Badguy;
I can't speak for the others who rate fighters, but I do it for three reasons: 1.) The all-time greats are all in there, but there are many champions, contenders, favorites and opponents who are not, particularly pre-1960. 2.) I like for the opponents in my universes to be actual fighters from the era, and actual foes if possible, for those greats and others officially in the game. 3.) I enjoy researching the fighters and ranking them for the game. It helps me with a feel for the fighters and the era, and improves my knowledge of boxing history.
Like eric, in this case, I delete most others and just keep the ones from the time period I'm using for the particular universe. That clears most of the clutter. When you do that for the older timeframes especially, however, you realize if the fighters fought actual foes, and even those from their own general era who they didn't actually meet, they still are likely to have less than 25 fights and their records will be far worse than their actuals.
This is in no way to denegrate the Trunzos' efforts, because they have done a far better job of getting the cream into the game than most people would. I would also agree with your unspoken contention and say that their official ratings are more likely to work accurately in the game, because of their understaning of how the system functions, than the fan ratings. However, a majority of the fan ratings have been very close, in my opinion.
Nevertheless, those of us who rate and use fighters appreciate very much the option the Trunzos built in to create more for those favorites, "opponents" and others missing. I like it when others share their created fighters, and I share in return with the hope my efforts are also appreciated.
Not trying to get in a big argument here ... just offering my perspective. The great thing about this game is its versatility, and that everyone can enjoy it in their own way. Sorry if I got long-winded. Peace.
