New Book Heavyweights by the Numbers

You mean, kind of like BOXREC?

It's garbage in, garbage out. If the "strict mathematical formula" is crap, then the results will be crap.

Anything that has Liston 3 can immediately be discounted.

 

It sure isn't...boxing doesn't fit neatly into any cockamamie formulas.

 

Looks like this guy ran into the same problem Rummy did making those videos with his formula. He put so much time into crunching those numbers and trying to put a fine looking product together that when it came out garbage in the end he didn't have the heart to throw it away.

However, I did see a heavyweight KO stat comparison formula I liked on a guy's website once.
http://www.heavyweightblog.com/1267/ko-statistics-of-ko-kings-tyson-klitschko-shavers

He compares the ranking and weight of the KO victims, so you don't get as much credit for knocking out a 185er as a 235er or an unranked guy versus a top contender. Seems like a mostly fair way to judge overall knockout power.

 

I love the PC version - 2.5 doesnt have the bugs the newest version has.

Whoever did the ratings for the fighters is so bad.... Very very bad. Just as if someone based it all on stats only, which I believe is what was done. Practically everyone has to be reworked. You can edit these yourself.

I find it gives reaonable/believable results most of the time. It has many flaws, but worth tinkering with.

The book criteria sounds like it has flaws just as the game does, but its all for fun anyway... Its always fun to think about.

So much of this is subjective. So many variables go into fights, personal lives of fighters, managerial problems, injuries going into fights, etc that its impossible that this simulator or system should be coming up with the result of Liston destroying Patterson in the first more times than most, or that Foreman destroys Frazier every time out.

Its interesting to see how this particular rating system ended up with the results it did... That tells you stats aren't everything.