Jump to content

Talk:Paul Daley

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

- In regards to citation 14: Not sure how to request, but anyone who saw the card knows that Kos managed to block the shot. Not that this is a big thing, but it's a wierd lie to put since the shot is in slow mo and Kos clearly raises his hand to stop the hook. If it was unblocked, the issue would have been far more serious as a sucker-punch haymaker from Daley would cause some serious damage.

Edit request from 99.248.193.69, 9 May 2010

[edit]

{{editsemiprotected}} There needs to be mention made of Paul Daleys attack on Josh Koschek after their previous fight. Something along the lines of "Paul Daley can now be considered to worlds dumbest mma fighter for assaulting Koschek after their fight was over." please consider entering something along those lines, this guy is a goon! 99.248.193.69 (talk) 14:24, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He has been cut by the UFC for throwing a punch after the final round, that's the only mention it needs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AcePuppy (talk • contribs) 17:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


"During the fight, Koscheck deceived the referee for the second consecutive fight. Daley threw a knee in the first round to a kneeling Koscheck, who took the opportunity to act as though it hit him with full force. The incident cost Daley a point, though when replays were shown, Dan Miragliotta overturned the point deduction."

I realize this is probably true, but this is written subjectively. This is an informational article. This should be written as "During the fight, Daley threw a knee to a kneeling Koscheck in the first round. While it cost Daley a point, after Dan Miragliotta reviewed the replay, he overturned the point deduction." 

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by SentchaDNA (talk • contribs) 23:17, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can see your point, I really can, BUT you have to consider that if you don't include this detail, then THAT is being subjective. If you fail to report the facts, then the articles just seems like it is excusing Koscheck's acting, by method of ignoring it completely.

One important point that should be noted is that it truly was acting; that's not an opinion. Dan Miragliotta re-added the point for Daley, confirming that Kos was faking. Paralympiakos (talk) 23:27, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a final point, Miragliotta could add the point back on if HE was mistaken, e.g. if Koscheck hadn't've reacted the way he did. However, Kos reacted like he'd been shot, which means that when the replay was reviewed, it then became clear he was acting. I'll repeat, any removal of this would be highly subjective. We cannot be afraid to report the facts just because it criticises the person in question. Paralympiakos (talk) 23:29, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you cannot say it's a 'fact' that Koscheck was acting, you don't know how bad it hurt - only Koscheck did. The most you can say is that he was PROBABLY acting. Miragliotta recalled the point, THAT is the fact. That Koscheck was acting is YOUR OPINION no matter how you try to interpret the ref's ruling. You're obviously a a Daley fanboy, you try to assert that his sucker punch at the end of the round is not as big of a deal as this downed knee incident. I hereby declare that you are biased and you have no place editing this article.

Fixing the article to remove your bias now. 24.21.30.144 (talk) 20:13, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The point deduction was revoked because Koscheck cheated. How else would it have been revoked? Sort yourself out and stop being a Koscheck fanboy. Paralympiakos (talk) 20:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do not add speculative nonsense about the knee and eye poke

[edit]

The whole knee//eye poke is complete specualtive nonsense that belongs on a message board and not wikipedia. For the record, joe rogan has said he was wrong for claiming the eye poke was "fake", when it actually happened, and wrong avbout the knee. The knee happened before the slow motion replay. they never replayed the actual knee that connected to kochecks face. They completely missed it.

Actually, it's been proved that nothing actually got him. There has been speculation about a prior knee to the one showed on the replay, but that's wrong. He cheated, simple as.

Of course Rogan is going to take it back. UFC don't want their welterweight contender being slammed, making the sport look bad. Don't remove it again. Paralympiakos (talk) 12:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Say what? http://www.mixedmartialarts.com/news/237645/A-knee-did-hit-grounded-Koscheck/ http://www.cagedinsider.com/ufc/fighters/josh-koscheck-kneed-ground/ http://www.cagepotato.com/do-we-all-owe-josh-koscheck-apology Proof alright, but not the kind of proof you claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.190.31.229 (talk) 02:24, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You do realise that .gif is nonsense, right? a) The referee obscures the view, b) even with that, you can still see through gaps that there is no knee hitting Koscheck. Even the comments in the link agree with me. Stop trying to defend a cheater....a proven cheater. I don't know how many times I have to say it, but THERE WAS NO KNEE! THAT IS WHY MIRAGLIOTTA TOOK AWAY THE POINT DEDUCTION. As that is that case, CHEATING! The official verdict by the referee was cheating. Paralympiakos (talk) 11:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

this is not a message board. It's an online encyclopedia, not a place for your to grind your biased axe.Whatzinaname (talk) 04:06, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It does seem that what happened isn't as clear as initially thought. The links above suggest that there was a knee involved, and the referee has since stated that he never deducted a point, rather than deducted one then put it back after viewing the replay. Anyway, if it is worth mentioning in the article, and I'm not convinced this is the case, it seems that the wording needs to be a lot more careful that what has been added. - Bilby (talk) 14:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why that's being said in the source. The referee said to Daley immediately that he was losing a point. Also, it shouldn't be reworded any differently. Anything else is just defending him. We can#t be scared to say the truth, just because it's negative towards one party. Truth is truth and we can't fabricate lies, as you want to do by removing it. Paralympiakos (talk) 14:14, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In reference to the point deduction, according to the referee: "'There was definitely confusion there because I never took a point away,' said Miragliotta."[1] So I'm a tad wary about claiming that the ref took away a point and then returned it, as that's not his version of events, at least according to that interview. As to the rest, it was noted noted above that there are sources claiming that a knee appears to connect just prior to the replay, in which a second knee missed. I'm uncomfortable with displaying this as fact - that he definitely faked the injury - given the other, later, sources that question this. - Bilby (talk) 14:22, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read those sources about a prior knee? It's utter nonsense! a) there's no knee thrown in the sources .gif file. b) had a magical first knee hit him, he'd go down immediately, not wait 2 seconds before faking pain from the second one. Utter nonsense and just a way to try (and fail) to defend a cheat. Paralympiakos (talk) 14:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that those sources raise doubt on the claim that he faked the hit. I'm not concerned about which is true, as such, but that if there are sources claiming that there was a knee and sources claiming that there was not a knee, we can't just go with the ones saying he cheated. Especially when the source you're using - ESPN - merely states "he appeared to feign injury when an illegal knee grazed his head". The wording being inserted is much stronger, and fails to acknowledge that the knee was an illegal act, anyway, whether or not it missed. - Bilby (talk) 14:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The inclusion of "a kneeling" gives credit to the illegal nature of the knee. Illegal or not, Koscheck still went down like a sack of potatoes, despite at most, a glancing blow, which is also credited. I still don't see what the problem is here. I've sourced it now. Paralympiakos (talk) 14:41, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, to clarify. The statement currently says:
During the fight, Koscheck deceived the referee for the second consecutive fight. Daley threw a knee in the first round to a kneeling Koscheck, who took the opportunity to act as though it hit him with full force. The incident cost Daley a point, though when replays were shown, Dan Miragliotta overturned the point deduction.
First, the referee states "There was definitely confusion there because I never took a point away".[2] Therefore the second part of the claim - that a point was deducted - is incorrect. Second, the source you're using states "appeared to feign injury", yet the wording you're using is the much stronger "took the opportunity to act as though it hit him". If the source isn't claiming that he definitely feigned an injury, neither should we. The source also makes it clear that the knee was illegal, whether or not it connected, while you're assuming that the reader could figure that out from the reference to kneeling. Finally, other sources have raised doubt about whether or not there was a second knee just before, emphasising the need to word this so that it isn't assuming that the injury was faked, as per ESPN. - Bilby (talk) 14:52, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Bilby. And there is some problematic original research going on here with trying to figure out the truth by looking at pictures and videos. We stick to what is verifiable from reliable sources. Do not restore your version, Paralympiakos, without getting consent from other editors, please. If you do, you will likely be blocked for edit warring on a BLP.--Slp1 (talk) 16:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PS, here's some reliable sources about the knee affair. [3] [4][5] which could be used for this point. None of them support that that he definitely feigned injury and one contradicts the point taken away claim, as per Bilby's comment above--Slp1 (talk) 16:22, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest wiki mods stop taking Paralympiakos seriously. I have seen him on the discussion boards of a number of other British fighter pages trying to stir up shit to make the British fighter look better and/or his opponent look worse. He's a UKTT troll. Highly biased, no doubt about it.

Strikeforce

[edit]

Paul Daley has not signed with strikeforce the cagepotato article was a rumor as reported by mmajunkie which is a much more reputable source http://mmajunkie.com/news/20135/officials-paul-daley-hasnt-signed-with-strikeforce-fighter-weighing-options.mma —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.68.177.40 (talk) 00:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weight Issues

[edit]

I think we should make note that Daley has missed weight on many, many occasions. I know he's missed weight on 3 occasions of his last 6 fights, and I've heard it's as much as 6 times in his last 11. If the latter is true, I think it's notable enough (if backed by references) to be added that Daley has problems making weight. What does everyone else say? Dachknanddarice (T‖C) 19:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's 5 times in 11 fights.... here's my source: SOURCE Dachknanddarice (T‖C) 19:16, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Paul Daley. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:12, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Paul Daley. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:09, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Paul Daley. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:41, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Paul_Daley&oldid=1218834313"