Okay since I can't comment over on OOTP I thought I would throw my two cents in ...

The only way to fairly rate fighters is to rate them based on how they did against other fighters in era ...

Anything else is just one person's opinion ... I thought Holyfield was wildly overrated at HW and might only rate him an 8 at HW. Others might think he was a warrior (i.e. got punched in the face a lot) and rate him a 13 .....

I personally think Wlad would of had the same success in the 80's that he does now .... others think he sucks.

If you rate them compared to how they did in their era then the rating is subjective and fights against other eras are just what if's like it should be.

If I am rating Floyd Patterson and Mike Tyson based on how I think the fight would have come out then the ratings are 100% in correct.

Just my .02$