Poll #4: Rating Accuracy

[Jim Trunzo]

Keeping in mind that we all have an opinion and that rating fighters is a very subjective undertaking, please give your opinion on the accuracy of the fighters in the game.

[Buddy Whatshisname]

I tell everyone I know that what makes this game so great is the fact you can trust the fighter ratings. And if you don't like them, you can always change them.

Buddy

[mh2365]

I think there are a couple of people on this board that are very skilled at rating guys also.

[bear]

I looked at this as a form of grading A through F and had to give the development team an A. The lowest you could be would be an A-. Have a few quibbles, out of every couple of hundred fighters.
I don't understand Joe Walcott's low power rating, Bob Satterfield's rating as a 2 for his career even though he was a notorius in-and-outer with a questionable chin, and Tancy Lee's ability to start fast is a puzzle-he never got going til round 11 of 20 rounders. These stand out in my mind but there aren't that many others that quickly come to me when thinking about accuracy.

Bear

[javier_83]

i like the way the rating are Accuary

[IceTea]

I would like to see the option to schedule longer fights....20-25 rounds.

Along with that, I would like to see the end rating be maxed out at a higher number than 10.

MJ

[JCWeb]

I clicked on the "Highly Accurate" box. (Keep in mind this is someone who is far from a boxing expert like many of the other posters on this board.) I think the toughest guys to rate are fighters from the early years of the sport, very few of which have ever been seen (limited film footage in those days) and many of whom there is very limited information other than BoxRec records and some written descriptions of a few fights.

Things I'd like to see in the next version: A career mode feature incorporating some kind of an "aging" combined with a "frequency" rating where boxers would be scheduled for bouts based on the actual number of fights in real life and where they began to age realistically based on the age or number of bouts actually fought. I.e., Archie Moore would have an entirely different stat in this category than say, Leon Spinks, as an example.

There are a few things in the interface that I find annoying, like how the one button that logically you click for the next screen is in a different place -- sometimes it's bottom center, some times it's bottom right, but if you click bottom center the wrong time and hit something like bout summary, the screen will like freeze up for a long time until it finds the internet browser which you might have turned off. In another case I can't recall which screen it is but the button in the spot that would logically continue on is the "cancel" button. Maybe it's just me or my computer, but when you click to check or uncheck a box (like whether to view or sim a fight on the fight card) it sometimes takes several mouse-clicks to get the job done. Another interface feature that could be improved is to have the default location for the "Fight Card" be the same as for the last "Start Fight" instead of a random location. (I notice it does this for referees and for the date, but not for the location, which is a bit strange.) Also, the in-between round settings could be made a bit easier (fewer mouse-clicks) for those who like to work the corners between rounds -- i.e. if the default was set to whatever it was for the last round that would be an improvement.

Finally, there are bugs in the latest patch that need to be resolved -- the perf pts not always been saved, the default starting perf pts for new boxers not always being 200 (I've seen 0 and 1000 just as often), and of course the well-documented "no rating record" found bug which seems to be a persistent product.

But overall I rate Title Bout as the best boxing sim games out there and one of the top five sports sim games of all time.

[lethal liberal]

I have always enjoyed the game because of the accuracy. As a teen in the 70's and early 80's the board game was extremely accurate as well. I always trust your ratings and most are dead on. Of course,fighters ratings(current of course)are always changing so I understand just how difficult it is to rate the fighters. There are some very good people on this forum when it comes to rating fighters. I generally use my own tweaks,but rarely do I mess with your ratings. I think one thing that I would love to see...would be more frequent updates to the fighter database. I know it is a time consuming and tedious job. As far as ratings go..that would be my biggest wish. Title Bout has always been the boxing simulation to which all others are compared. Quite simply,your game is second to none.

[franklin_1]

Maybe this happens now and I just don't notice, but is there any talk about having ratings progress overtime. Obviously a fighter might have better skills while in the prime of his career than say when he's towards either end of it. I like the fact that a fighter ages in the game, but do the ratings change proportionally?

[javier_83]

MAybe two ratings.. pottencial and current abbility or soemthing like that

[mh2365]

Originally Posted by franklin_1

Maybe this happens now and I just don't notice, but is there any talk about having ratings progress overtime. Obviously a fighter might have better skills while in the prime of his career than say when he's towards either end of it. I like the fact that a fighter ages in the game, but do the ratings change proportionally?

I would think that would be a part of the career modules .. but you're right it wasn't mentioned.

[Jim_Kidd]

With the exception of a few fighters (Joe Walcott being one as mentioned above), I think the ratings are excellent. Many of us on this board are "students" of boxing history. If the ratings didn't reflect history, there would be posts all over the place questioning the fighter ratings. The fact that there are only a handful of fighters debated is an excellent sign that the game is a good mirror of history.

With current fighters, everything is debatable because their careers are still being formed in the ring with each and every fight.

[Lee]

For as subjective as rating fighters is sometimes, the Trunzos and the many members of the community do an excellent job rating Fighters. Without a doubt there will be disagreements, but you can always change things yourself.

[GForce]

I think the lower weight classes, from guys who know more than I do (my brother and Meade95), are where the ratings are questionable in many cases. From I would say Featherweight up they are "highly accurate."

I'm a baseball roster creator for many years now. It's difficult work. You guys should be commended for doing so well in something where you don't really have "stats" per se, as your guide.

GH

[Mad Bomber]

I think the accuracy of the fighters is generally excellent,
but the only time I have questions about ratings is when
one speculates as to how good someone might have been had
this or that not happened. ie:Ali refusing the draft, and
Joe Louis fighting for his country.There is a composite rating
for Ali and not Louis, and i'm sure there are a few other
examples, but in saying that I have the utmost respect for
Jim and Tom Trunzo, and have been buying there product since
the advent of the board game which I still own to this day.

Greg

[vistaman44]

... pro sports ads, "I love this game!"

Seriously, I'd rate the TBCB stock ratings between way above average and excellent. Keep up the good work, guys.

[lethal liberal]

I would challenge anyone to come up with a better group of ratings...it is actually quite amazing when you think about it. I remember when first playing the game as a teen(board game). I was instantly hooked on the realism..remember replaying so many great fights the first couple of months after buying the game..and the results were amazingly accurate. I havent kicked the addiction since,and just turned 40..lol. When I fire up TBCB..I revert to that teenage kid hunkered over the board flipping cards until the wee hours of the morning. I guess thats what warped my mind..lol.

[bear]

Originally Posted by lethal liberal

I would challenge anyone to come up with a better group of ratings...it is actually quite amazing when you think about it. I remember when first playing the game as a teen(board game). I was instantly hooked on the realism..remember replaying so many great fights the first couple of months after buying the game..and the results were amazingly accurate. I havent kicked the addiction since,and just turned 40..lol. When I fire up TBCB..I revert to that teenage kid hunkered over the board flipping cards until the wee hours of the morning. I guess thats what warped my mind..lol.

I was a mite older when the board game appeared. I had been adicted to APBA baseball and football board games since my early teens so it wasn't too hard to get hooked on the board game. I wanted to recreate boxing history and didn't have enough fighters. Had my Ring Record Books and began dabbling with fighter creation. My ideal goal included every title holder including countries and regions, challengers in each historic title bout, top ten or twenty fighters by weight class for each year, other name and known boxers. This ideal goal still exists and its a lot easier working toward it with our community of zealots here.

Bear