Home | Webstore
Latest News: OOTP 18.6 Update Available - OOTP 18 Available - FHM 3 Available - MLB Manager 2017 Available Now

Out of the Park Baseball 18 - Available Now!

  

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 06-01-2008, 04:50 AM   #1
djday45
All Star Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,494
Thanks: 3
Thanked 45x in 30 posts
Ratings of the Day Council

As promised here is my ongoing thread regarding ratings for the game. Im going to use this to mainly rerate the fighters in the game i dont quite agree with and then expand the database by including fighters that have been missed.

Im quite willing to take requests but cant promise when I will get round to them.

My initial focus will be on pre 20th century fighters as that will be the focus of my new replay.

As I have previously mentioned, I will be changing ratings on some fighters quite extensively to ensure the fighter especially the real individuals, the ones that stand out in hisdtory really perform and act how they should.

First up is boxings first superstar and one ive done so much research on over the years that I feel I know him personally JOHN L SULLIVAN
djday45 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2008, 05:59 AM   #2
djday45
All Star Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,494
Thanks: 3
Thanked 45x in 30 posts
John L Sullivan

First up, John L is a fiendishly hard fighter to get right as most casual boxing fans only remember him as a sad fat untained old man who lost miserbly to Corbett.
This unfortunate legacy tends to overshadow what a great fighter he really was, the first great superstar of the sport. I will be rating John L here in his prime and also attempting to take into account how he should perform in that distant era up against other 19th century fighters and the difference in the sport back then.

As a matter of course I will only mention catergories I am changing, if i dont mention a rating you know I already absolutely agree with it.

FOULS - change to Frequently. Im changing from often to Frequently for two main reasons. firstly boxing back then was so much wilder, dangerous and foul ridden than it is today and also even in this era Sullivan was known for his no holds barred approach especially in his bare knuckles fights. It isnt such that he was so dirty in a Greb/Zivic way, more that he was so wild and had an win at all costs im the toughest guy in the bar attitude.

FIGHT INSIDE - change to 3. Sullivan was known as a great inside man. Although not a wresting specialist like Kilrain or Mitchell due to his great power, he was none the less very skilled. An easy decision to up it by one.

FIGHTING OUTSIDE - change to 1. Although Sullivan could box and was perfectly capable of doing so on occasion, it was so alien to his natural all action wild style that im reducing it down to one. If a rating of two is the default here, he should be boxing more rarely in fights than the average.

COVER UP - change to 0. The same applies only more so. Like many of the great punchers from history, Sullivan was so used to blasting out his opponents and relying on his immense power he was incapable of covering up when it was rarely required. Also he took a punch so well he was very rarely hurt anyway.

KNOCKOUT - change to 4. come on the guys style was all about power. I will be awarding 4's to all the great heavyweight punchers from Sullivan to Tyson, it is the default of his style.

CLINCHING - change to 74. Back then wrestling was a major part of the sport, ring movement as we know it today really didnt exist until Corbett came along. Which was why partly he was so effective. To represent this Im going to be increasing most guys Clinching ratings and reducing Corbetts.

DRAW POWER - change to 10. Its all relative to today of course but in his own era the boston strong boy was THE superstar, boxings first superstar. wwithout doubt the most popular sportsmen of his era an easy no brainer decision.

INTELLECT - change to 4. A major part of his problem with Corbett was that he was incapable of working out what was happening and was unable to adapt. For all his skills Sullivan was amoung the easiest of heavyweight champs to work out his style as effectively he never changed it. Till he tasted defeat with Corbett he never needed to!

CONTROL VS SLUGGER - change to 13. Although the conventional wisdom for ratings is that you should never have more than a two point spread between the boxer/slugger ratings, its one i hearily disagree with in some special cases. Sullivan is certainly that. Because their were so few boxers in his era and to make Corbett so special and unique we must look carefully at why Sullivan dominated so easily against all other opponents. I fully intend using all the numbers on the control factor scale otherwise why are they there?

If I put guys like Marciano, Foreman and Dempsey at the top of the tree against sluggers and give them a 15 and Liston and Tyson maybe 14's then Sullivan must be on the next tier at 13 against other sluggers. this makes him rigtly truly fearsome in his own era and points up even more his ineptitude against Corbett and his fear of Peter Jackson if we keep his boxer rating at 9.

CHIN VS KNOCKDOWN - change to 1. Sullivans chin was not average, it was great. He did not get hurt and even when he did he fought through it. a truly tough brave man a one is the least he deserves.

CHIN VS KNOCKOUT - change to 1. the only time he got ko'd was as an old man at the fag end of his career, and the way sullivan fought beleive me he took some great punches over his time.

RECOVERY - change to 1. Again the same applies he just had a great chin and recovery powers as he said !Im the toughest SOB in the house".

RESISTANCE TO CUTS - change to 1. This is not a reflection on Sullivan per se more a decision to represent the era. Fights just did not get stoppDEFENed in this time period as they do today. It just NEVER happened unless the fighter was so babdly injured it was almost a horror story. This is just a small nod to that wildy different era and I will be giivng most fighters of that time period this rating.

ABSORB PUNISHMENT - change to 1. as I mentioned above Sullivan was a very, very tough man. Also fights jsut didnt get stopped so easily and lastly any guy that can go the amount of rounds he did in some of his epic contests and outlasted the other tough guys deserves a 1.

DEFENSE - change to +6. This is one rating in the database where Sullivan is vastly overated. He had no defense. Defense just did not exist to him. he took a lot of punishment in his career because as far as he was concerned much like Marciano but even more so he would be willing to take four punches to get in one of his own haymakers. He was quite fast offensively (we will get to that soon) but he just not capable of using a modern defense as we know it today. Again this is a feature of the vast majority of fighters in his era so it does not just affect John L in isolation but again just shows up the exceptions like Jackson, Corbett, mace even more starkly.

HITTING POWER - Change to 12. his power in the database of 9 in no way reflects his true prowess as a puncher. Again looking at a overall historical perspective with guys like Louis, Marciano, Tyson and Liston being 13's we must rank Sullivan as a notch behind those guys. If you are in any doubt on this jsut remember he was none as a deverstaing puncher and finisher even in an era when fights werre just NOT stopped!

PUNCHES LANDED - Change to 40. again his raing of 34, is just very, very wrong. He was known to be fast, very fast and this in no small way contributed to his offensive success. I have been careful to not increase him to the real speed merchants of 42+ but only because despite his speed he was still in modern terms still quite untechnical and lacking in modern boxing skills, otherwise on sheer speed alone he would be higher, but we must remember this catergory is more complex than that.

PUNCH TYPES - change the 3 point punches until the crosses are at least 14 by reducing down the jabs and combos in particular. His right hand was his murder weapon and it must be remmebered jabs and combos were very lacking in this era.

OVERALL RATING - Changes to 10. after all my ammendments he bumps up to a 10.

Comments welcome. Next up CORBETT.
djday45 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2008, 09:51 AM   #3
swampdragon
Hall Of Famer
 
swampdragon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: The Lonely Mountain
Posts: 2,385
Thanks: 116
Thanked 293x in 209 posts
I'm glad to see you back rating boxers and will look forward to your other changes. I'm probably going to start an all-sports replay in the 19th century when the new OOTP comes out, and your ratings will be very useful.
__________________
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies." -- C.S. Lewis
swampdragon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2008, 04:37 AM   #4
djday45
All Star Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,494
Thanks: 3
Thanked 45x in 30 posts
James Corbett

Corbett is the father of modern scientific boxing, his influence on the sport should not be underestimated and the ratings below should serve to make him truly unique within his era.

Once again if I dont mention a rating you know I agree with it.

FIGHT INSIDE - Change to 1. Corbett disliked fighting inside as it took away to many advantages he brought to the table namely mobility speed and defense.

FIGHTING OUTSIDE - Change to 4. What made Corbett unique within his time period is that the vast majority of fighters back then fought one way. Straight ahead brawlers and wrestlers the quintessential examples being guys liek Kilrain and Mitchell. There were not the range of styles we have today. Even boxer punchers such as Fitzsimmons were considered rare and exceptional. Corbett broke the mold.

CLINCHING - change to 66. Movement, movement, movement This was his whole style. If he was forced to clinch he wasant using his game plan.

CONDITIONING -change to 3. Although he trained well and dilegently at the start of his career it cannot be avoided that he fought very few fights as regards the average of his era and once he became nationally famous spent more time touring in plays and shows and trading on his gentleman Jim persona.

INTELLECT - change to 9. one of the most intelligent fighters ever, im only docking him a point as really he was unable to change his style if a fight needed it, so compared to guys like Tunney and Walcott he should be a notch below in ring intelligence.

CONTROL FACTOR VS SLUGGER - change to 12. this represents he was def most at home fighting sluggers such as Sullivan and Kilrain. He always had most trouble with fighters who boxed him back like Jackson and Fitzsimmons, so keeping a 2 point spread here reflects both this trouble and his domination over sluggers.

CHIN VS KNOCKOUT - change to 3. Although having a pretty good chin, he was susceptable to KO's once hurt or tired as per his fights with Fitzsimmons and Jeffries. Once he went down more often than not he didnt get up.

POWER 0 change to 3. a slight increase in power here to properly reflect his knockout percentage of 26%.

PUNCHES LANDED - change to 42. Much faster than he is given credit for this is most represented in his counter pucnhing stat which should be immense. A small increase here is also warrented though.

DEFENSE - change to -5. although a master of defense, he still got knocked out enough times to suggest some fragility. I would rather keep the -6 for guys like Johnson.

COUNTERPUNCHING - change to 46. one of the best counter punchers in history and one of the fastest, his whole style was about this and the current stats are way out. Give the guy his due and make sure the stats reflect how he fought in reality.

PUNCH TYPES - reduce his uppercuts and crosses way down and increas his jabs and hooks. Corbett was all jabs and hooks this was his style in fact he is credited with greatly developing the hook. ensure the jab is his most thrown punch followed closely by the hook the other three should be trailing but with combinations in third place.

OVERALL RATING - change to 11. These changes bump him up a single point to 11.

Rerun the historical Sullivan and Corbett fight with these ratings. Set Sullivan to end and broke training and Corbett to prime and top condition and let me know what you come up with. I have run the fight many times and am very happy with the results.

Next up Kilrain.

Last edited by djday45; 06-12-2008 at 04:34 AM.
djday45 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2008, 07:34 AM   #5
djday45
All Star Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,494
Thanks: 3
Thanked 45x in 30 posts
Jake Kilrain

Currently Kilrain is woefully represented in the game , omg what were they thinking?

STANCE - Chamge to right handed. He was not a southpaw.

FOULS - Change to Frequently - In boxings dirtiest, no holds barred era, Kilrain was maybe the dirtiest and wildest of them all, a very nasty fighter.

FIGHTING INSIDE - Change to 4 - Kilrain was the most effective brawler of the era at heavyweight. This was his whole game plan an 19th century carmen Basilio.

GO GOR KNOCKOUT - Change to 2 - one of many ratings needing changing due to woefully under estimating his power, he wasant a ko artist but he had very respectable power.

DRAW POWER - Change to 6. He was a draw yes, but not massively so. So this needs toning down.

CONTROL VS BOXER - Change to 8. He did struggle vs boxers yes as did the majority of guys in this era but it shouldnt be that low.

CONTROL VS SLUGGER - Change to 11. Needs bumping up considerably so he can compete with John L and take his place as the 2nd best brawler of the day., which is his historical place.

CHIN VS KNOCKDOWN - Change to 3. Was vulnerable to a knockdown, the quality of his chin was more about recovering greatly and getting back up.

CHIN VS KNOCKOUT - Change to 1. Although sometimes floored he nearly always got back up, until very late in his career.

RECOVERY - change to 1. Again he nearly always recovered well and fought back.

ABSORB PUNISHMENT - Change to 1. Kilrain was a very hard man to stop as witnessed by John L in there marathon contest.

AGRESSIVNESS - Change to 10. He only came foward and was known to be relentless and predatory.

HITTING POWER - Change to 7. What where they thinking here? Kilrains KO percentage is quite impressive in this era and although his stoppages are more accumilation of punishment, I am confident in giving him at least a 7.

PUNCHES LANDED - Change to 38. Again way out. Kilrain was no club fighter but a major contender of his era. Not a speed merchant by any means at least give him and average of 38.

COUNTERPUNCHING - Change to 34. Bumped up slightly to bring it in line with the new punches landed.

OVERALL RATING - Changes to 7. This increases Kilrains rating from 3 to 7. A much fairer represntation of his historical place. Not quite good enough to beat the champs of his era he is kind of the Jerry Quarry of his era good but not great.

Next Peter Jackson.

Last edited by djday45; 06-04-2008 at 07:45 AM.
djday45 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2008, 09:58 AM   #6
Cap
Hall Of Famer
 
Cap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Large Province in God's Country
Posts: 6,368
Blog Entries: 4
Thanks: 431
Thanked 800x in 562 posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by djday45 View Post
Corbett is the father of modern scientific boxing, his influence on the sport should not be underestimated and the ratings below should serve to make him truly unique within his era.

Once again if I dont mention a rating you know I agree with it.

FIGHT INSIDE - Change to 1. Corbett disliked fighting inside as it took away to many advantages he brought to the table namely mobility speed and defense.

FIGHTING OUTSIDE - Change to 4. What made Corbett unique within his time period is that the vast majority of fighters back then fought one way. Straight ahead brawlers and wrestlers the quintessential examples being guys liek Kilrain and Mitchell. There were not the range of styles we have today. Even boxer punchers such as Fitzsimmons were considered rare and exceptional. Corbett broke the mold.

CLINCHING - change to 66. Movement, movement, movement This was his whole style. If he was forced to clinch he wasant using his game plan.

CONDITIONING -change to 3. Although he trained well and dilegently at the start of his career it cannot be avoided that he fought very few fights as regards the average of his era and once he became nationally famous spent more time touring in plays and shows and trading on his gentleman Jim persona.

INTELLECT - change to 9. one of the most intelligent fighters ever, im only docking him a point as really he was unable to change his style if a fight needed it, so compared to guys like Tunney and Walcott he should be a notch below in ring intelligence.

CONTROL FACTOR VS SLUGGER - change to 13. this represents he was def most at home fighting sluggers such as Sullivan and Kilrain. He always had most trouble with fighters who boxed him back like Jackson and Fitzsimmons, so keeping a 2 point spread here reflects both this trouble and his domination over sluggers.

CHIN VS KNOCKOUT - change to 3. Although having a pretty good chin, he was susceptable to KO's once hurt or tired as per his fights with Fitzsimmons and Jeffries. Once he went down more often than not he didnt get up.

POWER 0 change to 3. a slight increase in power here to properly reflect his knockout percentage of 26%.

PUNCHES LANDED - change to 42. Much faster than he is given credit for this is most represented in his counter pucnhing stat which should be immense. A small increase here is also warrented though.

COUNTERPUNCHING - change to 46. one of the best counter punchers in history and one of the fastest, his whole style was about this and the current stats are way out. Give the guy his due and make sure the stats reflect how he fought in reality.

PUNCH TYPES - reduce his uppercuts and crosses way down and increas his jabs and hooks. Corbett was all jabs and hooks this was his style in fact he is credited with greatly developing the hook. ensure the jab is his most thrown punch followed closely by the hook the other three should be trailing but with combinations in third place.

OVERALL RATING - change to 11. These changes bump him up a single point to 11.

Rerun the historical Sullivan and Corbett fight with these ratings. Set Sullivan to end and broke training and Corbett to prime and top condition and let me know what you come up with. I have run the fight many times and am very happy with the results.

Next up Kilrain.
DJ, just wondering. Did you run a version of your Corbett against Tom Sharkey? From what I've read of their brawl, old Jim did not do well.

Cap
__________________
"...There were Giants in Those Days.."
Cap is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2008, 10:08 AM   #7
djday45
All Star Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,494
Thanks: 3
Thanked 45x in 30 posts
Corbett VS Sharkey

No he didnt, I have run the fight, but using my version of Sharkey who needs boosting from the official database version.

Also if you want a historical result you should set Corbett to post prime imho.
He was never the same fighter after losing the title to Fitz the year before.

Taking into account these two factors you should be able to get a pretty good historical match up.

I will do Sharkey after Jackson as you have brought him up. btw have always loved your historical replays.
djday45 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2008, 05:05 AM   #8
djday45
All Star Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,494
Thanks: 3
Thanked 45x in 30 posts
Peter Jackson

Jackson is one of the unsung lost greats of the Heavyweight division and the game actually does a pretty good job on him. Here are a set of minor tweaks.

STYLE - Change to Boxer/Slugger. What made him pretty special within his era is that along with Fitz, he was probably the only true boxer/puncher around. This was a real part of his success that he was so adaptable and part of the reason he gave Corbett such fits when they met despite him being injured.

INTELLECT - Change to 9 . A minor change but Jackson was a very clever fighter which fed into his adaptability for whatever situation he found himself in.

CONTROL VS BOXER - Change to 13. a big change. He was very effective against boxers as are most boxer/punchers, and the current ratings for control vs boxer and slugger do not reflect his superior attributes of size, skill and speed.

CONTROL VS SLUGGER - change to 12. See above this guy wasant a good contender but an all time great denied his chance to shine. Despite my love for John L, Jackson would have made mincement of him and this was the main factor why John L hid behind his colour bar.

HITTING POWER - change to 8. Another minor change but warranted. He packed a fair wallop with both hands, due to his level of skill this aspect of his game was underated somewhat, but his ko percentage is good to say the least.

PUNCHES LANDED - Change to 42. This needs reducing somewhat, 44 is too fast he was fast but not that fast lol. Also by reducing and keeping his countering the same it shows more his true adapatable style.

OVERALL RATING - Change to 12. Up one to 12 shows this was a tweak as i said but should Jackson as really the king of this era. The only guy able to compete with everyone and i mean everyone lol.

Next up Tom Sharkey.
djday45 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2008, 07:45 AM   #9
professordp
All Star Starter
 
professordp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 1,928
Thanks: 361
Thanked 414x in 233 posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by djday45 View Post
First up, John L is a fiendishly hard fighter to get right as most casual boxing fans only remember him as a sad fat untained old man who lost miserbly to Corbett.
This unfortunate legacy tends to overshadow what a great fighter he really was, the first great superstar of the sport. I will be rating John L here in his prime and also attempting to take into account how he should perform in that distant era up against other 19th century fighters and the difference in the sport back then.

As a matter of course I will only mention catergories I am changing, if i dont mention a rating you know I already absolutely agree with it.

FOULS - change to Frequently. Im changing from often to Frequently for two main reasons. firstly boxing back then was so much wilder, dangerous and foul ridden than it is today and also even in this era Sullivan was known for his no holds barred approach especially in his bare knuckles fights. It isnt such that he was so dirty in a Greb/Zivic way, more that he was so wild and had an win at all costs im the toughest guy in the bar attitude.

FIGHT INSIDE - change to 3. Sullivan was known as a great inside man. Although not a wresting specialist like Kilrain or Mitchell due to his great power, he was none the less very skilled. An easy decision to up it by one.

FIGHTING OUTSIDE - change to 1. Although Sullivan could box and was perfectly capable of doing so on occasion, it was so alien to his natural all action wild style that im reducing it down to one. If a rating of two is the default here, he should be boxing more rarely in fights than the average.

COVER UP - change to 0. The same applies only more so. Like many of the great punchers from history, Sullivan was so used to blasting out his opponents and relying on his immense power he was incapable of covering up when it was rarely required. Also he took a punch so well he was very rarely hurt anyway.

KNOCKOUT - change to 4. come on the guys style was all about power. I will be awarding 4's to all the great heavyweight punchers from Sullivan to Tyson, it is the default of his style.

CLINCHING - change to 74. Back then wrestling was a major part of the sport, ring movement as we know it today really didnt exist until Corbett came along. Which was why partly he was so effective. To represent this Im going to be increasing most guys Clinching ratings and reducing Corbetts.

DRAW POWER - change to 10. Its all relative to today of course but in his own era the boston strong boy was THE superstar, boxings first superstar. wwithout doubt the most popular sportsmen of his era an easy no brainer decision.

INTELLECT - change to 4. A major part of his problem with Corbett was that he was incapable of working out what was happening and was unable to adapt. For all his skills Sullivan was amoung the easiest of heavyweight champs to work out his style as effectively he never changed it. Till he tasted defeat with Corbett he never needed to!

CONTROL VS SLUGGER - change to 13. Although the conventional wisdom for ratings is that you should never have more than a two point spread between the boxer/slugger ratings, its one i hearily disagree with in some special cases. Sullivan is certainly that. Because their were so few boxers in his era and to make Corbett so special and unique we must look carefully at why Sullivan dominated so easily against all other opponents. I fully intend using all the numbers on the control factor scale otherwise why are they there?

If I put guys like Marciano, Foreman and Dempsey at the top of the tree against sluggers and give them a 15 and Liston and Tyson maybe 14's then Sullivan must be on the next tier at 13 against other sluggers. this makes him rigtly truly fearsome in his own era and points up even more his ineptitude against Corbett and his fear of Peter Jackson if we keep his boxer rating at 9.

CHIN VS KNOCKDOWN - change to 1. Sullivans chin was not average, it was great. He did not get hurt and even when he did he fought through it. a truly tough brave man a one is the least he deserves.

CHIN VS KNOCKOUT - change to 1. the only time he got ko'd was as an old man at the fag end of his career, and the way sullivan fought beleive me he took some great punches over his time.

RECOVERY - change to 1. Again the same applies he just had a great chin and recovery powers as he said !Im the toughest SOB in the house".

RESISTANCE TO CUTS - change to 1. This is not a reflection on Sullivan per se more a decision to represent the era. Fights just did not get stoppDEFENed in this time period as they do today. It just NEVER happened unless the fighter was so babdly injured it was almost a horror story. This is just a small nod to that wildy different era and I will be giivng most fighters of that time period this rating.

ABSORB PUNISHMENT - change to 1. as I mentioned above Sullivan was a very, very tough man. Also fights jsut didnt get stopped so easily and lastly any guy that can go the amount of rounds he did in some of his epic contests and outlasted the other tough guys deserves a 1.

DEFENSE - change to +6. This is one rating in the database where Sullivan is vastly overated. He had no defense. Defense just did not exist to him. he took a lot of punishment in his career because as far as he was concerned much like Marciano but even more so he would be willing to take four punches to get in one of his own haymakers. He was quite fast offensively (we will get to that soon) but he just not capable of using a modern defense as we know it today. Again this is a feature of the vast majority of fighters in his era so it does not just affect John L in isolation but again just shows up the exceptions like Jackson, Corbett, mace even more starkly.

HITTING POWER - Change to 12. his power in the database of 9 in no way reflects his true prowess as a puncher. Again looking at a overall historical perspective with guys like Louis, Marciano, Tyson and Liston being 13's we must rank Sullivan as a notch behind those guys. If you are in any doubt on this jsut remember he was none as a deverstaing puncher and finisher even in an era when fights werre just NOT stopped!

PUNCHES LANDED - Change to 40. again his raing of 34, is just very, very wrong. He was known to be fast, very fast and this in no small way contributed to his offensive success. I have been careful to not increase him to the real speed merchants of 42+ but only because despite his speed he was still in modern terms still quite untechnical and lacking in modern boxing skills, otherwise on sheer speed alone he would be higher, but we must remember this catergory is more complex than that.

PUNCH TYPES - change the 3 point punches until the crosses are at least 14 by reducing down the jabs and combos in particular. His right hand was his murder weapon and it must be remmebered jabs and combos were very lacking in this era.

OVERALL RATING - Changes to 10. after all my ammendments he bumps up to a 10.

Comments welcome. Next up CORBETT.

I think these ratings are fantastic!And they certainly make a great deal of sense. Thus, I've followed your lead and made the changes to the ratings. I just have one question concerning changing Sullivan's foul rating. Might that not increase his chances of getting DQed or at minumum, penalized? As you indicated, boxing was much rougher back then (sort of like hockey back in the 1970s-80s). So what do we gain by changing his foul rating if a foul was not a foul back in the day? I know that I'm missing something here--I usually do!---LOL.
professordp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-08-2008, 04:09 AM   #10
djday45
All Star Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,494
Thanks: 3
Thanked 45x in 30 posts
Hey. thks for the comments. Yes you are totally right that many of the fighters will be warned and penalised more and maybe diqualified as well.

The upside of this for the fighter is he will be causing more damage to his opponent as most fouls also score points now.

Secondly it depends what you want to model. Yes the era was tough and rough but I would guess in actual fact many more fighters were disqualified (especially if u go foward twenty or thirty years into the early 20th century period).

This was for two main reasons, firstly refs back then were sometimes, how should I put it? lol, Crooks! and were in the pay of one camp or other, the promoter or gambling men, later as we know organised crime moved in. So you could angle it that some disqualifications in your universe have a let me say a financial aspect to them lol.

Secondly once the fight game moved totally over to the marquis of queensbury rules and the gloved era took shape and solidified both in the publics mind and in that of the boxing fraternity there seemed to be an almost formal rejection of what went before in the form of wrestling fouls and all that unseemly side of things. This new form of skillful boxing was quickly popularised by early greats such as Corbett, Gans, and Dixon. who became much better protected from refs as they had become major draws to the public and without anything being set in stone boxing slowly moved to protect its golden boys in the ring.

my own solution especially hen playing in the 19th century is to always set your refs to lenient. This should give you the rough and tough mind set your after, but seriously start thinking about changing some refs after a few years to model the reasons I have mentioned above.

If anyone else has any comments or questions on the ratings pls feel free.
djday45 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-08-2008, 10:31 AM   #11
professordp
All Star Starter
 
professordp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 1,928
Thanks: 361
Thanked 414x in 233 posts
I see your point!

Yeah, that makes sense to me. Of course, you'd have to compensate a bit if you were doing an all-time competition--ex. Sullivan v. Ali. I'm pretty much a 1950s to 1970s type of guy. While I'm familiar with the major fighters from the early days, I've done little in terms of simulations for that era. What you are doing here is whetting my curiosity!

As I am writing this, your approach to the foul frequency is makine more and more sense to me. I'm going to follow your suggestions and ratings adjustments and run some simulations. I'll let you know how it turns out.

I think we all owe you a big thanks for sharing your expertise and knowledge. Here's a request!

Why don't you post a brief bibliography? Nothing elaborate---just the essentials. I'm certain that there are others who would love to delve into this period in greater detail.
professordp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-09-2008, 04:46 AM   #12
djday45
All Star Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,494
Thanks: 3
Thanked 45x in 30 posts
ok

Thks, when you say bibiography, what do you have in mind?
djday45 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-09-2008, 06:04 AM   #13
djday45
All Star Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,494
Thanks: 3
Thanked 45x in 30 posts
Tom Sharkey

Sharkey really was a lesser version of Marciano who was unlucky not to be champion. His stats in the game are pretty accurate but need touching up slightly.

STANCE - change to Left handed. This is going to be debated. I know Sharkey was right handed but in my ratings I use this catergory to also represent factors that effected the opponent. The classic one is a boxer whose style is very awkward or unorthadox, so much like being a lefty he threw his opponent with his weird style Marciano is the classic one that comes to mind or Greb. Other factors such as fear and intimidation can also be represented here for example I always make Liston's stance left handed to represent his total scaryness factor which seemed to effect so many of his opponents before they got in the ring. There is really no other way of representing these factors at the moment and I find it works like a dream giivng these guys the extra little edge they should have.
Sharkey was the typical awkward brawlwer from hell, punching from such uneducated weird and down right wrong angles he gave his opponents fits.

FOULS - Change to Frequently. Rating is very wrong here he was a totally dirty fighter who would stop at nothing to win. a very tough man indeed.

CONTROL VS BOXERS - Change to 11. He actually did better against boxers such as Corbett and Fitzsimmons as he didnt give them time to set. think Frazier. This is often the way with swarmers.

CHIN VS KNOCKDOWN - change to 1. had a great chin. The punishment he took in the two Jeffries fights over 45 rounds was horrendous. His ko loses all came at the end of his career when he was totally shot.

RECOVERY - Change to 1. Great powers of recovery see above for ko losses.

AGRESSIVNESS - Change to 10. Total monster in the ring, relentless never stopping coming foward a no brainer 10.

STAMINA - Change to 10. Please read about the Jeffries fights and Sharkey was generally known for outlasing his opponents, sad for him he came up against Jeffries who was an even greater freak of superhuman nature.

DEFENSE - change to plus 5. He had a terrible defense, this was his one huge flaw as a fighter and contributed to him being shot so early in his career he just took so much punishment over his fights. the classic face first take 3 to land one type of fighter.

PUNCHES LANDED - Change to 36. a slight improvement to reflect his sheer volume of punches thrown not an increase in skill level.

OVERALL RATING - change to 9. A slight increase of one. Yo ushould now see Sharkey perform like the rough and tumble terror he truly was but also with big weaknessess in his makeup.

next up Jeffries.
djday45 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-09-2008, 09:53 AM   #14
IceTea
Hall Of Famer
 
IceTea's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Syracuse, NY
Posts: 9,437
Thanks: 813
Thanked 808x in 528 posts
I'm also re-rating every heavyweight in the set. My rating of Tom Sharkey is similar to yours. I have him at a KD-1 (1) KO (3) Recovery (1).

CFB-11
CFS-11
KD-1
KO-3
Rec-1
cuts-2
AP-1
KI-10
Agg-10
END-10
Def +5
FS-0
Ropes-3
HP-11
PL- 34/34
PM-64

FI-4
FO-0
CU-3
KO-4

Last edited by IceTea; 06-09-2008 at 11:18 AM.
IceTea is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-09-2008, 11:10 AM   #15
Cap
Hall Of Famer
 
Cap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Large Province in God's Country
Posts: 6,368
Blog Entries: 4
Thanks: 431
Thanked 800x in 562 posts
CONTROL VS BOXERS - Change to 11. He actually did better against boxers such as Corbett and Fitzsimmons as he didnt give them time to set. think Frazier. This is often the way with swarmers.

DJ, hate to point this out, but Fitz had very little trouble with Sharkey in two fights. Choynski gave him lots of problems. In their first encounter, Sharkey got the decision because he was still standing after 8 rounds. In the second, Choynski was boxing his ears off when Sharkey used several illegal tactics including throwing Joe to the mat. He should've been DQ'd. Sharkey was a wild, wide-open brawler who liked guys to come right at him. He lost to Jeffries because Jeff was bigger and stronger and a slightly better boxer.

Cap
__________________
"...There were Giants in Those Days.."
Cap is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-09-2008, 11:23 AM   #16
professordp
All Star Starter
 
professordp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 1,928
Thanks: 361
Thanked 414x in 233 posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by djday45 View Post
Thks, when you say bibiography, what do you have in mind?
Maybe some books that you've read, etc. I know there are a number of books on the fighters from this era. I was just hoping you could suggest some of the better ones.
professordp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2008, 03:16 AM   #17
djday45
All Star Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,494
Thanks: 3
Thanked 45x in 30 posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cap View Post
CONTROL VS BOXERS - Change to 11. He actually did better against boxers such as Corbett and Fitzsimmons as he didnt give them time to set. think Frazier. This is often the way with swarmers.

DJ, hate to point this out, but Fitz had very little trouble with Sharkey in two fights. Choynski gave him lots of problems. In their first encounter, Sharkey got the decision because he was still standing after 8 rounds. In the second, Choynski was boxing his ears off when Sharkey used several illegal tactics including throwing Joe to the mat. He should've been DQ'd. Sharkey was a wild, wide-open brawler who liked guys to come right at him. He lost to Jeffries because Jeff was bigger and stronger and a slightly better boxer.

Cap
Well Fitz is a boxer puncher, so is adaptable against him. As you know you cant use an individuals ratings in isolation but as a whole group of fighters and how they interact against each other.

I agree with you about Jeffries one hundred percent, Most skilled fighters gave Sharkey problems if they were able to stand up to him for a few rounds, this was due to his general lack of technical skill and defense, which is handsomely represented in the rating.

You will find with this rating of sharkey if you run it extensively that he will overwhelm most lower rated guys of the era as he did in reality but when he comes up against the cream of the division due to his didtinct weaknessess he will struggle. He may outlast them on occassion but guys like Corbett, Fitz and Jeffries will prevail but after a hell of a fight.

I will do Jeffries, Fitz and Joe next so you can compare. Thks for the feedback Cap your extensive knowledge of the era and feeback, even critical will only improve my ratings which is great.
djday45 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2008, 10:20 AM   #18
Cap
Hall Of Famer
 
Cap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Large Province in God's Country
Posts: 6,368
Blog Entries: 4
Thanks: 431
Thanked 800x in 562 posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by djday45 View Post
Well Fitz is a boxer puncher, so is adaptable against him. As you know you cant use an individuals ratings in isolation but as a whole group of fighters and how they interact against each other.

I agree with you about Jeffries one hundred percent, Most skilled fighters gave Sharkey problems if they were able to stand up to him for a few rounds, this was due to his general lack of technical skill and defense, which is handsomely represented in the rating.

You will find with this rating of sharkey if you run it extensively that he will overwhelm most lower rated guys of the era as he did in reality but when he comes up against the cream of the division due to his didtinct weaknessess he will struggle. He may outlast them on occassion but guys like Corbett, Fitz and Jeffries will prevail but after a hell of a fight.

I will do Jeffries, Fitz and Joe next so you can compare. Thks for the feedback Cap your extensive knowledge of the era and feeback, even critical will only improve my ratings which is great.
Don't mean to be too critical. I know I used to rate the Sailor much more highly than I do now after more detailed analysis of the period.

Cap
__________________
"...There were Giants in Those Days.."
Cap is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-11-2008, 02:47 PM   #19
djday45
All Star Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,494
Thanks: 3
Thanked 45x in 30 posts
James Jeffries

Jeffries is very underated now as most people remember him for his loss to Johnson. It must be remembered that Jeffries was undefeated in his prime and only came back to fight Johnson after six years being retired.

Leading boxing historians such as Cox and Callis rate him much more highly than has been the accepted wisdom.

Fouls - Change to often. Although not a real dirty fighter he was certainly were rough and tough and tended to get dirtier if his opponent did.

Fighting Inside - Change to 3. His favourite tactic along with power punching was to wear his opponent down slowly on the inside. Later in his career he became an expert at breaking fighters down as he did with Corbett especially.

Condition - Change to 1. Known to be a really amazing all round athlete and great dilligent trainer, Jeffries only slipped in this regard once he retired and had to lose over 100 pounds for his fight with Johnson. But we are dealing with him in his prime here so he deserves a 1.

Control vs Boxer - change to 12. Deceptively skilled, Jeffries defeated all comers to his crown no matter the style, including Corbett and Fitzsimmons.

Control vs Boxer - change to 13. He was still slightly more comfortable facing brawlers and punchers however and was truly fearsome against them. the above two increases also factor in his sheer size and strength which for the period he was an immense fighter quite the equal of modern heavies. Sheer size and strength are hard to factor in the game but the control factors are the place to do it.

Chin Vs Knockdown - change to 0. never knocked down during his career until the johnson fight he was known for his superhuman chin.

Chin Vs Knockout - change to 0. see above if he is remembered mostly today it is for his amazing stamina, chin and ability to absorb punishment. he fought some great punchers as well such as Fitzsimmons, Choynski and Sharkey.

Absorb Punishment - Change to 1. If anyone in the heavy division deserves this rating its the Boilermaker. His bravery is not in doubt he is known to have one fights despite great injury.

Cuts - change to 2. he had two many bad facial injuries to recieve the top mark in this category. He got away with them in his era but in more modern times he might have a loss of two due to cuts.

Agressivness - change to 7. a common mistake when rating fighters is to assume all sluggers have high agressivness. Fighters styles are more unique than that especially the individualistic champions and Jeffries is a great example. He was trained by Tommy Ryan in quite a cautious crab like style which gave him good defense and he would leap foward suddenly with his vaunted hooks. But it made him quite patient and aslsmost a kind of strange counterpuncher. He should def not have a high rating in this category.

Defense - Change to 0. This rating is very wrong. see above for his defensive style. He fought out of a sort of crab like crouch which reduced the punches he took very effectively. He was not an open brawler but a skilled patient technician.

Fast Starter - Change to 3. Again he was very patient and took a while to get into his groove and style. a typical slow starter.

Punches - His hook was by far his most potent and used weapon both to the head and body. Reduce down his crosses both 2 and 3 points considerably and increae his hooks.

Hitting Power - Change to 11. A true power puncher his punches caused real injuries and ended many fights, not in the class of say Liston and co and his knockouts were somewhat hampered by his patient style, none the less he had the ability to end a fight especially with his left hook.

Counter punching - Change to 38. a slight increase to reflect his cautious countering style.

Overall Rating - up to 13. This is a big leap from 10 but very deserved the more i read about him the more i realsie what an amazing fighter he was and very few heavyweights from history would have defeated him.
djday45 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-11-2008, 06:20 PM   #20
a87star
Hall Of Famer
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Staten Island, NY
Posts: 4,850
Thanks: 110
Thanked 28x in 23 posts
Dean........do you have specific "punch types" numbers on Sullivan, Corbett, and Jeffries?
a87star 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 06:44 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 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright © 2015 Out of the Park Developments