will have a lot of fun with Willards fights will either be snorefests or wild see saw affairs or see him get pummeled from pillar to post.
I play tested a few fights with the version of Willard posted above. The results seemed more "life-like" if that makes any sense. His size advantages are more evident without giving him any unrealistic advantages.
Jersey-Jim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2008, 01:32 AM   #60
Dragon-Wolf
Minors (Rookie Ball)
 
Dragon-Wolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Virginia, USA
Posts: 43
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0x in 0 posts
I can't say that I disagree with any of these ratings. Great job and keep 'em coming, please!

Ciao,
John
__________________
"Get up, you bum!"
- Muhammad Ali
Dragon-Wolf is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:03 AM.

 

Major League Baseball trademarks and copyrights are used with permission of MLB Advanced Media, L.P. Minor League Baseball trademarks and copyrights are used with the permission of Minor League Baseball. All rights reserved.

The Major League Baseball Players Association (www.MLBPLAYERS.com ) is the collective bargaining representative for all professional baseball players of the thirty Major League Baseball teams and serves as the exclusive group licensing agent for commercial and licensing activities involving active Major League baseball players. On behalf of its members, it operates the Players Choice licensing program and the Players Choice Awards, which benefit the needy through the Major League Baseball Players Trust, a charitable foundation established and run entirely by Major League baseball players. Follow: @MLB_Players; @MLBPAClubhouse; @MLBPlayersTrust

Out of the Park Baseball is a registered trademark of Out of the Park Developments GmbH & Co. KG

Google Play is a trademark of Google Inc.

Apple, iPhone, iPod touch and iPad are trademarks of Apple Inc., registered in the U.S. and other countries.

COPYRIGHT © 2017 OUT OF THE PARK DEVELOPMENTS. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

 

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.10
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright © 2018 Out of the Park Developments