Quote:
Originally Posted by CONN CHRIS
Well, it is just something I did for personal use but I suppose that we'll have to agree to disagree about what it does to past ratings. I think the ones that it impacts the most are the dreadful fighters that have been given high zero-type ratings. A high zero rating is a pretty decent fighter really and we have tons of fighters that are of the 0-2, 0-3, 0-1 variety that have those types of ratings.
Anyway, the average fighter in real life is what he is and we have tended to lump him in with guys that are nearly the worst possible fighters in terms of ratings. Without the lower gradations, a guy that gets a 12-8-2 record with 9 KOs who is in turn blasted to oblivion by a fighter that we all agree is a one just isn't possible otherwise.
|
What we did/are doing with the women is to slot the first 20-30 in each class through a consensus of three raters, based on actual who beat whom as much as possible. We started from scratch with the fighters in the DB at the time and reworked it. There are lower KO percentages across the board and lower durabilities overall because women over the years fought in more 3-, 4- and 6-round bouts. Careers are generally much shorter as well. Women have sense enough to get out when they see they are clearly not title material!
The women zeroes in the game are spread some, with those who were KO'd more, and/or winless generally at the lower end.
That would be less "do-able" with the men because there are so many more of them, and were when the new version DB was being constructed. Ideally, IMHO, the 0's an 1's should be people with losing records; the 2's to 4's gatekeepers, trialhorses and fringe contenders.
Ideally, to me, Jose Legra probably doesn't belong at the same level as some of the journeymen in the 3-4 range, but a full reckoning would likely be needed to straighten out that type of problem.