Parade of the Tomato Cans

[bear]

Kid Vally
1924
Global ID 320784
sex male
division bantamweight
nationality Philippines
residence
won 0 (KO 0) + lost 1 (KO 1) + drawn 0 = 1
rounds boxed 0 : KO% 0
lost on tko in Sacramento, CA

Kid Vally BW boxer 0

[bear]

Young Valenzuela
1958-1960
Global ID 133146
sex male
division welterweight
nationality Mexico
won 0 (KO 0) + lost 6 (KO 2) + drawn 0 = 6
rounds boxed 50 KO% 0

Young Valenzuela MW boxer 0

[John Dewey]

Well, maybe not the last word but I'm not going to get roped into another argument. I don't object to the concept of this new template series, I just think that the one in place, however it may be flawed, has been used for years with thousands of fighters rated with it that to scrap it now and replace it with another incompatible scale would be exceedingly difficult. That's my only objection. You couldn't expect that a fighter rated by one scale to fight another fighter rated by a different scale to achieve accurate results.

[professordp]

I'm in total agreement with John on the problems that a new template might create. Personally, some of the "scientific" approaches to rating have led to strange results. I find that to be the case with HP and Endurance ratings in particular.

My approach is pretty much the same that Dean has taken in the Day Council thread. That's to say that you need to rate fighters in the context of whom they are fighting. Which means for me, you establish a sort of "Rosetta Stone." You find ratings that make sense to you and then rate/adjust opponents around those fighters.

What I typically do is discard a rating that I think is out of the realm of realism and create a new rating in relationship to another fighter who's rating is more accurate, in my eyes.

Granted, it's a very long process and also one that's highly subjective.

Back to point. As John indicated, a new template would bring into serious question the accuracy of those thousands that already exist. Thus, the entire universe of existing fighters would need to be rated within the new template's parameters.

[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.

[professordp]

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.

Very well stated!!

[bear]

Kid Valor
1955
Global ID 210040
sex male
residence
won 0 (KO 0) + lost 1 (KO 1) + drawn 0 = 1
rounds boxed 3 : KO% 0
FW ?
Vera Cruz, Mexico ?

Kid Valor FW slugger 0

[bear]

Young Van Ess
1921-1923
Global ID 284023
sex male
residence Jackson, Michigan, United States
won 0 (KO 0) + lost 0 (KO 0) + drawn 0 =
rounds boxed 0
Newspaper Decisions won : lost 1 : drawn 2
rounds boxed 20
Total Bouts 3 KO% 0
BW ?

Young Van Ess BW boxer 0

[bear]

Kid Van Zant
1921
Global ID 469446
sex male
division welterweight
nationality United States
residence Dallas, Texas, United States
won 0 (KO 0) + lost 1 (KO 1) + drawn 0 = 1
rounds boxed 4 : KO% 0
143 lbs
scheduled 10, tko'd

Kid Van Zant WW boxer 0

[bear]

Roger Tex Watkins
1959-1968
Global ID 89635
sex male
division middleweight
nationality United States
alias Tex
residence New Orleans, LA/Evansville, IN
won 12 (KO 6) + lost 11 (KO 2) + drawn 0 = 23
rounds boxed 113 : KO% 26.0
152 - 162.5 lbs
prelim guy 59-61 no listed fights till 1966 when he had a few main events
Rated on the higher end of the zero scale

Roger Tex Watkins MW slugger 0

[bear]

Keith Vance
1958-1959
Global ID 295250
sex male
division middleweight
nationality United States
residence Indianapolis, Indiana, United States
won 1 (KO 0) + lost 1 (KO 1) + drawn 0 = 2
rounds boxed 5 KO% 0
161 lbs
Tex Watkins debut opponent

Keith Vance MW boxer 0

[bear]

Kid Vancinni
1924
Global ID 269814
sex male
division flyweight
nationality United States
residence Maine, United States
won 0 (KO 0) + lost 1 (KO 1) + drawn 0 = 1
rounds boxed 1 : KO% 0
also listed as Young Vincent

Kid Vancinni fly boxer 0

[bear]

Kid Vandee
1936-1937
Global ID 324458
sex male
division bantamweight
nationality United States
residence Minot, North Dakota, United States
won 0 (KO 0) + lost 2 (KO 1) + drawn 0 = 2
rounds boxed 6 : KO% 0
129 lbs

Kid Vandee BW boxer 0

[vistaman44]

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.

[bear]

Bobby Lamar
1928-1935
Global ID 449639
sex male
division welterweight
nationality United States
residence Lynchburg, Virginia, United States
won 1 (KO 1) + lost 3 (KO 1) + drawn 2 = 6
rounds boxed 40 : KO% 16.67
148 lbs
Lamar was reportedly from Laredo, Tex.
only boxrec win vs Young Vanhorne

Bobby Lamar WW slugger 0

[bear]

Young Vanhorne
1928
Global ID 463644
sex male
nationality United States
residence Fort Bragg, North Carolina, United States
won 0 (KO 0) + lost 1 (KO 1) + drawn 0 = 1
rounds boxed 4 : KO% 0
WW ?

Young Vanhorne WW slugger 0

[bear]

Young Johnny Varela
1925-1926
Global ID 187493
sex male
division featherweight
nationality United States
residence
won 3 (KO 1) + lost 5 (KO 2) + drawn 1 = 9
rounds boxed 26 : KO% 11.11
California ?

Young Johnny Varela FW slugger 0

[bear]

Originally Posted by vistaman44

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.

I've been following the comments and exchanging emails with John Dewey, but I haven't commented myself as of yet. All of us who rate fighters work within certain parameters. When I initially began rating fighters I began with an assumption that any fighter with a winning record should be at least a 1. This was ever so wrong and I'll ilustrate why. Back in 05 I saw Shannon Briggs fight the African Assassin, a guy named Abraham Okine at the IBHOF induction weekend bout at Turning Stone Casino. Okine was 14-0 and being promoted as a comer. He was bloody terrible. Almost teetered over after a jab by Briggs. Was exposed as bereft of talent in this bout. Okine has a rating of 1 by the db team. One of the guys he padded his record against was Adam Smith. Smith is arguably the poorest HW I have ever witnessed. A body builder with no athleticism. His punches looked like slaps and flailings. I rated him in the TC parade years ago. His record is now 6-19-1 with 3 KO wins. He's a zero with a CF 3 and low PL in my rating. One of the guys he beat, Mike Napple, was 9-0 at the time. To lose to Smith gives Napple a higher degree of ineptness. The guys that lost to Napple would be worse and are the types I'd deal lower ratings to. Napple would be a zero, but not remotely close to the top end of that spectrum.
The new templates, will, help to add to the bottom range of losing fighters.
I plan to utilize it. I'll do this sparringly and hopefully judiciously. I really wish I'd had these templates earlier. There have been instances when I've wished I could make a TC worse, than the rating I was able to post. There was one stalwart that I posted during the last month that lasted a whole 0:17 in the first round of his only fight. There are a number of 0-8 types that may only have been KO'd once or twice while facing really poor opponents. I'd like to have lowered their PL possibilities below 22. When I use the newer templates I'll indicate that I've done so when I post the fighter to the forum.
Backtracking a little bit to the parameters that we assume. There are a number of decent journeymen fighter in the database with winning records that are rate 0. L.C. Morgan is a really good example of one. Given this my parameters are a bit different from Mark's. If a fighter has won some kind of belt, I tend to rate him no lower than 1. If you won the Nigerian WW title at one time I'd think of you as a 1, at the very least, and work from there. There are exceptions. If you won the Flyweight championship of Montana, you probably beat the only other guy in the state in that weight class and would be a 0. If you were fighting in the UK during the Lonsdale Belt era up to about 1970 and won one of the Area titles I'd think of you as minimally a 2 and I'd think of the losing challenger as minimally a 1. In this time frame their were hundreds of good fighters in each area that never got a sniff at an area title shot. I'd think of belt holders and challengers for individual titles of countries in a manner that reflects their boxing population. France would, for example, supercede Portugal. I'd look at 3 as the minimal rating for a Lonsdale belt winner. Commonwealth and EBU winners would minimally be a 4.
There are also some areas of the world where there is just a paucity of records for fighters. Mexico is one of these locations as John Dewey has mentioned to me. Cuba, and a host of African countries are good examples also. If a guy, in his only listed boxrec bout, is in a scheduled 10 vs a name fighter he has likely been around the block before and isn't a run of the mill TC. Look at the records of Dick Tiger's opponents in Nigeria. They are really sparse. These "early record not available" types didn't just appear out of a vacuum. They had to have some experience and skills.
These are some of my reflections on this topic.

[vistaman44]

Agreed, Bear. Some folks are just very difficult to rate. You can't go strictly on record, wins or losses. Even head-to-heads can be misleading.

On another note, Tea has been doing a good job on his updates of modern male fighters.

Thanks, John, Tea, Bear and all!

[bear]

Originally Posted by vistaman44

Agreed, Bear. Some folks are just very difficult to rate. You can't go strictly on record, wins or losses. Even head-to-heads can be misleading.

On another note, Tea has been doing a good job on his updates of modern male fighters.

Thanks, John, Tea, Bear and all!

I'm glad that John and Ice Tea are confortable rating active fighters because I'm not unless they are obvious tomato cans