Fantasy five pack. Michael Spinks/Ezzard Charles/Jersey Joe Walcott/Jimmy Ellis/Gene Tunney.

[Benny The Kid]

I have a customized Simulation i created from universal boxrec data incorporated appropriately across each fighter.

The object i had in mind was to try & find a fighter's true potential based of merits of their own accomplishments and weaknesses not having a machine try & dictate to me it's own thought's (on other creations of boxing games) and the fun part is acting as manager and leaning how to develop boxers properly as the simulation certainly will have guy's lose their confidence.

In simulation Past boxers are given a year to train with modern technology so some undersized fighters are bulk up with modern muscle.

Fantasy five pack: Boxers ranked right next to each other in multiple simulations.

#19 Michael Spinks 6"2" 215 4 ko's
#20 Ezzard Charles 6" 0" 208 6 ko's
#21 Jersey Joe Walcott 6' 0" 205 7ko's
#22 Jimmy Ellis 6' 1" 206 5kos
#23 Gene Tunney 6"0" 205 1 ko

Some undersized Heavyweights with outstanding defense.
Ezzard & Walcott just went back & forth.
.
Walcott & Tunney were very close
A draw and a pair of wins against each other but Walcott held a narrow advantage.

Tunney beat Ellis twice to begin but ultimately succumbed to Ellis a bit more modern boxer after he lost his confidence.

Spinks had a good enough chin and enough defense to power past the smaller fighters.

None of these guys had real power in ko's

I found it quite Interesting that In a simulation of every generation that Charles & Walcott end up exact right next to each other. Rather improbable.

It's important to note that any of these fighters are capable of getting a win over each in a 6 fight series. They are extremely close in simulated bouts.

While defense is a premium with these fighters none have enough power to overwhelm each other.

Michael Spinks produces some excellent wins over legends. His true potential was very high. He was able to outbox some very slick boxers and power past them. Obviously Spinks is a very difficult boxer to rank due to a short Hwy career.
But his peak proved to be rather high.
Just as in real life ultimately dealing Holmes his first loss.
True potential very high.

[Ezzard]

I think Walcott had a super-charged left hook that KO'd and KD'd many opponents including Charles and Marciano.

Spinks was a banger with The Jinx at 175 .

Charles scored some amazing KOs at 175 too of many extremely talented guys, including Archie Moore.

Sounds like a good sim you have. How did you put it together?

[Benny The Kid]

I been working on the simulation for about 7 years now. It's got a lot of data and kinks worked out at this point.
I created it myself.

I find it to be helpful at determining many very difficult things to perceive. Such as how good was a fighter whom never had a chance peak due to death like Luther MCcarthy. Or an incomplete career such as Gene Tunney.

Just how class B fighters whom are a bit erratic stack against other decade's class B opponents, which can be very difficult to try and analysis.

My entire model was based on the very roots of boxing. Sam Langford & Sam Mcvey. To me they hold a very important distinction in history as being two opponents whom faced each other in 6 fight series (or more if needed). Most other boxers never fought a full 6 fight series.

Trying to determine the difference in ability in simulation. Produces some fights as close Langford & Mcvey. The series goes back and forth just like Charles & Walcott. You really need a 6 fight series (or more) to try and determine the more dominant fighter. Sometimes it just takes many many rounds.

I also am a fan of the computer having no bias as far as favorite boxers. It doesn't care if your a champion or not.

The more you do the simulation it really comes down to how the fighter can handle adversity after he loses. Some fighter's had a great penchant for turning the tables in a series after a poor start. Simulation has boxer's adapting to style's and certain will have some boxer lose their confidence in a series.

I personally am most interested in whom can actually make the top 60.

Where's the cut off line.
Does a zora folley or Floyd Patterson or Tony Tucker or Nikolai Valuev or Fred Fulton or a Buddy Baer Or a Anthony Joshua
make the top 60? I do don't yet have that answer.

But i have found with a "certain class of boxer" Power becomes a bit neutralized in 6 fight series as they become completely unable to repeatedly rely on a knockout to acquire a victory and must be forced to deal with some smaller quicker boxer's who can just outlast them in a series. But size does matter (just to a certain point).