Ratings of the Day Council

[djday45]

A European trial horse of the 50's and 60's as usual if I agree I wont mention the rating.


FOULS - Frequently. He lost three times to fouls, the guy was certainly no angel in the ring.

GO FOR KNOCKOUT -1. The guy although a light hitter had 21 stoppages so should be an option.

CONDITIONING -8. The guy was a travelling fighter going all over Europe and the world to get a pay day.

INTELLECT -6. Up two, he was a seasoned pro who had a good solid european boxing style.

ABSORB PUNISHMENT -2. Up one. The guy was brave and was hardly ever stopped by the ref and a lot of his stoppage losses came at the end of his career.

ENDURANCE -7. Up one. He lost a lot of decisions maybe too running out of gas but not enough that he got stopped late on so a 6 is a bit too much here.

HITTING POWER -3. Up two. He had 21 stoppages out of 48 victories so a three is fair and not out of line here. He should at least have a chance of stopping tomato cans.

OVERALL RATING -3. Up one. The game had him pretty accurate he just nneded to be tweaked, his conditioning rating will ensure he is very up and down in his performances. A real European trial horse.

[djday45]

This is a new rating of a German Heavy of the 50's. Ive rated him a one as he was a real journeyman of the period.

[djday45]

Here is James Parker a Canadian Heavy of the fifties, Ive rated him a three. He had some great tussles with Archie Moore and Caesar Brion, Nino Valdez and Earl Walls to name a few.

[professordp]

Originally Posted by djday45

Here is James Parker a Canadian Heavy of the fifties, Ive rated him a three. He had some great tussles with Archie Moore and Caesar Brion, Nino Valdez and Earl Walls to name a few.

Great! I was planning on using him soon in my uni!

[Rocco Del Sesto]

Really enjoying reading through your takes on these heavyweights Dean. A lot of great insight you've put into these ratings that tell us a lot about the fighters.

If you'd get a chance, I'd be interested in hearing your take on the above mentioned guys. I've started into researching through some old Boxing News that I have (66 thur 69) reading up on the UK heavyweights of that time period. It's been really interesting. I've done a new rating on Jim McIlvaney and I'm working on one for a guy named Billy Gray. He along with Carl Gizzi came to be for awhile two of the biggest heavyweight names in the UK during that time rated just below the "Big Five" of Cooper, London, Bodell, Walker and Prescott.

My work on Gray though has gotten me to wondering about Bodell and Walker's ratings. Right now in the official data base Walker is an overall 4 while Bodell is only a 1! Now maybe Walker would be a 4 but I'd have to believe Bodell is something much more than a 1. Walker lost his fights to Bodell, Cooper, London and Prescott on top of losses also to Mildenberger and Eduardo Corletti. Bodell meanwhile took Cooper thru 15 rounds late in their careers while also beating London and Prescott.

I did a rating of PRescott back in TB2 and think he was a 3 or 4.

Rocco Del Sesto

[Rocco Del Sesto]

I might mention I'd done a rating of Gray for TB2 awhile back also. I think it was a 3 or 4. I've done a little tweeking of it that's brought that down to a 2. I've not playtested it yet though. So that seems sort of in line with Dean's rating of was it 4 or 5 for London. Just makes me wonder even more so about that 1 for Bodell. If London is 4 or 5 I'd take a wild guess Bodell should be something in the 3-4 range at least.

Rocco

[tmax11]

Nice ratings. I always like to see how others go about compiling their ratings. I agree with almost all of your assessments. For my 2 cents, I have Lamar Clark as a 1. I kept the same control factors(4,4), I couldn't justify any higher as he fought the weakest competition I have ever seen. If his CF is much higher he is going to defeat way too many fighters that are on a level he never proved he could beat. Maybe he could have beaten them, we just don't know.

The most glaring problem I see with the DB is the inconsistency. The areas I usually disagree with the most are the HP ratings and the chin ratings. I also ran into numerous issues where fighters were placed in divisions that did not reflect their best weight.

I'm in the process of updating my DB(11,000 fighters), I usually plug away until I get burned out and then return a few months later. Anyway this is how I'm going about it, if anyone is interested. One of the first things I did was take the 2003 list of the greatest punchers compiled by the Ring(admittedly a poll). I gave the top 5 or so the highest rating and then scaled down until the 100th fighter was a 10. Anyone else I rate or re-rate who retired prior to 2003 automatically gets below a 10. I usually try to stick to the formula from the manual for those fighters.

For contenders I give them a baseline CF of 9. By contender I usually mean someone ranked in the top 10 in the ring's year end ratings. Now, if someone is a long time contender, or was very highly ranked, I'll probably move his CF to 10 or maybe 11 if he is a weak puncher, but I try and reserve 10 and up for world champions. Therefore if someone is a World Champ for a credible org he'll start with a CF of 10, and I'll adjust off of that based on length of reign, competition, etc(these of course can move the CF either up or down). Now a fighter could still have a CF of say 8 vs boxer and 10 vs slugger, that would depend on the styles of those he fought and his results. Also, if someone is a big power puncher with large 3 pt ratings, I may adjust his CF downward slightly if he is too dominant, play-testing determines this.

As far as the chins, I try to break it down if possible. I did Primo Carnera not too long ago and this is what I came up with. I know not everyone will agree with this, but I'm happy with it. For the record, I disregarded the notion of fixed fights. Chin KD-5, this could be higher, Chin KO-0 from what I can tell he was never knocked cold, Recovery-4 maybe should be higher, AP-1 he kept getting up and up and up, plus, 5 TKO's in 100+ fights is a very small number. These ratings are dependent on other factors as well, multiple knockdowns in a round, times knocked down in fights that went the distance or that he won, who knocked him down, etc. Needless to say a guy knocked out by Frazier and Liston may not have the same chin as someone knocked out by two stiffs.

By doing all this, the one thing that I do get is consistency. Play-testing helps iron out any problems. That's the great thing about TB, you can rate the fighters any way you see fit. The bottom line is you could get four of the best TB raters, ask them to rate a fighter and almost inevitably they will come up with 4 different ratings. There's really no way to remove subjectivity from the ratings.

[djday45]

Originally Posted by tmax11

Nice ratings. I always like to see how others go about compiling their ratings. I agree with almost all of your assessments. For my 2 cents, I have Lamar Clark as a 1. I kept the same control factors(4,4), I couldn't justify any higher as he fought the weakest competition I have ever seen. If his CF is much higher he is going to defeat way too many fighters that are on a level he never proved he could beat. Maybe he could have beaten them, we just don't know.

The most glaring problem I see with the DB is the inconsistency. The areas I usually disagree with the most are the HP ratings and the chin ratings. I also ran into numerous issues where fighters were placed in divisions that did not reflect their best weight.

I'm in the process of updating my DB(11,000 fighters), I usually plug away until I get burned out and then return a few months later. Anyway this is how I'm going about it, if anyone is interested. One of the first things I did was take the 2003 list of the greatest punchers compiled by the Ring(admittedly a poll). I gave the top 5 or so the highest rating and then scaled down until the 100th fighter was a 10. Anyone else I rate or re-rate who retired prior to 2003 automatically gets below a 10. I usually try to stick to the formula from the manual for those fighters.

For contenders I give them a baseline CF of 9. By contender I usually mean someone ranked in the top 10 in the ring's year end ratings. Now, if someone is a long time contender, or was very highly ranked, I'll probably move his CF to 10 or maybe 11 if he is a weak puncher, but I try and reserve 10 and up for world champions. Therefore if someone is a World Champ for a credible org he'll start with a CF of 10, and I'll adjust off of that based on length of reign, competition, etc(these of course can move the CF either up or down). Now a fighter could still have a CF of say 8 vs boxer and 10 vs slugger, that would depend on the styles of those he fought and his results. Also, if someone is a big power puncher with large 3 pt ratings, I may adjust his CF downward slightly if he is too dominant, play-testing determines this.

As far as the chins, I try to break it down if possible. I did Primo Carnera not too long ago and this is what I came up with. I know not everyone will agree with this, but I'm happy with it. For the record, I disregarded the notion of fixed fights. Chin KD-5, this could be higher, Chin KO-0 from what I can tell he was never knocked cold, Recovery-4 maybe should be higher, AP-1 he kept getting up and up and up, plus, 5 TKO's in 100+ fights is a very small number. These ratings are dependent on other factors as well, multiple knockdowns in a round, times knocked down in fights that went the distance or that he won, who knocked him down, etc. Needless to say a guy knocked out by Frazier and Liston may not have the same chin as someone knocked out by two stiffs.

By doing all this, the one thing that I do get is consistency. Play-testing helps iron out any problems. That's the great thing about TB, you can rate the fighters any way you see fit. The bottom line is you could get four of the best TB raters, ask them to rate a fighter and almost inevitably they will come up with 4 different ratings. There's really no way to remove subjectivity from the ratings.

Hey mate, yes totally agree that consistency is the problem with the ratings. If you go way back into the history of the game back to the board game the old retired card "yellow" ratings generally worked really well as they were from the same hand Jim and his brother. The active "blue" card ratings varied wildly from set to set on individual ratings as knowledge and opinion on active fighters changed. But as a "snapshot" on a division at that point of time they again worked as they had one consistent vision.

The trouble with the computer game is that over the years so many people have had a hand in the database ratings that the consistent vision went out of the window and for some reason much of the original thinking behind the card ratings were changed for the computer version for reasons im not sure about.

A big example was the huge argument caused by Jim's new computer version of Jack Dempsey he lowered Jack's power to a ridiclous level in many peoples opinion including my own, but this was never a problem in the board game and the ratings were by the same person?

I suspect the different way the game system ran on the computer caused many problems with individual ratings so ratings had to be changed.

But then over the years more and more people got involved with obviously wildly differeing opinions on fighters.

consistency is the key as all ratings have to make sense stacked up against their opponents and not in isoltion. Yes it is good to have a base system to rate guys I sort of you one myself, but then never be afraid to research the guy you are ratings as heavily as you can then test him and then be willing to change him to account for his own individuality.

The thing that comes home to me more and more as I rate guys into the title bout system is that boxers are individuals and the more you can bring that out in their ratings and fight against your urge to slide them towards the average then they will cease to be mediocre in the game and even the worst fighters will have pronounced strengths and weaknessess as in life and they will be brought to life on your pc and give you so much more colour, realism and enjoyment.

[djday45]

Originally Posted by Rocco Del Sesto

I might mention I'd done a rating of Gray for TB2 awhile back also. I think it was a 3 or 4. I've done a little tweeking of it that's brought that down to a 2. I've not playtested it yet though. So that seems sort of in line with Dean's rating of was it 4 or 5 for London. Just makes me wonder even more so about that 1 for Bodell. If London is 4 or 5 I'd take a wild guess Bodell should be something in the 3-4 range at least.

Rocco

Hey Rocco, long time no speak mate, yes I truly beleive that the minor contenders and journeymen, trial horses and stiffs and tomato cans are WAYYYYYYY out of sinc with each other in all divisions in the database.

There should be many, many more guys in the 2-5 range than the 1 at the moment. the 1's should be reserved for guys with losing records and true tomato cans, not the guys who rose to become national champions and contenders then most of which did very credibly on the international stage.

my system is pretty simple and without taking into account individuals of course it should be something like this

10-15 championship quality
7-9 top contenders
5-6 minor contenders
3-4 gatekeepers, trial horses
2 journeymen
1 stiffs and tomato cans

so most of the guys in the database that are currently rated one or two should msot prob bew higher somewhat.

If they are not they will never ever perform like they did in reality. Take London as an example, he will now with that current rating inconsistently be a minor challenger in his era for the world title and be a major challenger for the European and British titles. do you really think at his previous rating he would get any where near that in your uni. for me its all about recreating how they performed and the level they performed at in real life. The problem with the lower ranked figters is that everyone is afraid to mke them look to good and then be laughed at by people here and lose credibility.

Be brave, stand up for those guys they deserve respect as well for their achievments the guys in the lower to average reaches of the database were still excellent pro boxers they just wernt the best of their eras. does not mean they did not have some excellent attributes. Its time the wernt so underrated.

[djday45]

Yep Rocco you are right looking at him the datbase does him a real disservice. lets look at him in detail, as usual if I dont mention a rating I agree with it.

Conditioning - 2. As usual with my ratings I dont like giving out ones here unless the guy was known to be a one of the fittest and best guys of his era.

Draw Power -3. Down two, he was a minor draw with the UK but not enough for a 5.

Intellect - 6. Up two. He was particuarly effective against boxers so raising it here to reflect he had some nous in the ring.

Control Vs Boxer -9. Up two. he was one of those guys who did well against stand off boxers. look at his results against Bugner, Cooper and others then look at his defeats against Quarry and Spencer. One of those fighters who could look really good against one type and pretty awful against the other.

Chin Vs Knockdown -3. Up two. He actually had a good to average chin, the datbase is totally misrepresenting him here in his knockdown, knockout and recovery ratings, he suffered nearly every stoppage defeat as a TKO, sometimes even quitting, only the Quarry defeat was a real KO and that was when he was past it.
His chin was pretty good his bravery and heart sucked, he should be suffering lots of tko stoppages without knockdowns in your uni, not be on the canvas again anf again.

Chin vs Knockout -2. Up three, See above.

Recovery -2. Up two, see above.

Absorb Punishment - 5. Down two. It's here he really is bad and should be here where he is stopped, I know a 5 rating is very bad but he suffered tko after tko and this will make him that vulnerable and also inconsistent as he was in life.

Hitting Power -6. Up three. He was not a bad puncher with 31 ko's from 58 wins. He was quite capable of outlasting opponents especially of lower calibre.
And when looking at his record you can see many of these stoppages come in the middle rounds. A three is far two low for him, a six is accurate.

Punching -36. Up one level. He was slow but not massively so and was quite a skilled amateur picking up a European medal. Making him just slightly worse than my average of 38 is about right.

Counter Punching -32. Down one level. He was def not a counterer though and reducing this down to 32 reinforces this.

Overall Rating - 5. Way up by four. May seem too much for people but again look at his record, he defeated Bugner, Roman, London, Walker, Prescott, Daniels and Ramos in his career, this enables him to do that in your game. BUT, with that horrible TKO rating and him being so bad against sluggers he will still lose quickly and badly to guys like Quarry and Spencer and if he got the chance in your uni to the monsters of the era like Frazier and Foreman.

At this rating he is not going to win a world title but he will sometimes come into contention before his big weakness rears its ugly head again. And he will certainly be a factor at the European and British level as he should be.

[djday45]

The datbase has Walker's general level about right but not the specifics, lets have a closer look.

Go For Knockout -3. This was his primary tactic and he was much more of a puncher than the datbase has him as we will see.

Conditioning -5. His one here is very, very wrong. he was known in Britain as a huge womaniser and to a lesser extent drinker and this effected him. He was a very good looking man and was hugely popular in Britain despite never being champion think a cut price Beckham who actually was not settled down and used his looks to full effect with women and you have the right idea about Walker.

Control Vs Slugger -8. He was slightly better against fellow punchers and struggled a bit more against boxers but he was really skill wise a minor contender.

Chin Vs Knockdown -2. Up one. Again his chin was sound his stoppages against him were tko's and cut stoppages, especially cuts as he was a real bleeder. He was never ko'd properly but im not improving these ratings past a 2 as his quality of opposition was not amazing.

Chin Vs Knockout -2. See above.

Resistance To Cuts -4. He was a real bad bleeder, not in the same way as Cooper perhaps but just as bad, he was stopped many times on cuts especially against better opposition, this was his weakness.

Killer Instinct -6. Down two. He was a much heavier puncher than the game gives him credit for but not a good smooth finisher, he became wild and was too unskilled generally to finish opponents well.

Hitting Power - 8. Up markedly from the database, he was known as a heavy puncher, and im sure he was to an extent but im stopping short of making him a true one punch man of 10 plus as he really didnt stop anyone apart from Spencer (which was impressive) one of those guys who looks a huge puncher against lower opposition but at higher skill levels he is just in fact a strong puncher. So an 8 is good for him I think.

Punching -36. Doen one level, not so much a speed thing with Walker more the fact he was quite unschooled and unskilled.

Counterpunching - 32. As above, really not a counterer he didnt have the skill or knowledge.

Punches missed - 65. He could be quite wild when punching especially when trying to hurt opponents.

Overall Rating -4. Still a four but quite a different four to the one the game portrays. Just shows you that you can keep a fighters general level roughly the same but still make him a very diferent perfomer withing the ring and in your uni. Think of Walker as a kind of smaller version of Gerry Cooney in Britain and you have him pegged.

[bear]

Originally Posted by djday45

Hey Rocco, long time no speak mate, yes I truly beleive that the minor contenders and journeymen, trial horses and stiffs and tomato cans are WAYYYYYYY out of sinc with each other in all divisions in the database.

There should be many, many more guys in the 2-5 range than the 1 at the moment. the 1's should be reserved for guys with losing records and true tomato cans, not the guys who rose to become national champions and contenders then most of which did very credibly on the international stage.

my system is pretty simple and without taking into account individuals of course it should be something like this

10-15 championship quality
7-9 top contenders
5-6 minor contenders
3-4 gatekeepers, trial horses
2 journeymen
1 stiffs and tomato cans

so most of the guys in the database that are currently rated one or two should msot prob bew higher somewhat.

If they are not they will never ever perform like they did in reality. Take London as an example, he will now with that current rating inconsistently be a minor challenger in his era for the world title and be a major challenger for the European and British titles. do you really think at his previous rating he would get any where near that in your uni. for me its all about recreating how they performed and the level they performed at in real life. The problem with the lower ranked figters is that everyone is afraid to mke them look to good and then be laughed at by people here and lose credibility.

Be brave, stand up for those guys they deserve respect as well for their achievments the guys in the lower to average reaches of the database were still excellent pro boxers they just wernt the best of their eras. does not mean they did not have some excellent attributes. Its time the wernt so underrated.

Dean
I/ve been churning out a number fighters in the mods section recently. I'm not spending any amount of time playtesting them or fine tuning. Im just looking at a fiighter's accomplishments as found in boxrec. I will supplement that information with print library materials. When I look at a fighter's accomplishments: record, opposition, and reputation I try to guage them numerically in the manner in which you have. I concur with your opinion about the lower rated boxers in the database being under-ranked. This is most evident in the case of title challengers and belt or trinket holders. If a fighter, in his career held a trinket I will generally nudge his ranking up a tad. If it is the championship of a small state like Montana or Wyoming that is neither a hotbed of boxing or heavilly populated the nudge might be from a zero to a low 1. If we look at a Lonsdale belt winner, the situation is much different. A Lonsdale winner is the Champion of a large boxing community. He should be demonstrably better than the regional champs. I tend to think of the 3 or 4 range as a general minimum here. I think of regional champs in a range one number lower. A regional champ has to be able to beat a number of local tomato cans, stiffs, opponents and challengers. An example that comes to my mind is Peter Keenan, a world class contender for a decade who is only ranked as a 4.

bear

[a87star]

I like your work on these Brit HW's Dean. Was wondering could you keep on this page because i'm interested in the UK level/World Class Brit heavies from the 60's-80's. Do you mind if I send you a small list of some fighters to look at and give your opinion on?

[djday45]

Originally Posted by a87star

I like your work on these Brit HW's Dean. Was wondering could you keep on this page because i'm interested in the UK level/World Class Brit heavies from the 60's-80's. Do you mind if I send you a small list of some fighters to look at and give your opinion on?

Sure man, Ive got a list of guys Im doing for the Prof for his replay but once im through them by all means.

[djday45]

Oh my what a hard guy to rate accuratley, so inconsistent to have taken Liston 20 rounds then to lose to some of the nobodies he lost two! I would hate to be his manager lol.

anyway to his rating.

Stance - Left Handed. This guy was a real spoiler, a real hard guy to look good against this is what im representing here not his stance as you guys know I use this for catergories often not covered in the game.

Fouls - Occasionally. Upped it one here as he was DQ'd once and was apt to be a holder and spoiler.

Cover Up -4. I want t make him quite hard to stop under normal circumstances and to show how much of a awkward frustrating guy he was to fight.

Go For Knockout -2. This should be a normal option for him as he wasant the paper weight puncher the database would have you beleive.

Conditioning -9. He was really, really inconsistent, really up and down and this was a real weakness for him, this will represent that.

Control Vs Boxer - 7. Down one. He lost mostly to guys with good skills, he was stopped twice for example by Moore but lasted the distance vs Liston. He was much better with his countering style when guys came at him.

Control Vs Slugger -9. See above.

Chin Vs Knockdown -2. Up one. He had a pretty good chin and was only ko'd twice his other stoppages being tko's against him. Again we must try and see why he lasted against Sonny and others but not improve him too much that he starts winning too many!

Chin VS Knockout - 2. See above.

Resistance to Cuts - 3. Worsened by one. Remember some of those tkos were cuts losses and he was a bit of a bleeder more so as he aged.

Agressivness - 5. Down one, He rarely if ever took the iniative and let fighters come to him.

Fast Starter -3. He was a slow starter and he could be caught early on before he got going into his slow style.

Hitting Power -4. Up three. He wasant a powder puff guy just a light to average puncher whose style made sure he had even less stoppages. He was capable here however as he stopped half of his opponents he beat.

Punching - 30. Down three levels, very low I know but I want to make sure that his style is represented, in this case he didnt lead, he countered and often lost decisions because he waited too long and those chances never came. He should lose a lot he was an almost 50/50 fighter in wins and losses.

Counterpunching -38. Up one level. This is where he causes his damage and scores his points.

Overall rating -5. Up one. Really hard to rate correctly, he will be a hard work for your sluggers to overcome but will often be out worked by less talented boxers than himself to lose decisions.

[Rocco Del Sesto]

Originally Posted by djday45

Yep Rocco you are right looking at him the datbase does him a real disservice. lets look at him in detail, as usual if I dont mention a rating I agree with it.

Conditioning - 2. As usual with my ratings I dont like giving out ones here unless the guy was known to be a one of the fittest and best guys of his era.

Draw Power -3. Down two, he was a minor draw with the UK but not enough for a 5.

Intellect - 6. Up two. He was particuarly effective against boxers so raising it here to reflect he had some nous in the ring.

Control Vs Boxer -9. Up two. he was one of those guys who did well against stand off boxers. look at his results against Bugner, Cooper and others then look at his defeats against Quarry and Spencer. One of those fighters who could look really good against one type and pretty awful against the other.

Chin Vs Knockdown -3. Up two. He actually had a good to average chin, the datbase is totally misrepresenting him here in his knockdown, knockout and recovery ratings, he suffered nearly every stoppage defeat as a TKO, sometimes even quitting, only the Quarry defeat was a real KO and that was when he was past it.
His chin was pretty good his bravery and heart sucked, he should be suffering lots of tko stoppages without knockdowns in your uni, not be on the canvas again anf again.

Chin vs Knockout -2. Up three, See above.

Recovery -2. Up two, see above.

Absorb Punishment - 5. Down two. It's here he really is bad and should be here where he is stopped, I know a 5 rating is very bad but he suffered tko after tko and this will make him that vulnerable and also inconsistent as he was in life.

Hitting Power -6. Up three. He was not a bad puncher with 31 ko's from 58 wins. He was quite capable of outlasting opponents especially of lower calibre.
And when looking at his record you can see many of these stoppages come in the middle rounds. A three is far two low for him, a six is accurate.

Punching -36. Up one level. He was slow but not massively so and was quite a skilled amateur picking up a European medal. Making him just slightly worse than my average of 38 is about right.

Counter Punching -32. Down one level. He was def not a counterer though and reducing this down to 32 reinforces this.

Overall Rating - 5. Way up by four. May seem too much for people but again look at his record, he defeated Bugner, Roman, London, Walker, Prescott, Daniels and Ramos in his career, this enables him to do that in your game. BUT, with that horrible TKO rating and him being so bad against sluggers he will still lose quickly and badly to guys like Quarry and Spencer and if he got the chance in your uni to the monsters of the era like Frazier and Foreman.

At this rating he is not going to win a world title but he will sometimes come into contention before his big weakness rears its ugly head again. And he will certainly be a factor at the European and British level as he should be.

Hi Dean,

Here's a file I posted over on the Database Forum for Mark(IceTea) to look at. I split Bodell out into two ratings, one for LHW which he fought at in 1962 and then in 1963 he began fighting as a HW. I play tested both of these. I'll post the rating file and the two sample schedules I used play testing If you'd like to take a look at them. I've not even looked at my ratings yet compared to what you posted so I'm not sure how they work out. I only came out with an overall rating of 3 though for Bodell. I'll take a look at your ratings though and see what it does to it

Thanks for your imput.

Rocco

[Rocco Del Sesto]

Originally Posted by Rocco Del Sesto

Hi Dean,

Here's a file I posted over on the Database Forum for Mark(IceTea) to look at. I split Bodell out into two ratings, one for LHW which he fought at in 1962 and then in 1963 he began fighting as a HW. I play tested both of these. I'll post the rating file and the two sample schedules I used play testing If you'd like to take a look at them. I've not even looked at my ratings yet compared to what you posted so I'm not sure how they work out. I only came out with an overall rating of 3 though for Bodell. I'll take a look at your ratings though and see what it does to it

Thanks for your imput.

Rocco

Here were my comments I posted in the Database rating forum where i'd posted the Bodell files. Explains something about the schedule I built.
Rocco

s I mentioned to Mark and on the HW rating forum, I've looked at Jack Bodell's rating thinking his 1 was too low after looking at him while working on a rating for another British heavy, Billy Gray.

I've worked up split ratings for Bodell
A LHW Rating of 2 for when he first fought as a LHW in 1962. Then in 1963 he moved up to HW division. His new HW rating is now a 3.

I've attached 2 schedules, one for LHW and one for HW. The HW schedule has a good number of his later opponents in that are in the data base. I did though, use Jose Urtain and Danny McAlinden who were Bodell's last two career fights. In playtesting Bodell I was working with ratings that was giving him anoverall of a 3 and they were working out pretty good overall, but, his new rating was beating up pretty much Urtain and McAlinden. I'm thinking those two fighters need their ratings looked at also, they're both 2's and probably could fall in the 3 to 5 range.

Anyway, I subsitituded Sante Amonte (for Urtain) and Peirm Barruzi (for McAlinden) who have career records to some degree similar to those two fighters and thus ratings that I think those two could possibly be at. When I did that substitution, then I was starting to get Bodell's stoppages, both for and against more in line and the W/L to fall in better.

Overall with this schedule I was getting average records of:
W45(KO25.5) / L13(KO 9.5) / D1

Overall not too bad I guess. Keep in mind this record average is for when he fought as a heavyweight from 1963 to 1972.

I felt with the clean transition from LHW to HW in his career at the beginning of 1963 it was worthwhile to do the seperate ratings.

Rocco

[djday45]

As usual if I dont mention a rating I agree.

Conditioning -3. He was really more a blown up light heavy so sometimes was a bit above his best trim fighting weight.

Chin Vs Knockdown -2. His chin was solid and yet again his stoppages were actually more on the tko route than straight ko's. I think this is a real weakness of the database that fighters losses are not really being analysed correctly and when people see a lot of stoppages they automtically reflect that in the chin ratings, fighters are more complicated than that in some respects.

Chin vs Knockout -2. See above.

Recovery -3. Made this worse as he was a bit susceptable to multiple knockdowns once hurt for example the Scrivans fight.

Resistance to Cuts -3. He did have weak skin which tended to swell and cut easily sometimes.

Absorb Punishment -3. He had to many tko's against him to remain a 2.

Endurance -7. Not good at pacing himself and was often in trouble stamina wise and some of his stoppages were not helped by this.

Defense - +5. Made this much worse, was really a face first brawler who was found out pretty badly when he tried to move up in competition.

Fight on Ropes -3. As a face first brawler he was not really good once trapped.

Hitting Power -8. Up three. His one real strength was power but as often with so called knock out artists when the move up in class the knockouts suddenly dry up. he was a strong puncher but nothing more, but at the same time he was much more than a five.

Counterpunching -30. Really not a counterer which is really no shock lol.

Overall Rating 4. Remains a four but I feel overall I have weakened him somewhat. He is a hard punching touch guy but very limited skill wise and he will drop many decisions in your uni and is really nothing more than a division gate keeper.

[djday45]

As usual if I dont mention it, I agree with the rating.

Fight Inside -2. Down from three, McBride was one of those experianced journemen that could do most things but nothing particuarly well.

Fight Outside -2. Down from three. See above, competent but thats it.

Conditioning -7. The guy fought for twenty years but after his days as a young pro fought rarely especially for that era. Maybe thats how he lasted so long as it was not on talent. the inactive rating suits him fine.

Intellect -6. Up four. Way too low for him, these experianced trial horse types would know all the tricks and their intellect should reflect that, not pushing it into the top levels but again be at least competent.

Recovery -4. Worsened by two. There were a few examples the Patterson and Smith fights come to mind where he collapsed with multiple knockdowns in a round, this should give you that possibility.

Absorb Punishment -3. Worsened by one. He was tko'd a few times a two here is too good for him, he should be stopped sometimes from damage.

Endurance -8. Up one. Again he was competent here and won quite a few decisions and dropped quite a few. I dont want to make him too weak here.

Defense +2. Improved by two steps. A plus six here is not right, he was two cute a customer. by all means give him a defensive weakness but not that bad. He was an experianced pro journeyman not a face first brawler.

Fight on Ropes -2. Improved by one, again trying to bring out his ring savvy and experiance without making him too much of a threat.

Hitting Power -3. Down three. Mmm a surprise for some of you im sure, who are used to me increasing hitting power, well only when its warranted. A six here is way too much for McBride who was a light puncher with ver few stopappages. My aim with hitting power is not to increase it across the board in the database but to make it accurate. A six is not accurate for McBride.

Overall Rating -3. Stays the same. He's a canny top level trial horse quite capable of a shock decision win but also quite capable of dropping multiple decisions or worse being stopped sometimes as well. He wont sneak into your top ten but instead lurk around the middle reches of your uni picking up useful pay days and sometimes putting young prospects in their place.

[professordp]

It's been a month, I think I'm speaking for all members by saying that we miss your revisions and comments concerning TBCB ratings.

Whatever era, whatever weight class---please give us some more, sir!