Parade of the Tomato Cans

[bear]

Johnny Christmas
1930-1936
Global ID 370047
sex male
won 0 (KO 0) + lost 2 (KO 0) + drawn 0 = 2
rounds boxed 14 KO% 0
LW ?

Johnny Christmas LW boxer 0

[bear]

Originally Posted by John Dewey

Mery Christmas to you too, Bear. I'm surprised ther eisn't a fighter named Jimminy Christmas!

LOL. I couldn't find a Chris Kringle either

[bear]

Richard Christmas
1937
Global ID 28581
sex male
division heavyweight
won 0 (KO 0) + lost 1 (KO 1) + drawn 0 = 1
rounds boxed 3 KO% 0
Ohio ?

Richard Christmas HW slugger 0

[John Dewey]

Oh-oh. Santa didn't bring us Johnny Christmas! No file.

[bear]

Frank Yule
1925
Global ID 316449
sex male
won 0 (KO 0) + lost 1 (KO 1) + drawn 0 = 1
rounds boxed 2 KO% 0
134 lbs
New York, NY ?

Frank Yule LW boxer 0

[bear]

Originally Posted by John Dewey

Oh-oh. Santa didn't bring us Johnny Christmas! No file.

Fixed

[John Dewey]

Hey Bear, are you sure the stats for Richard Christmas are right? They're really God awful. If they reflect reality Richard was some drunken half wit picked out the audience to fill in for a missing boxer.

[bear]

Originally Posted by John Dewey

Hey Bear, are you sure the stats for Richard Christmas are right? They're really God awful. If they reflect reality Richard was some drunken half wit picked out the audience to fill in for a missing boxer.

Here is a corrected and slightly better version. Career dates corrected.
Stopped in 3 in only bout so he's not about to do much damage

[John Dewey]

Yeah. You gotta have a pulse to get a boxing license in most juristrictions. Not much of one, maybe, but still you gotta have one. Thanks.

[John Dewey]

I'm sorry, Bear, but your new posting for this fighter is no better than the previous one. No boxer can possibly have a punches landed/counterpunching stat of 15. It's too outside the game parameters. Some of his other stats are equally as bad. I suggest that you don't ever use that particular template again. Wherever did it come from? It's not one of yours.

[bear]

Originally Posted by John Dewey

I'm sorry, Bear, but your new posting for this fighter is no better than the previous one. No boxer can possibly have a punches landed/counterpunching stat of 15. It's too outside the game parameters. Some of his other stats are equally as bad. I suggest that you don't ever use that particular template again. Wherever did it come from? It's not one of yours.

I was using some of the templates posted by Conn Cgris in posts 2483 through 2486
He did 18 gradations for 0 rated fighters

[bear]

Jack Kearns
1906-1908
Global ID 193725
sex male
birth date 1882-08-17
death date 1963-07-07
division lightweight
nationality United States
residence Seattle, Washington, United States
birth place Waterloo, MI, USA
birth name John L. McKernan
won 0 (KO 0) + lost 2 (KO 2) + drawn 0 = 2
rounds boxed 12 KO% 0

Jack Dempsey's manager

Jack Kearns LW boxer 0

[bear]

Kerns Ibarra
1982-1996
Global ID 49652
sex male
division lightweight
nationality United States
residence Mexicali, Baja California, Mexico
won 1 (KO 1) + lost 6 (KO 6) + drawn 0 = 7
rounds boxed 12 KO% 14.29
139 - 142 lbs

Kerns Ibarra JWW slugger 0

[CONN CHRIS]

Originally Posted by John Dewey

I'm sorry, Bear, but your new posting for this fighter is no better than the previous one. No boxer can possibly have a punches landed/counterpunching stat of 15. It's too outside the game parameters. Some of his other stats are equally as bad. I suggest that you don't ever use that particular template again. Wherever did it come from? It's not one of yours.

If you take the average levels 1 - 15, each level will win roughly 60% of their fights over the next lower level. So, winning 60% of the bouts over the next lower level can be defined as a 'true' level within the game (what ever that may mean).

The zero ranking can be divided up into 12 or 13 such 'true' levels by taking CF and PL down below the norms. I made those templates for my own use to mimic the dreadfull bottom end of the sport where fighters that do not stand a chance against a seemingly poor fighter can themselves build a reasonable record by fighting even worse bums who build records by beating worse bums and so on. I actually divided the zeros into 18 ratings with a few that don't quite meet the sixty percent rule of thumb.

The last time that I did a search to find the average historical HW fighter on boxrec, it turned out to be a guy from South Africa that was 1-2-0. Average would mean that half the recorded fighters at that weight were better and half worse. At that time the total population of HWs was about 12,000 if my memory is correct. That means that over 6,000 HWs historically were worse than that 1-2-0 fighter (per boxrec). That's a lot of fighters and they even won at times - you just can't mimick that without dropping CF below 4 and PL below 22.

If the average fighter is 1-2-0, he has to be somewhere in the zero range and if you don't use the lower ratings than what was historically the average fighter becomes the worst fighter possible in the sim and throws everything else off. In my opinion, a guy that went 0-3-0 and was KO'd three times is entirely too good if given a rating that includes a CF of 4 and PL of 22. He should never win. Really, never. But he will with a CF of 4 and PL of 22.

With the 17 zero templates that I use, I think that 1-2-0 guy falls into the -2/-3 range and then the whole scale makes a bit more sense to me with roughly half the rating possibilities above and below him.

[John Dewey]

I just think that for the sake of consistency the official parameters of the game should be generally (though not necessarily absolutely) kept to. A fighter with a PA/CP rating of 22 is a pretty dismal boxer. Only when competing against fellow TCs is such a fighter competitive, and then anything can happen. And, using the new templates makes a fighter who is rated by such unfairly penalized when facing a fighter with a similiar record who had been rated by the earlier template system. That's my opinion anyway. If I download a fighter whose stats I'm unhappy with, I have the option to tweek them as I see fit, so it's no real problem. But I've already violated my policy of not stating my opinion on this forum so I will now speak no more about it.

[CONN CHRIS]

Originally Posted by John Dewey

I just think that for the sake of consistency the official parameters of the game should be generally (though not necessarily absolutely) kept to. A fighter with a PA/CP rating of 22 is a pretty dismal boxer. Only when competing against fellow TCs is such a fighter competitive, and then anything can happen. And, using the new templates makes a fighter who is rated by such unfairly penalized when facing a fighter with a similiar record who had been rated by the earlier template system. That's my opinion anyway. If I download a fighter whose stats I'm unhappy with, I have the option to tweek them as I see fit, so it's no real problem. But I've already violated my policy of not stating my opinion on this forum so I will now speak no more about it.

I would have said that same thing not long ago myself but have spent some time looking at this end of the pool. I am convinced that the official parameters are just arbitrary and are themselves not consistent at all.

What I mean by that is that if we have a scale of 0 to 15, the top needs to represent the best possible fighter and the bottom the worst. In the case of the TBCB sim, the bottom is demonstrably not the bottom. Use the CF and PL floors of 4 and 22 and run 10,000 bouts against Ali. If that truly represented the worst fighter possible, it would never beat Ali. But it does. In my opinion, that worst fighter does not have a chance against Ali and should litterally never win against him. We aren't talking about a bad fighter or a guy that tries hard but looses. We are talking about the guy that boxrec ranks 6,000 slots behind that 1-2-0 South African HW I mentioned above. He should never win, but he does (in the sim).

Well, if the bottom of our scale is quite clearly not the bottom, I thought that we could do one of two things:

1) Recognize that 1-2-0 guy as the average fighter and assume that to be the bottom of our scale. No one worse than that can be depicted in the sim because it just isn't designed to accomodate that..

2) Find out how many 'true' levels could be derived from the zero category so that we can have some space to work below that average fighter and create a range of ratings whereby the bottom of the sim moves a little closer to the bottom that is found in real life.

It's a problem of perception to me really, I think that if you ask a lot of people here what the average fighter rating is, they'll tell you 4, 5,6 even. When, in real life, the average fighter is a 1-2-0 pug and a rating at the top end of the zero scale is in real life recognized by us as a pretty good fighter.

I see what you mean about earlier templates though, I get that but I truly think that litterally everything ever rated here as a 1 and below (and Lord knows that a lot of them were done by me) are entirely too good. They are un-realistically inflated. Fighters that are south of the average fighter line by a wide margin have a rating in the game that pushes them well above the average mark.

It is just opinion and we can all change and do as we please but why on earth would you have a policy of not saying anything? That's sort of the point of a message board. Thunder (on this board) had some great ideas about this stuff at one time. His thinking directly opposed my way of reasoning this all out but thankfully we talked a lot and I saw that there was a lot of merit to what he was saying. I have since completely changed my mind. That's good, not bad. Talking about this stuff is what makes this fun and while there are a few folks that unfortunately get too irritated when something that doesn't line up with their thinking is presented, I'd hope that we all can still talk. Just don't comment directly to that person that is too touchy - that's what I choose to do.

[John Dewey]

I got a lot of grief when I stated that old time fighters (pre 1920s primes) were too highly rated in the game and needed to be dummied down. This included such stand outs as Benny Leonard. You'd have thought I had blasphemed in church! I decided that the subjects of boxing and TBCB were not important enough to get that emotional about. They're fun and interesting, but fifty millions years from now all multi-cellular lifeforms will be extinct as the sun heats up so nothing really matters.
And this is my only objection to imposing a new standard of ratings on the game. Who's going to rerate all of the fighters who should be effected by it? I took it upon myself to rerate all the oldtimers that are in my game and who I've downloaded from the forum according to my own parameters and what a pain in the ass that turned out to be! There are hundreds of them, if not well over a thousand! I've been at it for a long time and am not even a quarter the ways done.

[CONN CHRIS]

I know what you mean about the ratings (and not just the old-timers). Many, many of them are just too inflated. The scales that I made really just expand the bottom so we can put more realistic levels of stiffs into the sim. I think the biggest ratings 'problems' are in the 2-5/6 rated fighters where many appear as though they were created with the notion that a 3/4 is average. I really think the average fighter is about where my -2/-3 rating shell sits. It's a messy kettle to be sure.

[CONN CHRIS]

Oh, and I wish you wouldn't say 'last word'.

If someone gets uptight on an intertubes message board over simple discussion it's their problem not yours.

[bear]

Kid Vallejo
1922
Global ID 168579
sex male
residence
won 0 (KO 0) + lost 1 (KO 1) + drawn 0 = 1
rounds boxed 3 : KO% 0
LW ?
Vallejo, CA ?

Kid Vallejo LW slugger 0