[djday45]

Originally Posted by Thunder

I doubt his amateur performance is a factor; actually I would hope it weren't. Even if it were, though, I couldn't see where it would change things much. He won some local ammy tourneys, then when he went to a regional or national level, he lost . . .pretty much like his pro career.

Conditioning: Because even at 1, a there is a 10% chance of being diminished for being out of shape. If you use 3 as a standard, that's 30 percent and at that point, the guy starts to reach a point where he isn't really the guy represented by the ratings shown on screen. Certainly you could say that about guys who are worse than that and you wind up with too many KOs.
And if you have a fair share of guys being diminished that often or more, the people who choose not to use this option are pretty much going have different fighters. I think because of that, conservative is the way to go here.

CF/HP: I agree there are problems and the Db is wildly inconsistent. But I don't agree totally about the nature of the problems. I think a lot of guys near the lower tiers of the Db are too good, not too weak. This guy fought nobodys . . not even stiffs, worse than that . .41 of his opponents were winless. Clark, as rated, can go 44-3 if you match him against opponents representative of who he actually fought.



Actually he did end the fight on the deck . . he went down three times in the span of about a minute in Round 2. As far as being a golden gloves champ, he won local events. I don’t know if that’s you mean, but he was no national factor.

The guy fought three real fighters and got blasted out three times. I use him as a 0 and think it’s fine. It’s his competition that led to his stats, not world-class power or skills.

Logically I agree with most of what you say (and usually do), but our toy is not always logical!

No man its totally cool, I always welcome your input as opinions will always differ and thats the joy of the sport. Thks for taking the time and effort to contribute.