![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 |
Per the MOS, and apparently almost every single boxing article, it appears using the acronym for sanctioning bodies without a fully worded parenthesis is acceptable and the standard. I reverted this edit at Ricky Hatton with the understanding that this was the case, however, the editor has highlighted a particular sentence in MOS:ACRO that seems to state otherwise. If the editor is correct, maybe it should be added to the MOS? I’ve started a discussion on the article’s talk page and was wondering if any more experienced editors would care to comment. – 2. O. Boxing 01:13, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
It seems common practice is to link the sanctioning body on first instance and then also a detailed link to lists of champions, where applicable, on first instance. If the first instance of a title is a link to a list of champions, should the next instance be a link to the sanctioning body? The MOS implies so. If not, then shouldn’t the link of a sanctioning body be removed if it precedes that of a link to a list of champions? I believe having the organisation linked as well as any following lists of champions is better. Firstly, it’s helpful for any reader who isn’t a hardcore boxing fan looking at the table; secondly, surely this isn’t a case of duplicate links as they direct to separate articles, and if it is, MOS:REPEATLINK permits it anyway. – 2. O. Boxing 14:44, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
@ GodCipherDivine: All reliable sources recognise Shields as becoming a three division world champion in the fewest professional fights; ESPN, The Ring, BBC Sport, Sky Sports, CBS Sport, BusinessInsider, Forbes. Seeing as Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, and based on sources, Wikipedia should reflect this unarguable fact. – 2. O. Boxing 16:51, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Would anyone be able to help me with this subject? Was a national Champion in Honduras and Jamaica. FloridaArmy ( talk) 03:48, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Although there was low participation in this RfC, there is a unanimous consensus for the proposal.
Should we add the following section to the WikiProject Boxing Manual of Style?
Lineal champions
There is no single canonical list of lineal champions. Don't include the lineal championship in lists of champions, record tables or succession boxes.
Lineal championships are a point of view and should follow the neutral point of view policy:
Support adding the above section, in addition to a third point:
Support: There is no single, universally recognised, official body that awards a lineal title. – 2. O. Boxing 01:44, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi guys, I recently promoted Johnny Owen to GA, but wasn't sure where to put it, so I put in sports miscellany. However, there's quite a few GAs on the WP:BOXING list that don't appear at all. Is this on purpose, or an oversight? Should these live anywhere else in particular? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 10:42, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Per these edits at Zab Judah, we might need another source-gathering spree. I always thought it was 2006–2007 when the WBO finally counted as undisputed, but DAZN says 2004. Better sources are definitely needed. Furthermore, at the undisputed championship article, we have a line that says "Until around 2007, many considered it sufficient to hold the WBA, WBC, and IBF titles", with three sources. Mac Dreamstate ( talk) 17:32, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Should we refer to African Boxing Union titles as African titles in the boxing record tables, or in the lead section? Or just ABU? I've seen both ways done for European Boxing Union titles. I think European looks better personally but what is the consensus regarding these continental organization titles, if any? JTtheOG ( talk) 09:15, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
[[African Boxing Union|African [weight class] title]]
.
Mac Dreamstate (
talk)
12:24, 17 May 2020 (UTC)I know it has been discussed before, but every time a 'lineal title' is mentioned in a Wikipedia article, the credibility of Wikipedia diminishes. Quite simply there is no lineal title or championship. Lineal 'status' is something that people have differing opinions on, and there is no recognized sanctioning body that administers a 'lineal' title, so for an article to state that a boxer is the lineal champion, or that a fight is for the lineal title, is totally unencyclopedic. Having an article on the concept of a lineal title is as far as we should go. -- Michig ( talk) 21:41, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
Should we get an RfC started on this? If the initiative is taken now with regards to removing all mentions of lineal titles from leads and tables, some of the more determined agenda-driven editors will simply say that consensus wasn't strong enough here based on this discussion alone. Perhaps the same range of editors as the recently AfD'ed list could weigh in. Mac Dreamstate ( talk) 18:08, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
The RfC didn't get us any more input, but I don't see any reason not to move ahead. The only issue is the order of the sentences. I changed it in the RfC from what I wrote in this section, moving point 3 to the second sentence. Mac Dreamstate commented on it, but I'm not sure if that was because you preferred it where it was originally, or just didn't notice that it was still there. -- SaskatchewanSenator ( talk) 16:47, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
It seems clear to me that we should make a list and include all people who have widely accepted claims to the lineal title. The lineal title is historically important and we shouldn't completely erase it from Wikipedia due to some former disputes. We can even include an interpretations section. -- Thespearthrower ( talk) 18:48, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Can this be added to the RECORDNOT section? The majority of fighters tend to go through multiple divisions back and forth throughout their career, especially in the early days, so having "Debut at [weight]" for a third of their first ten fights would look unnecessarily messy. Even if a fighter competed solely at one weight and makes an official debut in another (such as Usyk), I still believe it's better served in the article body, as is with catchweight fights. As the MOS explains, the notes should be left for titles at stake, exceptional fight ending circumstances and notable tournaments. – 2. O. Boxing 20:08, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
If a boxer retains a title via technical knockout, but the result is later overturned due to a failed drug test, is the title still listed as retained with the additional note to explain the failed test? Or is it retained with the additional note explaining the offender was stripped (as well as the failed test)? Or is it listed as lost (with the additional note of the drug test)? – 2. O. Boxing 19:46, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Notes |
---|
Originally a TKO win for Cameron, later ruled an NC after he failed a drug test; Cameron stripped of title |
OK, I've been experimenting with the records for John Ruiz (thereby James Toney) and Chad Dawson (thereby Bernard Hopkins), and I can't settle on what looks right. In both cases, a boxer failed a drug test and the fight became an NC, although in this case it doesn't really matter how the NC came about. Ruiz (who originally lost his title) and Dawson (who retained it) got to keep their titles, but they did not "retain" them—the fights are null and void, and cannot be classed as defences. Likewise Toney did "win" the title in the ring, but his reign is nonexistent.
As I mentioned above, the format with which I was most tempted to go is to omit any mention of there being a title at stake for either boxer in an NC-nullified fight. However, in contrast to detailed trivia which is discouraged, the omission of titles may be verging on too little detail for the sake of historical value, since any title on the line (especially world level) should be of significance regardless of what happened to it.
What we could do is create a third outcome just for the purposes of NCs, to go with the "retained" and "lost" outcomes for normally occurring fights. Maybe something like "WBA heavyweight title was at stake". Mac Dreamstate ( talk) 18:22, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Notes |
---|
Originally a TKO win for Dawson, later ruled an NC after an incorrect referee call; WBC and The Ring light heavyweight titles were at stake |
site:en.wikipedia.org "professional boxer" "nc after"
site:en.wikipedia.org "professional boxer" "ruled an nc"
Mac Dreamstate ( talk) 18:37, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
The two recent events held in Mexico City were not sanctioned by the Mexico City Boxing Commission, causing BoxRec (and rightly so) to officially list all bouts at these events as NC ( first event, second event). I’ve added the latest bout and result to Miguel Berchelt's record and wanted some feedback on the explanation in the notes column. – 2. O. Boxing 12:31, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Should this article draft be accepted? Thanks! Calliopejen1 ( talk) 05:32, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
I expanded his bio at Tadeusz Pietrzykowski, but most sources focus on his wartime unofficial matches and are very sparse about his pre-war and post-war official matches. Can anyone help? He qualified to the finals of the 1937 Polish Boxing Championships (missing article, on pl the list is at pl:Mistrzostwa Polski w boksie). -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:10, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi all! I was contacted off-wiki asking if an article could be made for Jonathan Kumuteo, and boxing is really not my sphere of knowledge. As such, I am not certain whether they are notable, and ask the input of people more experienced in this field. If they are, I'd probably add it to the list of requested articles for boxing, as I am by no means confident in writing a boxing related article as I understand none of the terminology. I've gathered a few sources after some initial googling, and it seems they may meet criterion 4 of the boxing SNG, but I'm not entirely sure: [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43]. Thanks for your help, Vermont ( talk) 18:58, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Does he satisfy the criteria at WP:NBOXING? Among other things he is a two-time Asian Games bronze medalist. Thanks! Calliopejen1 ( talk) 17:18, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Dropping this link here as I expect minimal participation as is with all boxing related deletion discussions. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 August 3#Category:International light-heavyweight boxing champions. – 2. O. Boxing 13:25, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
WBC have renamed the division strawweight at their latest convention. Here's an article from World Boxing News detailing it. I've made the changes on the relevant WBC articles, just needs changing in the MOS. Also, are instances of past "WBC minimumweight champion" in individual articles to be kept as such or changed to strawweight? I'm ever so slightly leaning towards changing but not so sure. – 2. O. Boxing 15:29, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Just a heads up. Despite this, I don't think we need to change any terminology.. unless they start putting men against women. Nor do we (hopefully) need to specify "WBC male". Mac Dreamstate ( talk) 15:10, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
I've noticed Wikipedia doesn't have much on many of the important early English boxers, such as Jack Slack. I'm curious if there's much consideration of the reason for this. Is it a issue of lacking reliable sources or notability, or is it just that no one has made the articles? If the latter I'm happy to assist, though I'll probably need people to clean up my efforts. For what it's worth I submitted an article on William Stevens for review to test the waters on this, as I don't want to start on any others if it's clear none of them will be accepted, but any input would be greatly appeciatedd. Bitplayervesti ( talk) 18:56, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Are there any editors experienced with GNG willing to take a look at this afd? The article doesn't have a large number of lengthy references to examine so it wouldn't be very time consuming. – 2. O. Boxing 18:24, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
I think the medal table should be organised by the level/prestige of the tournament (regardless of medals won). For example, for English boxers (or Europeans):
Medal record | ||
---|---|---|
Men's amateur boxing | ||
Representing ![]() | ||
Olympic Games | ||
![]() |
2016 Rio | Heavyweight |
Representing ![]() | ||
World Championships | ||
![]() |
2019 Yekaterinburg | Heavyweight |
European Championships | ||
![]() |
2015 Samokov | Heavyweight |
EU Championships | ||
![]() |
2018 Valladolid | Heavyweight |
Strandzha Cup | ||
![]() |
2015 Sofia | Heavyweight |
ABA Championships | ||
![]() |
2012 London | Heavyweight |
The vast majority of medal tables I've seen are organised like this which made me think this was the standard, but the example in the MOS shows different. My main reasoning is, an Olympic bronze is considered a higher achievement than a World, European, or Strandzha Cup gold. Thoughts? – 2. O. Boxing 10:08, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Responses (Sherdog.com) regarding the reliability of Sherdog.com which is going to affect considerable amount of boxing articles. I would like to hear your opinion on that. Thanks in advance. Best, Lordpermaximum ( talk) 20:55, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
This will undoubtedly be a headache for us after the Lomachenko–Lopez fight. I refer to this discussion I started a year ago, which outlines—with sources aplenty—the lack of consensus on whether this non-transferable status should be considered a legit world title. Before the edit warring begins (I won't be around to clean up any mess until Sunday, so best of luck to all of you!), what I will say is this: until consensus is reached here first, you should revert any addition of WBC Franchise to either boxers' record tables on sight. Also keep a watch on the undisputed championship and related articles, as editors will no doubt try to add bogus claims. Mac Dreamstate ( talk) 22:04, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
As a boxing fan, I obviously don't regard López as undisputed. Whether Sulaimoney accepted the request to make the Franchise title transferable or not, it's still—per the WBC's initial statement—an honorary and non-transferable title. However, due to the WBC allowing the title to be on the line, all media sources are naming López as the undisputed champion (I could only find an article from BadLeftHook that shared my opinion). As I said, I don't agree with it and will laugh at the WBC Frencfries title til the day it's scrapped (wishful thinking), but my opinion is irrelevant and completely outgunned by the reliable sources. There hasn't been many additions of undisputed as of yet, but I'm fairly sure there will be some edit wars in the not too distant future. How will we handle this debacle? – 2. O. Boxing 11:17, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
For the MOS, I'm considering adding a {{
nowrap}} syntax to the Record, Date and Round, time columns to prevent the values from breaking off onto a new line, as they only are numerical. This appears to be acceptable per
Help:Table#Nowrap and
MOS:ACCESS (which doesn't mention it all), and would negate the use of
for all the spaces.
Mac Dreamstate (
talk)
18:47, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
This issue has come up in a AFD discussion so I thought I would bring it here. I think Wikipedia:WikiProject Boxing/Title Assessment is quite limited and needs to be expanded, especially to including the national title for some of the major boxing nations as only the British and Irish national titles are included at the moment. I have an idea about what national titles should be included but I what I would like to hear from other editors is what national titles they think should be included?-- HuntGroup ( talk) 11:03, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
When I redrew the Notability Criteria for boxers back in 2016 this is something that I had suggested. The Notability Criteria for professional boxing is far more restrictive than any other genuinely global sport. -- Donniediamond ( talk) 12:03, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
I noticed they weren't included in the list and was wondering why, seeing as they held the WBC, WBA super and IBF titles before 2007, which means they didn't need the WBO belt to be undisputed according to your criteria.
Does anyone think Milo Savage deserves a Wikipedia article. He was a professional boxer and he did fight Gene LeBell in a MMA fight. What are other people's opinions? Dwanyewest ( talk) 00:46, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Boxing in the United States needs a major overhaul, I would appreciate any assistance in improving the article. Dwanyewest ( talk) 15:09, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Does anybody think that professional boxers should have boxing records, boxers like Randolph Turpin, Dick Turpin (boxer) and especially women boxers are lacking in boxing records. What are other people's opinion? Dwanyewest ( talk) 05:56, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
This is what I spend the majority of my time doing. I just finished
Ted Kid Lewis and once I'm done with
Jack Britton,
Randolph Turpin was actually on my list of the next fighter to do. Please stop imputing blank boxing records, because when I get to some, I'm just going to delete them and start from the beginning. If you feel the inclination to do any, when you get bored, just slap a (incomplete) next to ==Professional Boxing Record (incomplete)== and it's all good. We need to collectively stop dating fights in all numbers because of how British and Americans flip the date and month. Just type Jul for July and Dec for December etc.
CaPslOcksBroKEn (
talk)
15:37, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
This has come up before (somewhere), albeit without any resolution, but I'm seeing these being bulk-added to a lot of articles now. I question whether this section is needed, because the titles succession boxes in External links handles this just the same, and in much better detail. Mac Dreamstate ( talk) 18:50, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Titles in boxing is not yet an MOS-consensus section, so I wholeheartedly suggest that User:Bigboy 691 and User:KylaH (who also bulk-added it to many articles) participate in this discussion because their edits could potentially affect many hundreds if not thousands of articles. This is no longer a WP:BOLD issue, because there is a dispute ongoing. Mac Dreamstate ( talk) 18:20, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Titles in boxing sections are redundant and less informative than succession boxes. They only show which titles and how many times they held them. The succession box shows the dates awarded/won as well as dates vacated/stripped.
CaPslOcksBroKEn (
talk)
15:53, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
After digging around I discovered these boxrec articles: https://boxrec.com/media/index.php/NYSAC_World_Heavyweight_Champion https://boxrec.com/media/index.php/NYSAC_World_Heavyweight_Title_Fights A complete list of NYSAC heavyweight champions and then a complete list of NYSAC heavyweight title bouts. I have added this title to every champion that held their belt and which fights they fought for it in with this link as evidence, but I realize we now need a Wikipedia article to show this list as the other weight classes have similar links (albeit not as extensive). CaPslOcksBroKEn ( talk) 16:02, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
As we all know, we can't list lineal anymore to boxers titles in the notes section. In the times before sanctioning bodies, they were consensus champions and their fights on boxrec are listed as being fought for "world weight-class title". Normally this is not a big deal for fighters such as Joe Gans, but when looking at Georges Carpentier, it becomes more confusing. Once the sanctioning bodies started coming into existence, we should stop listing "world light heavyweight title". At the time, the EBU title was not a title needed to be a consensus (undisputed) champion. Carpentier won that title before challenging Battling Levinsky for his world light heavyweight title and then retained the EBU alongside the world title, versus Ted Kid Lewis. This fight should be listed in the notes as Retained EBU and world light heavyweight title because of the validity of the world title recognized world wide. In a different case with a major world title, Jack Dempsey fought for the inaugural NBA heavyweight title (Proof --- https://boxrec.com/media/index.php/NBA_World_Heavyweight_Title_Fights) versus Georges Carpentier. He was the reigning world heavyweight champions and that fight is counted as a title defense. The way it is now is how it should stay because once he began defending the NBA and NYSAC, saying world heavyweight title is not needed anymore. One last issue is recognizing consensus lineal champions once they have lost all of their title from being stripped or vacating them. George Foreman and Shannon Briggs were fighting for the consensus lineal heavyweight title, a title we no longer list. There needs to be some way we can show their recognized championship so that it doesn't appear as a fight simply between contenders on Briggs' boxing record. CaPslOcksBroKEn ( talk) 16:17, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
On the page Welterweight, there is a list of the top ten longest reigning welterweight champions and their cumulative title defenses from their longest individual reign. The links provided for Jack Britton's title defenses lead to Boxing record for WikiProject Boxing/Archive 8 from BoxRec (registration required) and https://archive.org/details/TheBoxingRegisterInternationalBoxingHallOfFameOfficialRecordBook, with the latter now being a dead link that leads to a page that is no longer available. Boxrec shows that during his third reign as welterweight champion (3 years), he made 5 title defenses omitting Newspaper decisions and 12 with these decisions. How we view Newspaper decisions means everything. Newspaper decisions are fights that have “resulted in neither boxer winning or losing, and would therefore not count as part of their official fight record." It is essentially the same as a no contest in regards to how it affects a fighter's official record. 10 title defenses is not accurate as listed on that page either way we look at these newspaper decisions. What we need to decide is if we will count or omit newspaper decisions under opponents beaten should we list all 12 defenses in the first place. CaPslOcksBroKEn ( talk) 18:13, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
There are major issues with this image being added to various boxing articles by User:Andreyheavy2311. I realise it has been created in good faith and in painstaking detail, but it falls foul of several WP guidelines and should be removed from the articles.
---
Hello. I am the author of this list, and I will try to give a thesis in favor of this graph. For a start, about the flags: If in such a saturated graph there is only a list of names, they will merge against the general background, and will be poorly readable. I used two or even three flags in cases where not only citizenship is important, but also nationality. It's easier to understand who is who. Tyson Fury identifies himself as a gypsy, so I added in addition to the British flag and the gypsy. Lennox Lewis is of Jamaican origin but represents Canada and the United Kingdom. Therefore, in his case, even three flags. Regarding the linear status of the world champion. What does it mean that there is no specific data? If we do not take into account the importance of the linear championship, then we should exclude all champions before the formation of the WBA and WBC organizations. Even the NBA was essentially a national boxing association. There are a sufficient number of sources that determined the status of the line world champion. The TBRB organization is currently involved in this. -- AndreyAtanasov ( talk) 19:51, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
Stephan Rose BoxRex link is broken, and I found a live one- but is it really the same guy? It's missing his 1991 Pan Am Bronze medal and this name brings up a lot of unrelated people in Google. I'm not confident in assessing sports-related sources outside of ESPN or mainstream news. Second look much appreciated! Cheers, Estheim ( talk) 16:19, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Currently, fighters with newspaper decisions will have their newspaper decisions counted into their win/loss/draw columns in their short descriptions. This does not accurately reflect their official boxing record as these decisions are regarded as no contest bouts. We could just throw them under no contests, but that isn’t entirely genuine to their record either. We need some way to either have something that will combine all of their newspaper wins/losses/draws into one number at the very least. In an ideal world, we would have a separate list of win/loss/draws dedicated for newspaper decisions that would still add on to their total number of fights. CaPslOcksBroKEn ( talk) 00:57, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Can someone help with this? There must be a way to fix this issue along side the others I listed in different sections CaPslOcksBroKEn ( talk) 01:12, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Is trivia such as this worth mentioning in the notes? I agree it's a one off incident, but pure trivia all the same. We don't mention that John Ruiz' trainer was ejected from the arena for hurling abuse at the referee, or that Roger Mayweather stormed the ring, or that McCall had a mental breakdown against Lewis, or that Ali's trainer sabotaged his gloves to give him more time against Cooper. And the last two examples directly affected the result of the fights, with the McCall debacle being equally as rare as the Holyfield vs. Bowe situation (I can't think of another instance where a boxer refused to fight and began to cry in the middle of a round). Trivia is trivia, no matter how unique or memorable it is. – 2. O.[[User talk:Squared.Circle.Boxing|Boxing]] 14:37, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Continuing with this, I'll put forth the rationale I had in mind when originally dealing with the Notes column. The key word is brevity. Record tables are already filled to the brim with information. Seeing something like this made me figuratively puke. Scorecards? Knockdowns? Post-fight awards? Specific punches?! Live gate??!! Weigh-in details???!!! For a cramped wikitable, all of that is junk. Trivia like that—and I will unashamedly call it trivia—is better off written in the prose if it/they were that important.
Besides titles on the line, the column should only deal with circumstances regarding the final outcome of the fight—not extracurricular circumstances which may or may not have affected it (paragliders, rioters, nervous breakdowns, toilet paper thrown in the ring, someone from one boxer's team heckling the other and causing them to cry, etc.) Just the cold, hard, fight-ending circumstances if they were unusual. Technical decision? We definitely need to know what caused that (head clash, injury, etc.) and if the scores were unanimous, split, or majority. No need for the actual scorecards themselves because, again, brevity is key. And that's a BoxRec thing anyway.
If "Notes" sounds too all-encompassing and tempting for editors to include "tidbits and things of interest", why don't we call it something different? Mac Dreamstate ( talk) 20:14, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
font-size:95%
and "Professional debut", but never got around to making any requests at
WP:SCRIPTREQ.
Mac Dreamstate (
talk)
21:29, 31 January 2021 (UTC)I want to create a page for boxer Horst Stump who won a Bronze medal at the 1971 European Amateur Boxing Championships, he is also known as being used by the Romanian Communist authorities to to harass and beat up anti-communist writer Paul Goma but I don't know if that is enough to meet Wikipedia's notability rules. I asked at the Teahouse and I was told to come here with my references. These are my references for the article:
I want to know if they are good enough to meet Wikipedia's notability rules for a boxer, because I don't want to create an article that could be deleted. Sebi1990TheSecond ( talk): — Preceding undated comment added 19:34, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Being a bronze medal winner of a tournament that has a wikipedia article should be enough. Alongside his boxrec, if you can find plenty of newspaper articles and other sources it will certainly help. CaPslOcksBroKEn ( talk) 19:37, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
The issue with this is that amateur boxing is very poorly documented and those links are as good as it’s going to get unless there is some newspaper article where the lists came from/physical record book it came from.
If those links from that website are no longer allowed to be used, these articles will suffer and be deleted. Is Wikipedia just supposed to stop keeping records of Romanian amateur boxing now?
What makes this website unreliable? Is it the fact that it is unsecure? Boxrec only recently became secure last year, but it has been the main source of information on Wikipedia since boxing records started being stored here.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1971_European_Amateur_Boxing_Championships
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Amateur_Boxing_Championships CaPslOcksBroKEn ( talk) 20:57, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
I used this site's information to edit some Romanian boxers. The user Perokema deleted the information that I put saying that he thinks it is not a reliable source. From the discussions I had with him, he is not 100% sure that the site is not a good source. This site was used on wikipedia very often. There are many boxers and most boxing amateur competitions have this site as their source. I assumed it was a reliable source since other users have used it for so many times. It is a need for the more experienced users to answer the following question: Is this site reliable or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sebi1990TheSecond ( talk • contribs) 20:52, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Welcome to researching boxing :| I’m running into a similar issue with the NBA and NYSAC belts. Sometimes there is one list on the entire internet and people here won’t accept it. CaPslOcksBroKEn ( talk) 04:32, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Are these considered reliable sources?
This list shows fights that were fought for the NBA and NYSAC titles in all divisions, but occasionally will list it as “world” with simply undisputed fights.
https://www.hugmansworldchampionshipboxing.com/light-heavy
This website is extremely well documented and gets all of it’s information from old newspaper clippings. I am trying to get a hold of as many newspapers that verify the info, but I’m reaching a road block with a lack of a subscription to newspapers.com
https://titlehistories.com/boxing/na/usa/ny/
(click on regular title in historic divisions) https://titlehistories.com/boxing/wba/ CaPslOcksBroKEn ( talk) 04:30, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
His list lineal deeply flawed in my opinion and I am not going to be fighting the move Wikipedia is making from listing lineal titles. It is pure to help trace the NBA and NYSAC titles. What do you think of titlehistories.com? That website would be much more useful when it comes to accurately listing the NBA and NYSAC belts in championship fights. CaPslOcksBroKEn ( talk) 18:49, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
I was fixing some vandalism in List of United States national amateur boxing featherweight champions (from 2013 on), using the primary source. In the main list (the first reference), JaRico O'Quinn and Chris Colbert are shown winning at 56 kg, but in BoxRec, the events list them as "super bantam". Not sure about 2013 or Duke Ragan either. Are they essentially the same weight class? Clarityfiend ( talk) 23:50, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Should we start including these if everything is verifiable? It was decided a while back that Mayweather–Nasukawa was not to be included on the former's article, but I don't see a glaring reason for their omission if the result and circumstances are clearcut. Mac Dreamstate ( talk) 20:53, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
How do we handle the Tyson vs. Sanders bout in 2006? I've added it to Tyson's record but there's no result to add so the record summary stays at one draw. Is it worth putting a brief explanation in the notes column as to the reason? – 2. O. Boxing 15:41, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Not really sure why, but, Talk:Leon Spinks#Record table. – 2. O. Boxing 00:16, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
I've gone back and forth over this for some years, and I think I might've now arrived at a conclusion with which I'm satisfied. User:Dabo2000 hasn't posted since first bringing this up, but I believe he was onto the right thing all along.
In succession boxes, the WBA presents some rather irritating permutations as it relates to their 'Super', 'Regular', 'Unified', 'Undisputed', and pre-'Super' era titles. I used to be of the belief that any newly created WBA 'Super' title simply got usurped from its original no-prefix title. The best example of this is the Haye–Klitschko–Povetkin situation in 2011. Haye was the last holder of the WBA heavyweight title which carried neither a 'Super' nor 'Regular' prefix. He then lost that title to Klitschko, who immediately was listed as 'Super' champion.
The WBA then created the 'Regular' title (a term which, as far as we know, was actually created by the mainstream media rather than the WBA themselves), won by Povetkin. However, I don't think this should be considered the same title that Haye lost. If we interpret it literally, the WBA heavyweight title—before we had 'Super' (Klitschko) or 'Regular' (Povetkin) champions—is still vacant. That's how I think we should list it at Haye's succession box. Klitschko, therefore, did not win the 'Super' title from Haye; it was instead created from scratch as a result of that fight.
When it comes to 'Unified' and 'Undisputed' titles, from what I've gathered those are (and this will sound utterly ludicrous, but this is the WBA we're trying to figure out) 'Super' versions of the 'Super' title. Unless someone can find examples otherwise, I've never seen separate 'Super'/'Unified'/'Undisputed' champions. The latter two are just puffed up terminology for the 'Super' title, so they're one and the same. What I have seen is the WBA label a champion as 'Super' one week, 'Unified' the next, and 'Super' again the week after that.
As for what goes in the left box, I've been using {{s-non|reason=Inaugural champion}}
strictly for new world (not regional) champions of an organisation. See
Larry Holmes and the IBF heavyweight title, or
Joe Calzaghe and the Ring super middleweight title. For 'Super', 'Regular', regional and sub-world titles, use {{
s-new}}
instead.
Make any sense? Thought not. ;-) Mac Dreamstate ( talk) 22:00, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
If a champion is awarded a title outside of the ring their first fight for that title win or draw will be “retained” and “lost” if they lose. Listing “vacant” or “inaugural” is only used if the organization has not decided a champion prior to the fight CaPslOcksBroKEn ( talk) 01:10, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 |
Per the MOS, and apparently almost every single boxing article, it appears using the acronym for sanctioning bodies without a fully worded parenthesis is acceptable and the standard. I reverted this edit at Ricky Hatton with the understanding that this was the case, however, the editor has highlighted a particular sentence in MOS:ACRO that seems to state otherwise. If the editor is correct, maybe it should be added to the MOS? I’ve started a discussion on the article’s talk page and was wondering if any more experienced editors would care to comment. – 2. O. Boxing 01:13, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
It seems common practice is to link the sanctioning body on first instance and then also a detailed link to lists of champions, where applicable, on first instance. If the first instance of a title is a link to a list of champions, should the next instance be a link to the sanctioning body? The MOS implies so. If not, then shouldn’t the link of a sanctioning body be removed if it precedes that of a link to a list of champions? I believe having the organisation linked as well as any following lists of champions is better. Firstly, it’s helpful for any reader who isn’t a hardcore boxing fan looking at the table; secondly, surely this isn’t a case of duplicate links as they direct to separate articles, and if it is, MOS:REPEATLINK permits it anyway. – 2. O. Boxing 14:44, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
@ GodCipherDivine: All reliable sources recognise Shields as becoming a three division world champion in the fewest professional fights; ESPN, The Ring, BBC Sport, Sky Sports, CBS Sport, BusinessInsider, Forbes. Seeing as Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, and based on sources, Wikipedia should reflect this unarguable fact. – 2. O. Boxing 16:51, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Would anyone be able to help me with this subject? Was a national Champion in Honduras and Jamaica. FloridaArmy ( talk) 03:48, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Although there was low participation in this RfC, there is a unanimous consensus for the proposal.
Should we add the following section to the WikiProject Boxing Manual of Style?
Lineal champions
There is no single canonical list of lineal champions. Don't include the lineal championship in lists of champions, record tables or succession boxes.
Lineal championships are a point of view and should follow the neutral point of view policy:
Support adding the above section, in addition to a third point:
Support: There is no single, universally recognised, official body that awards a lineal title. – 2. O. Boxing 01:44, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi guys, I recently promoted Johnny Owen to GA, but wasn't sure where to put it, so I put in sports miscellany. However, there's quite a few GAs on the WP:BOXING list that don't appear at all. Is this on purpose, or an oversight? Should these live anywhere else in particular? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 10:42, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Per these edits at Zab Judah, we might need another source-gathering spree. I always thought it was 2006–2007 when the WBO finally counted as undisputed, but DAZN says 2004. Better sources are definitely needed. Furthermore, at the undisputed championship article, we have a line that says "Until around 2007, many considered it sufficient to hold the WBA, WBC, and IBF titles", with three sources. Mac Dreamstate ( talk) 17:32, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Should we refer to African Boxing Union titles as African titles in the boxing record tables, or in the lead section? Or just ABU? I've seen both ways done for European Boxing Union titles. I think European looks better personally but what is the consensus regarding these continental organization titles, if any? JTtheOG ( talk) 09:15, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
[[African Boxing Union|African [weight class] title]]
.
Mac Dreamstate (
talk)
12:24, 17 May 2020 (UTC)I know it has been discussed before, but every time a 'lineal title' is mentioned in a Wikipedia article, the credibility of Wikipedia diminishes. Quite simply there is no lineal title or championship. Lineal 'status' is something that people have differing opinions on, and there is no recognized sanctioning body that administers a 'lineal' title, so for an article to state that a boxer is the lineal champion, or that a fight is for the lineal title, is totally unencyclopedic. Having an article on the concept of a lineal title is as far as we should go. -- Michig ( talk) 21:41, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
Should we get an RfC started on this? If the initiative is taken now with regards to removing all mentions of lineal titles from leads and tables, some of the more determined agenda-driven editors will simply say that consensus wasn't strong enough here based on this discussion alone. Perhaps the same range of editors as the recently AfD'ed list could weigh in. Mac Dreamstate ( talk) 18:08, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
The RfC didn't get us any more input, but I don't see any reason not to move ahead. The only issue is the order of the sentences. I changed it in the RfC from what I wrote in this section, moving point 3 to the second sentence. Mac Dreamstate commented on it, but I'm not sure if that was because you preferred it where it was originally, or just didn't notice that it was still there. -- SaskatchewanSenator ( talk) 16:47, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
It seems clear to me that we should make a list and include all people who have widely accepted claims to the lineal title. The lineal title is historically important and we shouldn't completely erase it from Wikipedia due to some former disputes. We can even include an interpretations section. -- Thespearthrower ( talk) 18:48, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Can this be added to the RECORDNOT section? The majority of fighters tend to go through multiple divisions back and forth throughout their career, especially in the early days, so having "Debut at [weight]" for a third of their first ten fights would look unnecessarily messy. Even if a fighter competed solely at one weight and makes an official debut in another (such as Usyk), I still believe it's better served in the article body, as is with catchweight fights. As the MOS explains, the notes should be left for titles at stake, exceptional fight ending circumstances and notable tournaments. – 2. O. Boxing 20:08, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
If a boxer retains a title via technical knockout, but the result is later overturned due to a failed drug test, is the title still listed as retained with the additional note to explain the failed test? Or is it retained with the additional note explaining the offender was stripped (as well as the failed test)? Or is it listed as lost (with the additional note of the drug test)? – 2. O. Boxing 19:46, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Notes |
---|
Originally a TKO win for Cameron, later ruled an NC after he failed a drug test; Cameron stripped of title |
OK, I've been experimenting with the records for John Ruiz (thereby James Toney) and Chad Dawson (thereby Bernard Hopkins), and I can't settle on what looks right. In both cases, a boxer failed a drug test and the fight became an NC, although in this case it doesn't really matter how the NC came about. Ruiz (who originally lost his title) and Dawson (who retained it) got to keep their titles, but they did not "retain" them—the fights are null and void, and cannot be classed as defences. Likewise Toney did "win" the title in the ring, but his reign is nonexistent.
As I mentioned above, the format with which I was most tempted to go is to omit any mention of there being a title at stake for either boxer in an NC-nullified fight. However, in contrast to detailed trivia which is discouraged, the omission of titles may be verging on too little detail for the sake of historical value, since any title on the line (especially world level) should be of significance regardless of what happened to it.
What we could do is create a third outcome just for the purposes of NCs, to go with the "retained" and "lost" outcomes for normally occurring fights. Maybe something like "WBA heavyweight title was at stake". Mac Dreamstate ( talk) 18:22, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Notes |
---|
Originally a TKO win for Dawson, later ruled an NC after an incorrect referee call; WBC and The Ring light heavyweight titles were at stake |
site:en.wikipedia.org "professional boxer" "nc after"
site:en.wikipedia.org "professional boxer" "ruled an nc"
Mac Dreamstate ( talk) 18:37, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
The two recent events held in Mexico City were not sanctioned by the Mexico City Boxing Commission, causing BoxRec (and rightly so) to officially list all bouts at these events as NC ( first event, second event). I’ve added the latest bout and result to Miguel Berchelt's record and wanted some feedback on the explanation in the notes column. – 2. O. Boxing 12:31, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Should this article draft be accepted? Thanks! Calliopejen1 ( talk) 05:32, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
I expanded his bio at Tadeusz Pietrzykowski, but most sources focus on his wartime unofficial matches and are very sparse about his pre-war and post-war official matches. Can anyone help? He qualified to the finals of the 1937 Polish Boxing Championships (missing article, on pl the list is at pl:Mistrzostwa Polski w boksie). -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:10, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi all! I was contacted off-wiki asking if an article could be made for Jonathan Kumuteo, and boxing is really not my sphere of knowledge. As such, I am not certain whether they are notable, and ask the input of people more experienced in this field. If they are, I'd probably add it to the list of requested articles for boxing, as I am by no means confident in writing a boxing related article as I understand none of the terminology. I've gathered a few sources after some initial googling, and it seems they may meet criterion 4 of the boxing SNG, but I'm not entirely sure: [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43]. Thanks for your help, Vermont ( talk) 18:58, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Does he satisfy the criteria at WP:NBOXING? Among other things he is a two-time Asian Games bronze medalist. Thanks! Calliopejen1 ( talk) 17:18, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Dropping this link here as I expect minimal participation as is with all boxing related deletion discussions. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 August 3#Category:International light-heavyweight boxing champions. – 2. O. Boxing 13:25, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
WBC have renamed the division strawweight at their latest convention. Here's an article from World Boxing News detailing it. I've made the changes on the relevant WBC articles, just needs changing in the MOS. Also, are instances of past "WBC minimumweight champion" in individual articles to be kept as such or changed to strawweight? I'm ever so slightly leaning towards changing but not so sure. – 2. O. Boxing 15:29, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Just a heads up. Despite this, I don't think we need to change any terminology.. unless they start putting men against women. Nor do we (hopefully) need to specify "WBC male". Mac Dreamstate ( talk) 15:10, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
I've noticed Wikipedia doesn't have much on many of the important early English boxers, such as Jack Slack. I'm curious if there's much consideration of the reason for this. Is it a issue of lacking reliable sources or notability, or is it just that no one has made the articles? If the latter I'm happy to assist, though I'll probably need people to clean up my efforts. For what it's worth I submitted an article on William Stevens for review to test the waters on this, as I don't want to start on any others if it's clear none of them will be accepted, but any input would be greatly appeciatedd. Bitplayervesti ( talk) 18:56, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Are there any editors experienced with GNG willing to take a look at this afd? The article doesn't have a large number of lengthy references to examine so it wouldn't be very time consuming. – 2. O. Boxing 18:24, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
I think the medal table should be organised by the level/prestige of the tournament (regardless of medals won). For example, for English boxers (or Europeans):
Medal record | ||
---|---|---|
Men's amateur boxing | ||
Representing ![]() | ||
Olympic Games | ||
![]() |
2016 Rio | Heavyweight |
Representing ![]() | ||
World Championships | ||
![]() |
2019 Yekaterinburg | Heavyweight |
European Championships | ||
![]() |
2015 Samokov | Heavyweight |
EU Championships | ||
![]() |
2018 Valladolid | Heavyweight |
Strandzha Cup | ||
![]() |
2015 Sofia | Heavyweight |
ABA Championships | ||
![]() |
2012 London | Heavyweight |
The vast majority of medal tables I've seen are organised like this which made me think this was the standard, but the example in the MOS shows different. My main reasoning is, an Olympic bronze is considered a higher achievement than a World, European, or Strandzha Cup gold. Thoughts? – 2. O. Boxing 10:08, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Responses (Sherdog.com) regarding the reliability of Sherdog.com which is going to affect considerable amount of boxing articles. I would like to hear your opinion on that. Thanks in advance. Best, Lordpermaximum ( talk) 20:55, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
This will undoubtedly be a headache for us after the Lomachenko–Lopez fight. I refer to this discussion I started a year ago, which outlines—with sources aplenty—the lack of consensus on whether this non-transferable status should be considered a legit world title. Before the edit warring begins (I won't be around to clean up any mess until Sunday, so best of luck to all of you!), what I will say is this: until consensus is reached here first, you should revert any addition of WBC Franchise to either boxers' record tables on sight. Also keep a watch on the undisputed championship and related articles, as editors will no doubt try to add bogus claims. Mac Dreamstate ( talk) 22:04, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
As a boxing fan, I obviously don't regard López as undisputed. Whether Sulaimoney accepted the request to make the Franchise title transferable or not, it's still—per the WBC's initial statement—an honorary and non-transferable title. However, due to the WBC allowing the title to be on the line, all media sources are naming López as the undisputed champion (I could only find an article from BadLeftHook that shared my opinion). As I said, I don't agree with it and will laugh at the WBC Frencfries title til the day it's scrapped (wishful thinking), but my opinion is irrelevant and completely outgunned by the reliable sources. There hasn't been many additions of undisputed as of yet, but I'm fairly sure there will be some edit wars in the not too distant future. How will we handle this debacle? – 2. O. Boxing 11:17, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
For the MOS, I'm considering adding a {{
nowrap}} syntax to the Record, Date and Round, time columns to prevent the values from breaking off onto a new line, as they only are numerical. This appears to be acceptable per
Help:Table#Nowrap and
MOS:ACCESS (which doesn't mention it all), and would negate the use of
for all the spaces.
Mac Dreamstate (
talk)
18:47, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
This issue has come up in a AFD discussion so I thought I would bring it here. I think Wikipedia:WikiProject Boxing/Title Assessment is quite limited and needs to be expanded, especially to including the national title for some of the major boxing nations as only the British and Irish national titles are included at the moment. I have an idea about what national titles should be included but I what I would like to hear from other editors is what national titles they think should be included?-- HuntGroup ( talk) 11:03, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
When I redrew the Notability Criteria for boxers back in 2016 this is something that I had suggested. The Notability Criteria for professional boxing is far more restrictive than any other genuinely global sport. -- Donniediamond ( talk) 12:03, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
I noticed they weren't included in the list and was wondering why, seeing as they held the WBC, WBA super and IBF titles before 2007, which means they didn't need the WBO belt to be undisputed according to your criteria.
Does anyone think Milo Savage deserves a Wikipedia article. He was a professional boxer and he did fight Gene LeBell in a MMA fight. What are other people's opinions? Dwanyewest ( talk) 00:46, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Boxing in the United States needs a major overhaul, I would appreciate any assistance in improving the article. Dwanyewest ( talk) 15:09, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Does anybody think that professional boxers should have boxing records, boxers like Randolph Turpin, Dick Turpin (boxer) and especially women boxers are lacking in boxing records. What are other people's opinion? Dwanyewest ( talk) 05:56, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
This is what I spend the majority of my time doing. I just finished
Ted Kid Lewis and once I'm done with
Jack Britton,
Randolph Turpin was actually on my list of the next fighter to do. Please stop imputing blank boxing records, because when I get to some, I'm just going to delete them and start from the beginning. If you feel the inclination to do any, when you get bored, just slap a (incomplete) next to ==Professional Boxing Record (incomplete)== and it's all good. We need to collectively stop dating fights in all numbers because of how British and Americans flip the date and month. Just type Jul for July and Dec for December etc.
CaPslOcksBroKEn (
talk)
15:37, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
This has come up before (somewhere), albeit without any resolution, but I'm seeing these being bulk-added to a lot of articles now. I question whether this section is needed, because the titles succession boxes in External links handles this just the same, and in much better detail. Mac Dreamstate ( talk) 18:50, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Titles in boxing is not yet an MOS-consensus section, so I wholeheartedly suggest that User:Bigboy 691 and User:KylaH (who also bulk-added it to many articles) participate in this discussion because their edits could potentially affect many hundreds if not thousands of articles. This is no longer a WP:BOLD issue, because there is a dispute ongoing. Mac Dreamstate ( talk) 18:20, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Titles in boxing sections are redundant and less informative than succession boxes. They only show which titles and how many times they held them. The succession box shows the dates awarded/won as well as dates vacated/stripped.
CaPslOcksBroKEn (
talk)
15:53, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
After digging around I discovered these boxrec articles: https://boxrec.com/media/index.php/NYSAC_World_Heavyweight_Champion https://boxrec.com/media/index.php/NYSAC_World_Heavyweight_Title_Fights A complete list of NYSAC heavyweight champions and then a complete list of NYSAC heavyweight title bouts. I have added this title to every champion that held their belt and which fights they fought for it in with this link as evidence, but I realize we now need a Wikipedia article to show this list as the other weight classes have similar links (albeit not as extensive). CaPslOcksBroKEn ( talk) 16:02, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
As we all know, we can't list lineal anymore to boxers titles in the notes section. In the times before sanctioning bodies, they were consensus champions and their fights on boxrec are listed as being fought for "world weight-class title". Normally this is not a big deal for fighters such as Joe Gans, but when looking at Georges Carpentier, it becomes more confusing. Once the sanctioning bodies started coming into existence, we should stop listing "world light heavyweight title". At the time, the EBU title was not a title needed to be a consensus (undisputed) champion. Carpentier won that title before challenging Battling Levinsky for his world light heavyweight title and then retained the EBU alongside the world title, versus Ted Kid Lewis. This fight should be listed in the notes as Retained EBU and world light heavyweight title because of the validity of the world title recognized world wide. In a different case with a major world title, Jack Dempsey fought for the inaugural NBA heavyweight title (Proof --- https://boxrec.com/media/index.php/NBA_World_Heavyweight_Title_Fights) versus Georges Carpentier. He was the reigning world heavyweight champions and that fight is counted as a title defense. The way it is now is how it should stay because once he began defending the NBA and NYSAC, saying world heavyweight title is not needed anymore. One last issue is recognizing consensus lineal champions once they have lost all of their title from being stripped or vacating them. George Foreman and Shannon Briggs were fighting for the consensus lineal heavyweight title, a title we no longer list. There needs to be some way we can show their recognized championship so that it doesn't appear as a fight simply between contenders on Briggs' boxing record. CaPslOcksBroKEn ( talk) 16:17, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
On the page Welterweight, there is a list of the top ten longest reigning welterweight champions and their cumulative title defenses from their longest individual reign. The links provided for Jack Britton's title defenses lead to Boxing record for WikiProject Boxing/Archive 8 from BoxRec (registration required) and https://archive.org/details/TheBoxingRegisterInternationalBoxingHallOfFameOfficialRecordBook, with the latter now being a dead link that leads to a page that is no longer available. Boxrec shows that during his third reign as welterweight champion (3 years), he made 5 title defenses omitting Newspaper decisions and 12 with these decisions. How we view Newspaper decisions means everything. Newspaper decisions are fights that have “resulted in neither boxer winning or losing, and would therefore not count as part of their official fight record." It is essentially the same as a no contest in regards to how it affects a fighter's official record. 10 title defenses is not accurate as listed on that page either way we look at these newspaper decisions. What we need to decide is if we will count or omit newspaper decisions under opponents beaten should we list all 12 defenses in the first place. CaPslOcksBroKEn ( talk) 18:13, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
There are major issues with this image being added to various boxing articles by User:Andreyheavy2311. I realise it has been created in good faith and in painstaking detail, but it falls foul of several WP guidelines and should be removed from the articles.
---
Hello. I am the author of this list, and I will try to give a thesis in favor of this graph. For a start, about the flags: If in such a saturated graph there is only a list of names, they will merge against the general background, and will be poorly readable. I used two or even three flags in cases where not only citizenship is important, but also nationality. It's easier to understand who is who. Tyson Fury identifies himself as a gypsy, so I added in addition to the British flag and the gypsy. Lennox Lewis is of Jamaican origin but represents Canada and the United Kingdom. Therefore, in his case, even three flags. Regarding the linear status of the world champion. What does it mean that there is no specific data? If we do not take into account the importance of the linear championship, then we should exclude all champions before the formation of the WBA and WBC organizations. Even the NBA was essentially a national boxing association. There are a sufficient number of sources that determined the status of the line world champion. The TBRB organization is currently involved in this. -- AndreyAtanasov ( talk) 19:51, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
Stephan Rose BoxRex link is broken, and I found a live one- but is it really the same guy? It's missing his 1991 Pan Am Bronze medal and this name brings up a lot of unrelated people in Google. I'm not confident in assessing sports-related sources outside of ESPN or mainstream news. Second look much appreciated! Cheers, Estheim ( talk) 16:19, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Currently, fighters with newspaper decisions will have their newspaper decisions counted into their win/loss/draw columns in their short descriptions. This does not accurately reflect their official boxing record as these decisions are regarded as no contest bouts. We could just throw them under no contests, but that isn’t entirely genuine to their record either. We need some way to either have something that will combine all of their newspaper wins/losses/draws into one number at the very least. In an ideal world, we would have a separate list of win/loss/draws dedicated for newspaper decisions that would still add on to their total number of fights. CaPslOcksBroKEn ( talk) 00:57, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Can someone help with this? There must be a way to fix this issue along side the others I listed in different sections CaPslOcksBroKEn ( talk) 01:12, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Is trivia such as this worth mentioning in the notes? I agree it's a one off incident, but pure trivia all the same. We don't mention that John Ruiz' trainer was ejected from the arena for hurling abuse at the referee, or that Roger Mayweather stormed the ring, or that McCall had a mental breakdown against Lewis, or that Ali's trainer sabotaged his gloves to give him more time against Cooper. And the last two examples directly affected the result of the fights, with the McCall debacle being equally as rare as the Holyfield vs. Bowe situation (I can't think of another instance where a boxer refused to fight and began to cry in the middle of a round). Trivia is trivia, no matter how unique or memorable it is. – 2. O.[[User talk:Squared.Circle.Boxing|Boxing]] 14:37, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Continuing with this, I'll put forth the rationale I had in mind when originally dealing with the Notes column. The key word is brevity. Record tables are already filled to the brim with information. Seeing something like this made me figuratively puke. Scorecards? Knockdowns? Post-fight awards? Specific punches?! Live gate??!! Weigh-in details???!!! For a cramped wikitable, all of that is junk. Trivia like that—and I will unashamedly call it trivia—is better off written in the prose if it/they were that important.
Besides titles on the line, the column should only deal with circumstances regarding the final outcome of the fight—not extracurricular circumstances which may or may not have affected it (paragliders, rioters, nervous breakdowns, toilet paper thrown in the ring, someone from one boxer's team heckling the other and causing them to cry, etc.) Just the cold, hard, fight-ending circumstances if they were unusual. Technical decision? We definitely need to know what caused that (head clash, injury, etc.) and if the scores were unanimous, split, or majority. No need for the actual scorecards themselves because, again, brevity is key. And that's a BoxRec thing anyway.
If "Notes" sounds too all-encompassing and tempting for editors to include "tidbits and things of interest", why don't we call it something different? Mac Dreamstate ( talk) 20:14, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
font-size:95%
and "Professional debut", but never got around to making any requests at
WP:SCRIPTREQ.
Mac Dreamstate (
talk)
21:29, 31 January 2021 (UTC)I want to create a page for boxer Horst Stump who won a Bronze medal at the 1971 European Amateur Boxing Championships, he is also known as being used by the Romanian Communist authorities to to harass and beat up anti-communist writer Paul Goma but I don't know if that is enough to meet Wikipedia's notability rules. I asked at the Teahouse and I was told to come here with my references. These are my references for the article:
I want to know if they are good enough to meet Wikipedia's notability rules for a boxer, because I don't want to create an article that could be deleted. Sebi1990TheSecond ( talk): — Preceding undated comment added 19:34, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Being a bronze medal winner of a tournament that has a wikipedia article should be enough. Alongside his boxrec, if you can find plenty of newspaper articles and other sources it will certainly help. CaPslOcksBroKEn ( talk) 19:37, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
The issue with this is that amateur boxing is very poorly documented and those links are as good as it’s going to get unless there is some newspaper article where the lists came from/physical record book it came from.
If those links from that website are no longer allowed to be used, these articles will suffer and be deleted. Is Wikipedia just supposed to stop keeping records of Romanian amateur boxing now?
What makes this website unreliable? Is it the fact that it is unsecure? Boxrec only recently became secure last year, but it has been the main source of information on Wikipedia since boxing records started being stored here.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1971_European_Amateur_Boxing_Championships
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Amateur_Boxing_Championships CaPslOcksBroKEn ( talk) 20:57, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
I used this site's information to edit some Romanian boxers. The user Perokema deleted the information that I put saying that he thinks it is not a reliable source. From the discussions I had with him, he is not 100% sure that the site is not a good source. This site was used on wikipedia very often. There are many boxers and most boxing amateur competitions have this site as their source. I assumed it was a reliable source since other users have used it for so many times. It is a need for the more experienced users to answer the following question: Is this site reliable or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sebi1990TheSecond ( talk • contribs) 20:52, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Welcome to researching boxing :| I’m running into a similar issue with the NBA and NYSAC belts. Sometimes there is one list on the entire internet and people here won’t accept it. CaPslOcksBroKEn ( talk) 04:32, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Are these considered reliable sources?
This list shows fights that were fought for the NBA and NYSAC titles in all divisions, but occasionally will list it as “world” with simply undisputed fights.
https://www.hugmansworldchampionshipboxing.com/light-heavy
This website is extremely well documented and gets all of it’s information from old newspaper clippings. I am trying to get a hold of as many newspapers that verify the info, but I’m reaching a road block with a lack of a subscription to newspapers.com
https://titlehistories.com/boxing/na/usa/ny/
(click on regular title in historic divisions) https://titlehistories.com/boxing/wba/ CaPslOcksBroKEn ( talk) 04:30, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
His list lineal deeply flawed in my opinion and I am not going to be fighting the move Wikipedia is making from listing lineal titles. It is pure to help trace the NBA and NYSAC titles. What do you think of titlehistories.com? That website would be much more useful when it comes to accurately listing the NBA and NYSAC belts in championship fights. CaPslOcksBroKEn ( talk) 18:49, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
I was fixing some vandalism in List of United States national amateur boxing featherweight champions (from 2013 on), using the primary source. In the main list (the first reference), JaRico O'Quinn and Chris Colbert are shown winning at 56 kg, but in BoxRec, the events list them as "super bantam". Not sure about 2013 or Duke Ragan either. Are they essentially the same weight class? Clarityfiend ( talk) 23:50, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Should we start including these if everything is verifiable? It was decided a while back that Mayweather–Nasukawa was not to be included on the former's article, but I don't see a glaring reason for their omission if the result and circumstances are clearcut. Mac Dreamstate ( talk) 20:53, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
How do we handle the Tyson vs. Sanders bout in 2006? I've added it to Tyson's record but there's no result to add so the record summary stays at one draw. Is it worth putting a brief explanation in the notes column as to the reason? – 2. O. Boxing 15:41, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Not really sure why, but, Talk:Leon Spinks#Record table. – 2. O. Boxing 00:16, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
I've gone back and forth over this for some years, and I think I might've now arrived at a conclusion with which I'm satisfied. User:Dabo2000 hasn't posted since first bringing this up, but I believe he was onto the right thing all along.
In succession boxes, the WBA presents some rather irritating permutations as it relates to their 'Super', 'Regular', 'Unified', 'Undisputed', and pre-'Super' era titles. I used to be of the belief that any newly created WBA 'Super' title simply got usurped from its original no-prefix title. The best example of this is the Haye–Klitschko–Povetkin situation in 2011. Haye was the last holder of the WBA heavyweight title which carried neither a 'Super' nor 'Regular' prefix. He then lost that title to Klitschko, who immediately was listed as 'Super' champion.
The WBA then created the 'Regular' title (a term which, as far as we know, was actually created by the mainstream media rather than the WBA themselves), won by Povetkin. However, I don't think this should be considered the same title that Haye lost. If we interpret it literally, the WBA heavyweight title—before we had 'Super' (Klitschko) or 'Regular' (Povetkin) champions—is still vacant. That's how I think we should list it at Haye's succession box. Klitschko, therefore, did not win the 'Super' title from Haye; it was instead created from scratch as a result of that fight.
When it comes to 'Unified' and 'Undisputed' titles, from what I've gathered those are (and this will sound utterly ludicrous, but this is the WBA we're trying to figure out) 'Super' versions of the 'Super' title. Unless someone can find examples otherwise, I've never seen separate 'Super'/'Unified'/'Undisputed' champions. The latter two are just puffed up terminology for the 'Super' title, so they're one and the same. What I have seen is the WBA label a champion as 'Super' one week, 'Unified' the next, and 'Super' again the week after that.
As for what goes in the left box, I've been using {{s-non|reason=Inaugural champion}}
strictly for new world (not regional) champions of an organisation. See
Larry Holmes and the IBF heavyweight title, or
Joe Calzaghe and the Ring super middleweight title. For 'Super', 'Regular', regional and sub-world titles, use {{
s-new}}
instead.
Make any sense? Thought not. ;-) Mac Dreamstate ( talk) 22:00, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
If a champion is awarded a title outside of the ring their first fight for that title win or draw will be “retained” and “lost” if they lose. Listing “vacant” or “inaugural” is only used if the organization has not decided a champion prior to the fight CaPslOcksBroKEn ( talk) 01:10, 27 January 2021 (UTC)