An idea for the Title Bout board game, if anyone still plays.

steamboat brand, palooka · 02-04-2005, 02:41 PM

Dear Title Bout fans,
Yesterday, I made my first post on this web site, regarding my Title Bout BOARD game. From a reply, it appears the board game no longer exists. I love playing that game, but it is stuck in Texas, at the moment. I even have a suggestion to eliminate card shuffling, while still having the forty card round, and with still no manual checking of time sequences. My idea is quite time consuming DURING CONSTRUCTION, but the time you save afterwards will be well worth it, and will end up saving so much time, in the end, while acheiving reliable randomization.
Since none of you may be playing the board game, this idea may be falling on deaf ears, but I'll post it here, now, anyway:
1. Buy eighty file cards(3" by 5", or 4" by 6").
2. Divide each file card into five even blocks, with a pen. These blocks will go from left to right, 1 through 5.
3. Take the Avalon Hill action cards, and put them in any randon order.
4. Take the information on the top action card, and write it all inside the left(1st)block of the first file card(abbreviation might be helpful, in spots). Go through the action cards until the eighty file cards have been finished. What you have at this point is eighty file cards, each with information in the first of five boxes.
5. Randomize the action cards again, and repeat the process for the second block on each action card.
6. Do the same procedure for all five blocks for each file card. When you are finished, each file card will have five action cards worth of information. If everyone does this, everyone's own cards will be unique; the action cards displayed on a given file card will be a combination unlike any other.
7. Now you have made your own action card deck.
8. Take the eighty different action file cards that you've just made(again, each with five action cards of information), and spread them out on the floor, face down. Boy, does it looks dumb when you're finished! Eighty file cards take up a lot of space; make sure no one walks in while you doing this! You can shuffle, if you prefer, but I am an enemy of shuffling, due to randomization bias.
9. Pick up forty file cards from the floor, at random, and make a deck. Place that deck face down.
10. Pick up the remaining forty file cards on the floor, at random, and place that deck face down.
11. Take either pile of forty file cards, and begin play. For the first round, read the left(1st) block of information, for the second, the second block, for the third round, the third block, the fourth round, the fourth block, and the fifth round, the fifth block.
12. When five rounds are done, switch to the second pile of forty file cards, for rounds six through ten.
There. Ten rounds worth of boxing, after picking up 80 file cards. Caution: When you are constructing your cards, make sure there is no pattern, in the action cards you select to transfer onto file cards. In other words, don't have the information for action card number one repeated five times in all five blocks of the first file card. Do the blocks at random for each other block, but make sure to have each action card represented once, somewhere down the line of each row of blocks.It works. This is how I play my game now.
I have been working a White Hope Era heavyweight set, with the old Avalon Hill magazine set of ten White Hopes, along with the far superior group of four contemporary black heavyweights, Jack Johnson, Sam Langford, Joe Jeanette, and Sam McVey. The original ten White Hopes from the magazine were: Luther McCarty, Gunboat Smith, Jim Coffey, Frank Moran, Charley Weinert,Carl Morris, Jim Flynn, Bombardier Wells(usually not "Billy", in 1912), Arthur Pelky(1912 spelling; only one e in last name), and Al Palzer, in approximate order of ability. I replaced Charley Weinert with Jess Willard, for two reasons, neither dealing with Weinert's acceptable boxing ability.
1. Jess Willard would definately be included in any White Hope set, if his card wasn't already included in the regular TITLE BOUT game cards.
2. Charley Weinert, unlike the other ten heavyweights I chose, was more a factor in the heavyweight picture AFTER Jess Willard defeated Jack Johnson. Though it's true he fought (and defeated)a couple of heavyweights before May 1915, he was young, and fighting mostly light-heavyweights, during that time. I don't identify Charley Weinert as a major White Hope, as a result. If I include Weinert, why the heck shouldn't I include Soldier Kearns, Boer Rodel, Tom McMahon, Tony Ross, Dan "Porky" Flynn, or Al Kubiak? That was my reasoning. Light Heavyweight champion Battling Levinsky played a much larger role in the White Hope Era. After 1915, and the defeat of Jack Johnson, there was no reason to consider a white heavyweight a "White Hope", for their purposes, in my opinion, so the exact date of The Johnson-Willard fight indicates the end of that period, to me. I was tempted to include a reduced ability Jim Jeffries to my set, but he only fought once during the 1908-1915 time period. At his 1910 form, I would guess he STILL would have been able to defeat the great majority of White Hopes that came along. He still looked tough to me, watching the great battle in Reno. After watching the film of the July 4th, 1910 Reno fight, I don't think Jeffries at that point was that bad and old and terrible. I believe Johnson was that great.

steamboat brand, palooka · 02-05-2005, 11:56 AM

And I hear the computer gamers say, "What the heck is he talking about?"

CONN CHRIS · 02-05-2005, 01:16 PM

I played the board game up until this past summer (since 79/80) and just discovered the computer version in October. I used to do all sorts of time-saving things too, wish your idea was around 15 years ago! I used the mini-game idea published in the All Star Replay back in the eighties to sim low level bouts - that was the best time saver around.

My advice is buy the game. I had a universe that was running for more than 15 years which I gladly pitched in favor of TBCB. You will not be sorry.

Christopher

steamboat brand, palooka · 02-06-2005, 02:25 PM

Thanks Chris, for the info. I was wondering if there is anyone who still plays the board game, here.
I WOULD switch to the computer game, but there's one little problem; I don't have a computer. I post from the library.
If that "Conn" means Connecticut, that's where I am, also.

CONN CHRIS · 02-06-2005, 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by steamboat brand, palooka

If that "Conn" means Connecticut, that's where I am, also.

It does indeed, I haven't been behind bars... well, yet anyway.

Hootowl 9 · 02-06-2005, 02:37 PM

Yup,...thanks for your info. My kid's (well,..no longer..lol) just played it yesterday. Loved the bio's on back of the cards. Thanks for your ideas for the game. Thx also to the many whom post all the fighters with the great bio's as well.

Rocco Del Sesto · 02-06-2005, 07:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hootowl 9

Yup,...thanks for your info. My kid's (well,..no longer..lol) just played it yesterday. Loved the bio's on back of the cards. Thanks for your ideas for the game. Thx also to the many whom post all the fighters with the great bio's as well.

Hey Fred, good to see you!

Rocco

Big Bill Zahn · 02-07-2005, 01:18 AM

I've got a question about checking for control

Lets say you check BLUE for control. If he's in control you go to his card to see the action. If he's not in control, do you

a. Assume RED is in control and check his card or
b. Check to see if RED can gain control

in otherwords. If the first boxer is not in control, does that mean the his oppent is? That's the way I've always played it, but back when TF 2001 came out, Tom Trunzo posted a messege saying that any boxer must gain control himself before you check card to see the action.

Any thoughts????
Bill Zahn

Hootowl 9 · 02-07-2005, 03:47 PM

Hello Rocco,
Good to be back,...missed alot but catching up. Suffered a serious illness so was down for about an eight count,..good news is I beat the count, back on my feet and ready to fight! lol

mh2365 · 02-07-2005, 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hootowl 9

Hello Rocco,
Good to be back,...missed alot but catching up. Suffered a serious illness so was down for about an eight count,..good news is I beat the count, back on my feet and ready to fight! lol

Sorry to hear that Hoot, glad you are better.

crusadecat · 02-08-2005, 12:53 AM

Big Bill when I played the board game i did it the Trunzo way.

Rocco Del Sesto · 02-08-2005, 10:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hootowl 9

Hello Rocco,
Good to be back,...missed alot but catching up. Suffered a serious illness so was down for about an eight count,..good news is I beat the count, back on my feet and ready to fight! lol

Sorry to hear you'd been layed up but glad to hear you made it through it and great to see you around!!

Rocco

erickdamac · 02-10-2005, 07:40 PM

dont know if this will help but saw this on ebay.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...sPageName=WDVW

02-04-2005, 02:41 PM	#1 (permalink)
steamboat brand, palooka Minors (Double A) Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 156	An idea for the Title Bout board game, if anyone still plays. Dear Title Bout fans, Yesterday, I made my first post on this web site, regarding my Title Bout BOARD game. From a reply, it appears the board game no longer exists. I love playing that game, but it is stuck in Texas, at the moment. I even have a suggestion to eliminate card shuffling, while still having the forty card round, and with still no manual checking of time sequences. My idea is quite time consuming DURING CONSTRUCTION, but the time you save afterwards will be well worth it, and will end up saving so much time, in the end, while acheiving reliable randomization. Since none of you may be playing the board game, this idea may be falling on deaf ears, but I'll post it here, now, anyway: 1. Buy eighty file cards(3" by 5", or 4" by 6"). 2. Divide each file card into five even blocks, with a pen. These blocks will go from left to right, 1 through 5. 3. Take the Avalon Hill action cards, and put them in any randon order. 4. Take the information on the top action card, and write it all inside the left(1st)block of the first file card(abbreviation might be helpful, in spots). Go through the action cards until the eighty file cards have been finished. What you have at this point is eighty file cards, each with information in the first of five boxes. 5. Randomize the action cards again, and repeat the process for the second block on each action card. 6. Do the same procedure for all five blocks for each file card. When you are finished, each file card will have five action cards worth of information. If everyone does this, everyone's own cards will be unique; the action cards displayed on a given file card will be a combination unlike any other. 7. Now you have made your own action card deck. 8. Take the eighty different action file cards that you've just made(again, each with five action cards of information), and spread them out on the floor, face down. Boy, does it looks dumb when you're finished! Eighty file cards take up a lot of space; make sure no one walks in while you doing this! You can shuffle, if you prefer, but I am an enemy of shuffling, due to randomization bias. 9. Pick up forty file cards from the floor, at random, and make a deck. Place that deck face down. 10. Pick up the remaining forty file cards on the floor, at random, and place that deck face down. 11. Take either pile of forty file cards, and begin play. For the first round, read the left(1st) block of information, for the second, the second block, for the third round, the third block, the fourth round, the fourth block, and the fifth round, the fifth block. 12. When five rounds are done, switch to the second pile of forty file cards, for rounds six through ten. There. Ten rounds worth of boxing, after picking up 80 file cards. Caution: When you are constructing your cards, make sure there is no pattern, in the action cards you select to transfer onto file cards. In other words, don't have the information for action card number one repeated five times in all five blocks of the first file card. Do the blocks at random for each other block, but make sure to have each action card represented once, somewhere down the line of each row of blocks.It works. This is how I play my game now. I have been working a White Hope Era heavyweight set, with the old Avalon Hill magazine set of ten White Hopes, along with the far superior group of four contemporary black heavyweights, Jack Johnson, Sam Langford, Joe Jeanette, and Sam McVey. The original ten White Hopes from the magazine were: Luther McCarty, Gunboat Smith, Jim Coffey, Frank Moran, Charley Weinert,Carl Morris, Jim Flynn, Bombardier Wells(usually not "Billy", in 1912), Arthur Pelky(1912 spelling; only one e in last name), and Al Palzer, in approximate order of ability. I replaced Charley Weinert with Jess Willard, for two reasons, neither dealing with Weinert's acceptable boxing ability. 1. Jess Willard would definately be included in any White Hope set, if his card wasn't already included in the regular TITLE BOUT game cards. 2. Charley Weinert, unlike the other ten heavyweights I chose, was more a factor in the heavyweight picture AFTER Jess Willard defeated Jack Johnson. Though it's true he fought (and defeated)a couple of heavyweights before May 1915, he was young, and fighting mostly light-heavyweights, during that time. I don't identify Charley Weinert as a major White Hope, as a result. If I include Weinert, why the heck shouldn't I include Soldier Kearns, Boer Rodel, Tom McMahon, Tony Ross, Dan "Porky" Flynn, or Al Kubiak? That was my reasoning. Light Heavyweight champion Battling Levinsky played a much larger role in the White Hope Era. After 1915, and the defeat of Jack Johnson, there was no reason to consider a white heavyweight a "White Hope", for their purposes, in my opinion, so the exact date of The Johnson-Willard fight indicates the end of that period, to me. I was tempted to include a reduced ability Jim Jeffries to my set, but he only fought once during the 1908-1915 time period. At his 1910 form, I would guess he STILL would have been able to defeat the great majority of White Hopes that came along. He still looked tough to me, watching the great battle in Reno. After watching the film of the July 4th, 1910 Reno fight, I don't think Jeffries at that point was that bad and old and terrible. I believe Johnson was that great. Last edited by steamboat brand, palooka : 02-04-2005 at 02:42 PM.

02-05-2005, 01:16 PM	#3 (permalink)
CONN CHRIS Global Moderator Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 21,322	I played the board game up until this past summer (since 79/80) and just discovered the computer version in October. I used to do all sorts of time-saving things too, wish your idea was around 15 years ago! I used the mini-game idea published in the All Star Replay back in the eighties to sim low level bouts - that was the best time saver around. My advice is buy the game. I had a universe that was running for more than 15 years which I gladly pitched in favor of TBCB. You will not be sorry. Christopher __________________ REC World Prizefighter Rankings

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

02-05-2005, 11:56 AM	#2 (permalink)
steamboat brand, palooka Minors (Double A) Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 156	And I hear the computer gamers say, "What the heck is he talking about?"

02-06-2005, 02:25 PM	#4 (permalink)
steamboat brand, palooka Minors (Double A) Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 156	Thanks Chris, for the info. I was wondering if there is anyone who still plays the board game, here. I WOULD switch to the computer game, but there's one little problem; I don't have a computer. I post from the library. If that "Conn" means Connecticut, that's where I am, also.

02-06-2005, 02:37 PM	#6 (permalink)
Hootowl 9 Minors (Triple A) Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Genesee Depot, Wis. Posts: 209	Yup,...thanks for your info. My kid's (well,..no longer..lol) just played it yesterday. Loved the bio's on back of the cards. Thanks for your ideas for the game. Thx also to the many whom post all the fighters with the great bio's as well.

02-07-2005, 01:18 AM	#8 (permalink)
Big Bill Zahn Bat Boy Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7	I've got a question about checking for control Lets say you check BLUE for control. If he's in control you go to his card to see the action. If he's not in control, do you a. Assume RED is in control and check his card or b. Check to see if RED can gain control in otherwords. If the first boxer is not in control, does that mean the his oppent is? That's the way I've always played it, but back when TF 2001 came out, Tom Trunzo posted a messege saying that any boxer must gain control himself before you check card to see the action. Any thoughts???? Bill Zahn

02-07-2005, 03:47 PM	#9 (permalink)
Hootowl 9 Minors (Triple A) Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Genesee Depot, Wis. Posts: 209	Hello Rocco, Good to be back,...missed alot but catching up. Suffered a serious illness so was down for about an eight count,..good news is I beat the count, back on my feet and ready to fight! lol

02-08-2005, 12:53 AM	#11 (permalink)
crusadecat All Star Reserve Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 799	Big Bill when I played the board game i did it the Trunzo way.

02-10-2005, 07:40 PM	#13 (permalink)
erickdamac All Star Starter Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 1,592	dont know if this will help but saw this on ebay. http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...sPageName=WDVW