Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Boxing/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Title bouts for missed weights

"If a title was not at stake for a boxer who missed weight, then it does not need mentioning at all; only mention it on the record for the boxer who was eligible to fight for it"

In what way is this justified? If a fighter misses weight when fighting for a title, it is not obvious in any way whatsoever that the fight was anything more than a fight between contenders. Somebody going through records is not going to know the belt was on the line unless they went to the other boxer's Wikipedia page, which they wouldn't have a reason to do necessarily if the belt isn't listed.CaPslOcksBroKEn (talk) 03:20, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

You have a valid point. It was one of the first elements originally included in MOS:BOXING/RECORDNOT, which (as you've seen me explain to editors unfamiliar with it) was to maintain brevity in the Notes column. However, if we change it to something which accommodates a titleholder missing weight, then I fear it may open up a can of worms for other things like "[Boxer] was stripped of [title] after this fight for inactivity" or even worse.. catchweights. I would vehemently oppose the inclusion of those.

I will suggest something like "[Champion] missed weight; title at stake for [Opponent] only". Similar to no-contests. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 18:49, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, after I posted this I started thinking of something similar to what you are suggesting. There still needs to be a clarification of what sanctioning body it was and which division they missed weight for. I understand the need for brevity of the notes column, but as I continue putting thousands of fights onto Wikipedia, there are many instances, especially with much older fighters where it is nearly impossible to explain certain DQ’s or No contests without quite a bit of writing. Take a look at the work I did on Joe Gans’ record and look at his fights against Martin Judge (2nd), Frank Erne (1st), and Joe Kid Robinson (1st) and you’ll see some examples of needing to write. I have cut this down significantly too. I implore you to go to my user page. I have a list off all the fighters that I added boxing records for. Not all are perfect as I have just now gotten to the point of not making mistakes with locations and I need to clean some up, but any additions for them would be much appreciated. I just feel that this situation of missed weight needs to be addressed and fixed CaPslOcksBroKEn (talk) 19:19, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

The more I think about it, the more it makes sense. I think the mention should only be on the boxer's record who missed weight though, just for clarity as to why that particular fight wasn't for the title listed in the bout prior. The opponent should stick with "For vacant". If the opponent misses weight and becomes ineligible, I think it should be left blank. – ².O.^Boxing 12:06, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

First examples with the new format at Gervonta Davis and Adrien Broner. It's perhaps a smidge wordy, but not much different to our myriad TD, DQ or NC explanations. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 20:54, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Daniel Jacobs was a bit trickier because it was so specific, but it's the best I could come up with for now. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 22:22, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Hagler

Practising my style. 1 day left at recently died board. Bokoharamwatch (talk) 15:32, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Linealboxingchampion.com

Are rankings by this website worthy of inclusion? Looking at their "About" page, they seem to have credible people working for them, but I simply can't find any secondary sources that discuss their rankings, not even a passing mention of the website itself. Additions like these: 1, 2, are just more unnecessary fluff from a completely unknown entity. Something I think we could do without. Pinging Anthony Williams Boxing to the discussion as they're their edits. – ².O.^Boxing 16:27, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

To anyone that closely follows women's boxing, BoxRec's ratings are more or less meaningless when it comes to divisional and P4P ratings - computerized nonsense. Case in point: the site currently has Chantelle Cameron above Amanda Serrano! Likewise, ESPN only produces a P4P list (no divisional rankings), and their P4P list is viewed as erratic at best - their current list has Mikaela Mayer above Bermudez. This is laughable to anyone who understands the sport. I see little point in posting such ratings all over Wikipedia - does ESPN even have anyone credible people on its panel? Who? The ratings produced by Lineal Boxing Champion are transparent, and pre-date those made by The Ring, so are valuable in my opinion. Also, there is a full archive of all the ratings on the site, much like on the TBRB's website. The Ring's female rankings are useful, but is there a full record anywhere? They do not even appear in the physical print of the magazine. Also, the LBC panel has two members of the Women's Hall of Fame on it, as well as Ring Magazine and Boxing Monthly writers.

I hope this adds to your discussion. Kind regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthony Williams Boxing (talk • contribs) 17:19, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

In men’s boxing I do not know of any boxing analyst/expert who would refer to BoxRec ratings over those produced by The Ring and the TBRB. Do you? In women’s boxing, swap the TBRB for Lineal Boxing Champion. A certain amount of common sense and human judgement is essential, or you’ll get ratings that will make no sense. And as stated previously, ESPN do not make divisional rankings for female boxing. Anthony Williams Boxing (talk) 19:56, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

My issue is that the website hasn't (as far as I can see, correct me if I'm wrong) been covered in any reliable source. Whether their rankings are decided by a panel or computerised system is irrelevant. BoxRec rankings (regardless of their random refactoring of rankings and to boxing fans, comical inaccuracies, as you've pointed out) are covered in multiple reliable sources. The only thing (in my opinion) your argument raises is the worthiness of using BoxRec rankings, which is debatable. – ².O.^Boxing 21:57, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I have seen Lineal Boxing Champion referenced by the Women’s Boxing Archive Network (their site is probably the most valuable, respected, and informative resource in women’s boxing, the owner of which is the person who created the Women’s Hall of Fame), but yes, female boxing is a niche sport, within a niche sport - it’s hardly surprising you don’t see the ratings published in newspaper articles etc.

Until her last fight, I don’t think BoxRec had Shields in the P4P top 10, while all analysts in the sport had her in the top 2. As the years pass, fans may end up relying what Wiki says, and depending on what is written, this could be highly misleading/damaging.

David Avila and Yuriko Miyata have been covering women’s boxing across various publications for 20 years - they’re on the panel and back the Lineal Boxing Champion ratings. I’ll side with them over a biased TV company and a computer program. Anthony Williams Boxing (talk) 07:38, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

No, these rankings are not worthy of mention. This is one of a number of unofficial boxing sites with no authority or recognition, and the people listed as contributing to it seem to be mostly people who contribute to boxing blogs and fansites. --Michig (talk) 07:48, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

FYI. I have some knowledge of the panel members.

- David Avila is also on the Ring Magazine’s ratings panel. And he is on the Boxing Writer’s Association of America female ratings panel too. As well as being in the Hall of Fame.

- Yuriko writes for Ring Magazine, is a member of The Ring’s ratings panel too, and last time I checked, she was on the TBRB panel too.

- Cocks writes for Boxing Monthy. Or used to.

- Blanca Guttierrez is in the Women’s Hall of Fame.

- Inaky Arzate - I think is a pundit and presenter for Mexico’s top boxing channel, TUDN. Not 100% sure on that one.

• Michig* May I ask what your real name is and what qualifications you have regarding this topic to be so dismissive of the men/women mentioned above?

Also, how many full time, professional journalists are there in boxing these days? Are there any? I can’t imagine even the editors of Ring Magazine make enough to do that full time.

I just checked the ESPN ratings panel members. Who is Bernardo Pilatti? Charlie Moynihan? Kel Dansby? I have no idea. Anthony Williams Boxing (talk) 10:19, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

My other issue in this discussion is that there is no historical record (as far as I know) of BoxRec ratings. If significant ratings are not referenced at the time of the fight, they will be lost altogether. With women’s boxing, because of its limited popularity, many such ratings simply will not be recorded. At least The Ring has some sort of trail/record, via online articles, although they are not printed in the magazine. ESPN have no record of their P4P lists, and don’t produce divisional ratings.

I appreciate the the concerns raised in the initial question/post, and so am in favour of using the Ring ratings. For balance though, and comparison, the Lineal Boxing Champion ratings could also be used, at least until more popular, well referenced, divisional ratings start being in common use - at the moment there aren’t any. For instance, if Boxing News or even ESPN start making such ratings (and make the historical lists accessible eg. Via Boxing News magazine or online) there would be a strong case for using them instead. Anthony Williams Boxing (talk) 18:16, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

The bottom line is that nobody in boxing cares about rankings from this website, and neither should we. --Michig (talk) 17:15, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Michig. Do you follow women’s boxing? Or are you speaking from the perspective of someone who only follows men’s boxing?

Nobody with any serious credentials in boxing cares about BoxRec, but people SPAM that all over Wiki. Tell me the name of a credible person in women’s boxing who who values BoxRec over LBC’s ratings?

Ring magazine ratings should be used, but to show balance and impartiality, until something superior comes along, Lineal Boxing Champion’s ratings should also be cited.

Anthony Williams Boxing (talk) 23:24, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I follow women's boxing. You're right about Boxrec - these shouldn't appear either. The only ratings/rankings that carry any real weight in boxing are those from the WBC, WBA, IBF, WBO, and Ring magazine, however flawed many of those are. For that reason, these are the only ones that we should give any weight to in Wikipedia. --Michig (talk) 08:28, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I searched WBAN for mentions of LBC and one result came up, this. She is also ranked 6th in IBO, 4th in WIBA, 3rd in WBF, 4th in UBF and 6th in the Lineal Boxing Champion. And that is the only mention I could find, anywhere. Whether or not the LBC's rankings are more logical than others is irrelevant. The other rankings used are either from reputable sources (ESPN, The Ring) or have been cited multiple times in reliable sources (BoxRec, TBRB). Whether or not the aforementioned rankings should be used would probably be best brought up in an RfC. As for LBC, an RfC isn't needed, it shouldn't be included. – ².O.^Boxing 20:20, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

ESPN, and the TBRB do not make divisional rankings for female boxing.

BoxRec’s are not respected.

This only leaves The Ring and LBC.

Anthony Williams Boxing (talk) 22:39, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

ESPN and the TBRB may be mentioned multiple times in reliable sources...but they do not make divisional ratings for the women’s side of the sport.

LBC does, and its rankings pre-date The Ring.

From April 2019 until mid 2020, the only independent ratings for which there is any record, is found on Lineal Boxing Champion’s website. And they were produced by reputable analysts within the sport. How can this be ignored?

Question. Who was the #1 bantamweight in the world in April 2019? LBC has Mariana Juarez listed as #1.

Who did ESPN, The Ring or the TBRB have listed as #1? Nobody, because their ratings did not exist (and do not exist in the case of ESPN and Ring). And where is BoxRec’s archives from this period? There is no record. Anthony Williams Boxing (talk) 22:52, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

(and do not exist in the case of ESPN and the TBRB) Anthony Williams Boxing (talk) 22:54, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

We don't include things because they're useful, we include them because they're deemed notable, which, by Wikipedia standards, LBC is not. – ².O.^Boxing 11:57, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Request for Comment on SSN at WP:Notability (sports)

There is a discussion on SSN (sport specific guidelines) at RFC on Notability (sports) policy and reliability issues. Feel free to go there and post your comments. Cassiopeia^(talk) 00:53, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Proposed change in sports notability policy

A proposal is pending that would prohibit the creation of sports biographies unless supported by "substantial coverage in at least one non-routine source". In other words, articles supported solely by statistical databases would not be permitted, and at least one example of WP:SIGCOV would be required to be included before an article could be created. If you have views on this proposal, one way or the other, you can express those views at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#Fram's revised proposal. Cbl62 (talk) 19:00, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Minor NC wording change

For no-contests which occurred at the time of the fight (not ones which had the original result overturned to an NC), I propose a tweak to their wording in record tables, again to make things a bit more concise:

No.	Result	Record	Opponent	Type	Round, time	Date	Location	Notes
50	NC	49–0 (1)	Opponent	NC	2 (10), 1:53	5 Jun 2021	Some place	[Opponent] unable to continue after an accidental head clash [Boxer] unable to continue after falling out of the ring [Opponent] unable to continue after a cut from an accidental head clash [Boxer] unable to continue after a cut from an accidental elbow [Opponent] unable to continue after a [Boxer] foul

What's changed is I've done away with "NC after", since it's clear to see in the Result and Type. They're still quite wordy, but trimmed at least somewhat.

NCs changed retroactively ("Originally an SD win for [Boxer], later ruled an NC after...") will be unchanged. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 19:08, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree, seems logical. – ².O.^Boxing 09:55, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm also experimenting with the wording for technical decisions/draws. Again, just a minor tweak—see example at Paul Williams. Therefore we'd get something like these:

No.	Result	Record	Opponent	Type	Round, time	Date	Location	Notes
19	Win	15–3–1	Opponent	TD	5 (12), 3:00	8 Dec 2022	Some place	Unanimous TD: [Boxer] unable to continue after an accidental head clash Split TD: [Opponent] unable to continue after falling out of the ring Majority TD: [Boxer] unable to continue after a cut from an accidental head clash

I'll find and edit them via a Google string soon. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 17:00, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Ugh.. this latest fiasco for Regis Prograis reads horribly unwieldy and has me stumped. I've looked at it repeatedly and thought of ways to shorten it, but it's impossible with such a complicated series of events. One of the rare situations where "TD because something common occurred" cannot be invoked. What's say we just leave it as "Originally a unanimous TD win for Prograis, later ruled a TKO" and let the prose (whoever gets around to writing it) handle all the details? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 20:29, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

What about, "Originally a unanimous TD win for Prograis, later ruled a TKO due to incorrect referee call"? I'm sure I've seen that used before. – ².O.^Boxing 21:14, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Oh yes, good spot! Ryan Burnett and Chad Dawson might be the ones you're thinking of. That works great. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 21:51, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Rankings

These paragraphs are turning into mucho clutter in lead sections. Currently we have The Ring, TBRB, ESPN and BoxRec all being promoted, essentially. I think some editors may have tried to shoehorn others in like Boxing News or [insert any oh-so important publication here]. Then we have the pound-for-pound rankings (why isn't that article hyphenated, anyway?) I don't know about you lot, but it's becoming such drivel to read, let alone update.

User:Michig brought it up at Talk:Tyson Fury that TBRB and ESPN should not be present at all. I don't quite want to say "Let's ditch everything except The Ring", but maybe we could come up with something to make their inclusion less clunky. By the way, "pound-for-pound boxer" makes no grammatical sense, so we're not changing it to that. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 18:39, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

None of the above rankings mean very much, apart from maybe The Ring, as (biased as they are, and like the major sanctioning bodies) they dictate who can fight for championships/belts. If someone's got a sufficient ranking that an editor thinks it's worth mentioning, chances are the boxer concerned will hold or fight for recognized titles, which are much more worthy of mention. I don't think any rankings should appear in the lede. --Michig (talk) 21:47, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Maybe a good alternative is modifying the infobox to put in a ranking. That is what they do for tennis players (see Roger Federer). For as who to include, I suggest two paths.

(1) Ring, TBRB, and Boxrec - the historical rankings, the modern equivalent after Golden Boy Promotions takeover, and the accepted computer. All three of these are features at List of current boxing rankings.

(2) IBF, WBA, WBC, and WBO - the four major sanctioning bodies. These four (along with The Ring) are the rankings used for WP:NBOX.

This way the info is there, but it is not cluttering up the lead section.

BTW, if we do go with this and it comes to a vote, I vote (1) because those rankings are more legitimate/independent. RonSigPi (talk) 13:10, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

The current rankings are okay, but some of the historical stuff is over the top, like:

He is the only fighter to have been ranked as the world's best heavyweight by BoxRec twelve times. He has been ranked among BoxRec's ten best heavyweights seventeen times, the third most in history. He won 8 fights that were rated by BoxRec as 5-Star, the third most in the history of the heavyweight division.

--Jahalive (talk) 17:49, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

For sure. Eventually we need to rid all articles of that BoxRec puffery. Only one editor (who keeps adding them) seems to care about that stuff. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 18:32, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I think The Ring should be included, as Michig said their rankings at least somewhat determine if a boxer fights for a title. I've kind of gone off BoxRec a little due to their random restructuring, but that's just my opinion, and their rankings are still sometimes quoted in the media. TBRB, to me, basically focuses on lineal, and lineal is trash, so I wouldn't be too fussed if that got dropped. I like RonSigPi's suggestion of having them included in the infobox though. – ².O.^Boxing 11:41, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

The BWAA ranking poll is being added too. It is getting to be too much. I support putting them in some sort of table or infobox. The ESPN rankings are the least significant and should be the first to go.--Jahalive (talk) 18:06, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Fight record tables

Hi all, I'm currently in the process of running Johnny Owen through FAC. One reviewer has raised concerns over the fight record list not being in chronological order as generally required by MOS:CHRONOLOGICAL. Does anyone know why boxing articles use this descending style to present the information, I can't seem to find anything on the subject? Thanks. Kosack (talk) 07:25, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

There's no particular reason for it other than BoxRec uses that format. All I can say is, changing many thousands of boxer's record tables to ascending order would be a horrific nightmare at this stage. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 17:14, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

They don't have to be done all at once, just as and when. Of course it makes literally no sense for every table in all of Wikipedia to be in chronological order except boxing records, so it's good to see that the better material, e.g. GA/FA, now properly adheres to MOS guidelines, not peculiar "local" rules which have precisely no justification beyond "that's a bit of work to do" and/or "we just copied another website format". The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:17, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I haven't seen boxrec do that...If we want to make it optional we could try mass adding {|class="wikitable sortable" style="text-align:center" to boxing records as it appears on Boxing career of Muhammad Ali.CaPslOcksBroKEn (talk) 14:46, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

BoxRec isn't just "another website", it's the official record database used by the Association of Boxing Commissions and Combative Sports (as seen here). The Descending order is the standard format used in combat sports. A few examples: ESPN, Sherdog, mixedmartialarts.com, tapology.com, UFC, World Boxing Association, PBC. I think a widely (if not universally) used format is a good enough reason to ignore MOS:CHRONOLOGICAL. – ².O.^Boxing 11:52, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I might be confused by the original editor. All of our boxing record tables are in descending order…The way it is formatted on Johnny Owen from his first fight on the top and his last fight on the bottom is something I have NEVER seen on boxrec.com. Every record I create, I use with Boxrec and start at the bottom of the last page of fights and essentially start copying and pasting with the first fight at the bottom and the last fight at the top. The way we format fights is not and should not be identical to boxrec as it would be a meaningless waste of time. There are different things you can learn from both as I have the ability to use separate sources that have done a deeper dive on the histories of the championship titles (which is extremely lacking on boxrec as well as inconsistent). We can see the fighter’s record after every fight in order without needing to jump to different pages, which also only show the unofficial records for fighters with newspaper decisions/no contests. CaPslOcksBroKEn (talk) 15:57, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Copy editing needed at Roy Ankrah

This article could use some assistance, if anyone has time. I would consider altering the introduction as well. As a non-boxing fan reader the very first sentence was unintelligible to me. Best.4meter4 (talk) 13:53, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

@4meter4: I've had a very brief crack at it and split the most notable aspects into it's own lead paragraph, but the big ol' chunk of text that follows still needs some work. – ².O.^Boxing 14:31, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Pinging @CaPslOcksBroKEn: who may enjoy diving into it and doing a bit of research. – ².O.^Boxing 14:34, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm finishing up Tippy Larkin's full record. When I'm done (likely today) I will run through Ankrah's record for you guys.CaPslOcksBroKEn (talk) 14:42, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Also, I rewrote the opening paragraph.CaPslOcksBroKEn (talk) 14:54, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Nice work! That reads much better.4meter4 (talk) 17:03, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Apologies, life has gotten in the way somewhat and I have put Tippy Larkin on hold until I finish a draft for List of NSYAC world boxing champions. I decided to get Ankrah out of the way and got 35 or so of his fights completed, but my main computer is not working so I won't be able to work on any big edits for the time being until I get it fixed. Ankrah's record is the first thing on my list when my computer is back up and running.CaPslOcksBroKEn (talk) 16:03, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Cannabis and sports

New stub: Cannabis and sports. Any project members care to help expand? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:51, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Use of BoxRec as a source

Hi. I've recently learned that BoxRec is used by editors on this project as a source. At Wikipedia:WikiProject Boxing/MOSGuidelines, it states, "BoxRec is usually a sufficient source, but a tale of the tape from recent fights (always specify the network) may be better." And on Wikipedia:WikiProject Boxing, one user, PollShark, said that they use it as a source.

My question is, how does this not violate WP:USERG?

BoxRec, after all, is a wiki. On BoxRec's General disclaimer, it states: "This is an extremely dynamic Wiki-based website--meaning that any BoxRec Boxing Encyclopedia page can be edited at any time."

A number of editors in multiple discussion at WP:RSN have indicated that it is not reliable, especially for biographical information, specifically here and here.

Your thoughts would be appreciated. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 13:19, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

@Nightscream: the general disclaimer you've linked is from BoxRec's "sister encyclopaedia", which registered users can edit in the same manner as here (as far as I'm aware) and definitely should not be used as a source. The BoxRec database, which is what this project recommends using, can only be edited by the editorial staff. For fight details and a boxer's fighting stance/height/reach...I believe BoxRec is generally reliable; they get their information directly from whichever boxing commission sanctioned an event. Additionally, it's used as boxing's official record keeper by the Association of Boxing Commissions and Combative Sports (seen here). For the the name and place of birth, they get most of their information from media sources and occasionally from a boxer's management/promotional team (or even the boxer themselves), so I don't think it should be used as the sole source for such things. – ².O.^Boxing 15:40, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

@Squared.Circle.Boxing: Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 00:32, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

It's correct as a source most of the time, but I would put it in the same category as sites like IMDB for film info. Users of the site often update results as cards progress, presumably while watching them on TV (the BBBofC for example doesn't publish results while an event is taking place). I believe that updates to records is limited to editors and can't be done by general users (I have an account on Boxrec but haven't seen an option to update records). Personally I don't think it should be cited as a source, but it's fine as an external link and as a general reference for fact-checking and verification when other better sources are not available. --Michig (talk) 19:36, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Just thinkin'.. if BoxRec somehow gets deprecated as a source for record tables, what else do we go by? FightFax? I heard that's a pay-site. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 19:47, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@Michig: So what should I do insofar as its use in the Joe Jeanette article? Nightscream (talk) 19:56, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

My views on Boxrec are just my opinion. There appears to be some consensus from previous discussions that it's ok as a source. --Michig (talk) 17:55, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Super/Regular/interim/in recess champions

There is a discussion at the list of current world boxing champions as to whether all WBA titles lower than 'Super' should be omitted. All hands on deck, please! Mac Dreamstate (talk) 11:29, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

BoxRec mentions

• Виктор Не Вацко, I've pasted the discussion from Jersey Joe to here for more eyes. For clarity, the edit being discussed is [1], and by extension, this and this. – ².O.^Boxing 11:31, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

An average sports fan havent heard of many things, that is still not a justified reason to remove BoxRec from there. Виктор Не Вацко (talk) 11:00, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE is a justified reason though. I think the argument for including p4p and weight specific rankings would be the coverage they've been given in the media. I have, literally, never heard "5-star rated fights" or "this person has X number of points from BoxRec". And I use BoxRec on an almost daily basis. It's unnecessary fluff, and in some cases, comes across as promotional. – ².O.^Boxing 11:17, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

This stuff doesn't belong and especially not in the lead. If no other reliable source has ever mentioned it, it is not a prominent viewpoint and therefore undue.--Jahalive (talk) 14:39, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:CRUFT should apply here. As Squared mentioned above, I have never heard "BoxRec-rated fights" or "BoxRec points" being cited in any mainstream coverage. Lead sections are already inundated with rankings trivia as it is. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 14:51, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Boxrec, while extremely useful, isn't (in my view) a reliable source for factual information, although it controversially seems to be regarded as such. The opinions of Boxrec editors on rankings and rating of fights are absolutely not of any encyclopedic relevance. --Michig (talk) 15:23, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I've trimmed all of it from the Klitschkos and Lennox Lewis. If whoever wants that stuff back in the article, they can shunt it to a Legacy section which no-one will read. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 17:00, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Виктор Не Вацко, you're unwisely choosing to edit war over this. Your insistence to include every bit of trivia from BoxRec is bordering on WP:PROMO, and makes a mockery of MOS:LEADLENGTH and WP:FANCRUFT. You should continue discussing here instead of reverting again, because your content is under dispute. Also, you repeating "unjustified" is a falsehood, as there are four editors who have justified the removal of your content using several WP guidelines. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 18:35, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Can someone explain to me, why exactly BoxRec is not regarded by Wikipedia as a reliable source? And if BoxRec is not a reliable source for ratings, then what is? And who actually decides what can be regarded as a reliable source, and why should it be regarded as such? I can accept why "star ratings" should not be there, but BoxRec ratings have been cited many times, not only by English-language based media. Виктор Не Вацко (talk) 8:54, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

The dispute here is not about whether BoxRec is a reliable source, but whether its rankings (and that of others) belong in lead sections at all. Discussion was still ongoing a few sections above. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 17:28, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

The BoxRec Wiki Encyclopedia that is usually being used as the source for the annual rankings is not a reliable source because it is WP:USERGENERATED (ex. https://boxrec.com/media/index.php/BoxRec%27s_Annual_Ratings:_Heavyweight_Annuals). Are these rankings available in a database like their current rankings are?--Jahalive (talk) 19:23, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, now there’s an issue of somebody trying to keep boxing records off of Wikipedia articles…Go check out the edit history of Joe Jeanette…. CaPslOcksBroKEn (talk) 19:58, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

To sum this up, We don't want BoxRec's: star rating of fights, ranking points or annual rankings (because the only source for these is WP:USERGENERATED). Their current rankings were part of another discussion on rankings in general and there was consensus that we weren't happy with the number of different rankings and the way they are formatted now, but there didn't seem to be any consensus on what, exactly, to do with them. No one specifically mentioned BoxRec's all-time rankings (p-4-p and by weight class), so I guess we are okay with leaving them.--Jahalive (talk) 20:01, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Newspaper decisions

We need to add a solution for fighters with newspaper decisions. They have two records and it is a complete mess to look at when we only have their official record as an option to look at. CaPslOcksBroKEn (talk) 13:25, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Newspaper decisions were a significant part of boxing before official judging and CaPslOcksBroKEn has done a lot of work to include them. Having a summary table and full record including newspaper decisions and another of each without the newspaper decisions doesn't seem to be the best way to show them. Could we:

1. Combine the two record summary tables by dividing the newspaper decisions row between the win and loss columns? I think that would require a change to the template or making a new template for boxers who have newspaper decisions.
2. In the full record, have a column for the official totals and another for the unofficial totals, or just leave the unofficial totals out of the full record table. Repeating the whole thing with the only difference being the totals and some of the results is too much.
3. Change the colour coding for the newspaper decisions. Maybe i'm colour-blind, but I find it too similar to the loss colour.--Jahalive (talk) 20:43, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

I feel that I have come up with a sufficient option in the last two months. See Jack Britton and Ted Kid Lewis. I have been doing a combination of what you suggest over a massive amount of articles. I have it set up so that there is an official and unofficial version of the record with the official showing all newspaper decisions in orange and the unofficial adding them to the win/loss/draw column. Both records are expandable and collapsable, with the official version being initially collapsed and the unofficial initially expanded for ease of view. While it is a bit much in the amount of work (not very relevant to me since I am the only person consistently working on these fighters), it is a solution which I have come up with after hours of trial and error.

I feel that the only reason these two tables work is that they can be expanded and collapsed. On a computer, the first thing the eye will gravitate to is the unofficial version which does not suffer from the same issue as the official with similar colors. If there is a better way to illustrate the official record so that it is easier to read, I am open to it. However, I feel the unofficial version is just as necessary to see in it’s entirety in order to fully understand a fighter’s career. CaPslOcksBroKEn (talk) 14:12, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I have begun changing the color coding for NWS to the color for no decisions and no contests. I had not considered color blindness, thank you.CaPslOcksBroKEn (talk) 16:48, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Is grey the official colour for "no decision"s? I'm not sure I want newspaper decisions to be the same colour as no contests, but I won't confuse them with losses anymore.--Jahalive (talk) 20:37, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

On boxrec, they list no decisions with the same color as no contests so I've been doing the same officially on Wikipedia.CaPslOcksBroKEn (talk) 21:00, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

I would like to see if it's possible to change the color of NWS in the Pro boxing record summary as well as label it as "Newspaper decisions/No decisions" as opposed to "Newspaper decisions/Draws"CaPslOcksBroKEn (talk) 17:05, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

See also / list of current champions

People, I cannot emphasise this enough: adding a link to the list of current world boxing champions to See also sections is dumb. Very, very dumb. It's not the same as adding [[list of [sanctioning body] world champions]] or [[list of world [weight class] boxing champions]], as those are historical lists and the boxer's name is enshrined forever on them. The current champions list is dynamic and becomes outdated (on the See also section) the moment a boxer ceases to be a champion. So please don't add it—there's enough clutter to clean up already. I'm going through all bio articles via WhatLinksHere and zapping them, past and present. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 18:02, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Boxing match infobox

Is the "hometown" parameter for a boxer's birth place or where they live? – ².O.^Boxing 01:13, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

The documentation says "Where the boxer lived?" My opinion is that it should be what is announced in the ring before the fight but they often say "Fighting out of X by way of Y."--Jahalive (talk) 21:09, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Hometown to me would indicate the location they were most associated with at the start of their career, not necessarily where they were born or where they were based at the time of the fight. It may also be different to where they train, which to me is the 'out of' location (although I hate that expression - makes them sound like a horse). --Michig (talk) 08:25, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

"Where the boxer lived?" is too vague. The question mark at the end indicates the template creator wasn't even quite sure lol

I personally think it should be birth place, just for consistency with the boxer's articles. I'm not really too fussed on what's there, but for the sake of consistency within the boxing match articles (birth place, permanent residence at the time of the fight, the stupid "out of" and "by way of" locations are used across different articles), I think we need to settle on which location to use and adjust the template document accordingly. I hate that fucking ? at the end!!! – ².O.^Boxing 15:05, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Linealboxingchampion.com (round two)

@Anthony Williams Boxing: The WP:ONUS is solely on you to establish a consensus for the inclusion of your disputed edit, not for me to establish a consensus for exclusion. Seeing as you didn't read WP:BRD, I'll start the discussion for you. There is no evidence (that you've provided, or that I can find) that linealboxingchampion.com (LBC) is notable by Wikipedia's standards. The website itself fails to satisfy WP:NWEB, with no WP:Significant coverage in WP:Reliable sources. So, by extension, it's rankings aren't notable either. Wikipedia's standards are what matter here, not what a journalist decides to write, so your rationale here holds no weight. It's a passing mention. I'm also failing to understand how including a ranking from an apparently non-notable website adds WP:Balance. There is no imbalance or bias in only including female rankings from The Ring, as The Ring is indisputably notable (that's not even up for debate). Do you have any policy-based arguments for it's inclusion? I've copied this comment from Talk:Amanda Serrano, as the editor in question is pushing this website and it's rankings into multiple articles. – ².O.^Boxing 14:39, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Here is some useful information and talking points for anyone involved in this discussion, regarding the inclusion of ratings produced by Lineal Boxing Champion (LBC) alongside other ratings, such as those from ESPN, BoxRec and Ring. Remember that this is in relation to *women’s boxing* so sites/organisations that analysts are familiar with in men’s boxing may not necessarily be the same with women’s boxing. The popularity of women’s boxing is also significantly smaller, so naturally the quantity and diversity of reference material available will also be dramatically smaller.

Please also consider that LBC was the first site to ever produce non-computerised monthly rankings in women’s boxing - existing over 1 year before The Ring began producing monthly women’s ratings (so, for instance for 2019, The Ring’s ratings cannot be used…as there were none).

• Panel Members*

Their international ratings panel include Women’s Hall of Fame member David Avila, Ring Magazine journalist Yuriko Myata and Mexican television (TUDN) pundit Inaky Arzate, as well as former Boxing Monthly journalist, Anthony Cocks.

• References*

Boxing Scene’s managing editor, Cliff Rold (who was a founder of the TBRB, and is a member of the Boxing Writer’s Association of America and and IBRO member), clearly referenced Lineal Boxing Champion’s divisional rankings in his preview for Serrano Vs Bermudez this year. Lineal Boxing Champion has also been referenced by sites such as DAZN (Eddie Hearn’s new TV network application), MMA Mania, Bad Left Hook, PWR (a popular Polish site), Izquierdazo (a popular Mexican site), and Women’s Boxing Archive (an invaluable source of information for decades in women’s boxing, the editor of which, Sue Fox, created the Women’s Boxing Hall of Fame).

• Only Site With An Electronic Archive*

The site produces the only women’s rankings in the world that have an electronic archive. The Ring and BoxRec do not. Therefore the only easily accessible way for Wikipedia editors to retrospectively add ratings to female boxer pages, across the board, is to use LBC archives.

• A Note on BoxRec, ESPN, and The Ring*

BoxRec’s rankings are erratic and unreliable. Case in point: Ashleigh Curry. Curry is currently #1 at light heavyweight with BoxRec - yet Curry has NEVER had a light heavyweight bout and hasn’t won any fight in over 2 years!

ESPN do not produce divisional rankings for women. The Ring came into existence over a year AFTER Lineal Boxing Champion, and has no online accessible archive of its rankings.

• Conclusion*

ESPN do not produce divisional rankings in women’s boxing. BoxRec’s ratings are unreliable and largely meaningless.

I am in favour of referencing The Ring’s ratings, but for impartiality and balance (and to remove the appearance of bias for an American magazine, Ring, which is owned by American promoter Oscar De La Hoya), another site’s rankings should also be cited - the only other rankings in women’s boxing are produced by Lineal Boxing Champion.

I hope you find this contribution worthwhile.

Kind regards,

Anthony Williams Boxing (talk) 15:02, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

This is the only mention of LBC by BoxingScene; this is the only mention of LBC by DAZN; Badlefthook returned no results; this is the only mention of LBC by MMA Mania; and this is the only result I get from WBAN. These are the exact sources I found during my searches. None of which indicate their rankings, or website, are notable.

There is no bias towards The Ring, it is an indisputably notable organisation whose rankings are worthy of note. "Impartiality and balance" implies that The Ring and LBC have some kind of polar-opposite viewpoints, so the LBC should be included. No. They're rankings!

I don't intend to be dismissive here, but there's no other way of saying it; your other points are irrelevant, sorry. – ².O.^Boxing 16:00, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Irrelevant? Please, we need common sense to prevail here. Current Wiki female boxer pages cite BoxRec rankings. So, it’s acceptable for me to write a page that Ashleigh Curry is the #1 light heavyweight in the world, as per BoxRec - even though she has never had a fight against an opponent within the light heavyweight weight limit range! Yet you would delete my post if it stated that a fighter was #1 as per LBC - when LBC rankings are voted on by an international panel of well known respected journalists/analyst within the sport. Incidentally, LBC panellist Yuriko Myata is a credible women’s boxing journalist for The Ring Magazine.

Yes, The Ring is famous and well liked on the whole, but its ratings have been affected by scandals (the 1970s), and being owned by a promoter, they are no longer purely independent and impartial. The cynical would suggest that plastering the Ring name all over Wiki is an attempt to boost sales of a failing magazine, perhaps a free advertise strategy? Also The Ring does not even produce heavyweight rankings (in women’s boxing) - so do we just ignore those fighters? Or do we do the sensible thing and used LBC’s?

Anthony Williams Boxing (talk) 16:20, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree that BoxRec rankings are awful (I personally would love to achieve a consensus to remove their rankings) and the fact that The Ring is owned by Golden Boy can raise some eyebrows. And I'm not saying LBC rankings are worse than BoxRec or The Ring, they may indeed be better. But it's irrelevant. It all boils down to the fact that this website hasn't gained any type of traction in the media. It appears to have had nothing more than a handful of passing mentions since it's creation (five, six years?).

You speak of a "free advertise strategy" in reference to The Ring, but I'm finding it extremely difficult to see how your insistence of including this little-known website is anything but WP:Promotional, especially considering that the overwhelming majority (if not all) of your contributions have been in relation to this website. I mean, after all, the website seems like it could really do with some promotion to get the name out there, unlike, say, The Ring or BoxRec. – ².O.^Boxing 17:52, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

It is interesting that the Lineal Boxing Champion section on the "lineal championship" Wiki page has more up-to-date, sturdy and notable references than the sections for Cyber Boxing Zone, Boxing Scene and the TBRB. This is important because the lineal Wiki page is essentially based on the CBZ. The CBZ section is largely self referenced (!), and a quick Google search uncovers nothing of note. When on this topic, however, it's highly notable that Cliff Rold (an expert when it comes to the lineal championship, and someone who is a founder of the TBRB, a former journalist for the CBZ and is the current editor of Boxing Scene), clearly referenced LBC's ratings for his Serrano/Bermudez preview this year - high praise indeed from such a knowledgeable scribe. I think everyone would agree, that although it's still an emerging site, the rankings have been deemed as notable and significant by a greatly qualified boxing expert. Also, ironically there is only one or two independent credible references for the TBRB Wiki section...and it comes from Adam McMeeking, the editor of Lineal Boxing Champion! The rest of the TBRB's references come from articles written by its own board memebrs and/or founders. My point in all of this is that Wiki editors need to look upon discussions such as ours, as fairly as possible, without pre-judgements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthony Williams Boxing (talk • contribs) 21:00, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Linealboxingchampion.com belongs nowhere on any men's boxing articles. I don't know women's boxing well enough to be certain about this issue, but you have a long way to go to show that their rankings should be here. The one article on Boxing Scene about Serrano/Bermudez is a start but you need much more. If their rankings are cited frequently then they belong in Wikipedia. You have a point that the coverage of women's boxing is less and we should have a different standard for inclusion, but one or two articles is not enough.--Jahalive (talk) 19:12, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Boxrec's all time rankings have changed multiple times. They move dead and retired boxers all over the lists every year despite their records being stationary. This website's only value is in their vast fight records/title histories (which are not completely accurate).CaPslOcksBroKEn (talk) 04:09, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Remove upcoming fights from record tables

I would like to propose that we remove upcoming fights from record tables. Firstly, this would be in line with MOS:MMA ("Never add future bouts. The purpose of the record table is to provide a quick account of a fighter's past career, not to speculate about his/her future. Upcoming bouts that have been officially announced can only be mentioned within the body text at the end of the Mixed martial arts career section, provided that they are notable (covered by reliable third-party sources)"), as well as adhering rigidly to WP:CRYSTAL.

Ya see, boxing is different to most other sports in that there is a strong likelihood of any "confirmed" fight, anywhere, no matter who's involved, being cancelled right up until the weigh-ins. No other major sport has this problem—not soccer, Formula 1, tennis, nor the NFL. With the exception of COVID, their events always go ahead no matter what. A schedule of events like F1 has is OK. However, in boxing, it just doesn't work like that.

Therefore, we should be adding fights to record tables only after they have taken place. That way we adhere to WP:V (a completed fight is a 100% verifiable event), and we do away with a zillion pointless edits adding this or that "rumoured" fight, or whatever Eddie Hearn happens to be promising. If there is news about a fight taking place, it belongs in the prose—just like with MMA articles. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 20:48, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

I was thinking of opposing when I first saw this, but after some thought I'm in agreement. I believe that the overwhelming majority of fights comply with V, however, none fully comply with CRYSTAL: Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place, as even otherwise-notable events can be cancelled or postponed at the last minute by a major incident.

In addition to Mac's point regarding boxing events/fights never being almost certain to take place, not every fight on a boxing card can rightly be deemed a notable event. The media will usually focus on at most three or four fights, when in a lot of cases, there can be up to ten fights on one card. So even ignoring the fact that fights are never almost certain to take place, a bob load of upcoming fights being added don't get much pre-fight attention beyond passing mentions, so can't be considered notable events.

I think Blizzythesnowman has recently added a few upcoming fights to tables inside the hidden message thingymabob. Could this be an option for officially announced fights to be added, then unhid when the fight starts? – ².O.^Boxing 23:51, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't support this workaround at all. Hidden notes should only be used as a clarifier for small details such as "Do not change the spelling of this intentional typo". They certainly should not be used for large content such as fight details—which, again, are never certain to take place. Doesn't matter how official or set in stone it may be. Any fight card is subject to cancellation even on the day. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 00:19, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

I do it if an organization orders for it to go to purse bid, specifically the WBA ordering purse bids to reduce their amount of titles. Other than that, I disagree with removing upcoming fights since someone may be informed that an upcoming fight is happening however, the upcoming fight should only be added if a date is confirmed. We could always remove the upcoming fights right away if they are cancelled. This year has been an anomaly though with a lot of cancelled fights because of COVID-19. (Blizzythesnowman) 00:04, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

I would support this. Fights that haven't happened yet are not part of a boxer's record. --Michig (talk) 18:11, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

I do not support this. This is not only limits information, but boxrec.com, the website which we gather our boxing record information, includes upcoming fights to boxer's records.CaPslOcksBroKEn (talk) 18:11, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

A schedule of upcoming fights is one of several things that Boxrec provides. It isn't something an encylopedia should provide. --Michig (talk) 18:09, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

When you put it that way, you have a good point. I still disagree, however, for one reason only. We are comparing our presentation of boxing records to that of MMA, which does not list upcoming fights in their record tables, however, they still list upcoming events in the article of said fighters. On the article of Max Holloway, for example, the following is stated "Holloway is scheduled to face Yair Rodríguez on November 13, 2021, at UFC Fight Night 197.[106]". As an encyclopedia that shouldn't provide upcoming events, this section of his article should adhere to this concept, no?CaPslOcksBroKEn (talk) 04:16, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Link spam clean-up

An editor has gone around adding a link to hundreds of articles, which is spam by any definition at WP:ELNO. Here's a handy Google string to find which articles have it, and start zapping away. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 20:35, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

NBOX

In regards to Wikipedia:WikiProject Boxing/Title Assessment, I'm assuming British Boxing Board of Control refers to the British title and not the regional ones? – ².O.^Boxing 21:03, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

I remember when that was compiled sometime in 2017. Main British title only, yes. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 23:21, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

List of boxing families

Hi everyone, I have next to no experience editing boxing related pages (plenty of experience elsewhere however) nor do I necessarily plan to get started because I personally am not necessarily that big of a fan of the sport, but that's enough about me personally. I'm posting here because I came across an article under the scope of this project that could use some hardcore attention from some experts on the subject: List of boxing families. I don't think I have ever seen an article so poorly maintained. Every date provided is a violation of WP:DATESNO, instead of saying "–present" as is typical for living people, it just has a bunch of dashes after the improper dating format, and finally the article is completely unsourced. I almost consider an AFD under WP:TNT, but I figured I would give cleanup a chance. Thank you! I will go ahead and tag the article as necessary as well.--Rockchalk717 06:04, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

@Rockchalk717: I can start having a crack at the UK boxers. What kind of sources are needed? Ones that just state the family connection (reliable ones, of course)? Regarding the dates, would (born 1999) for living people be better? That's the format I usually see in BLP lists. – ².O.^Boxing 21:49, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

@Squared.Circle.Boxing: I think (born 1999) is sufficient and for deceased fighters just "1940–2020" should suffice. As far as a source, just anything verifying the familial relation if they have a page, like this source for Muhammad Ali and Nico Ali Walsh [2]. If they don't have a page, I honestly think they should just be removed.--Rockchalk717 23:16, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

@Rockchalk717: I've started on the UK boxers. The unlinked ones that I've left in are those that, with a quick BEFORE search, I think they pass GNG. Once I've tackled the section I'll see if I can create articles for them. If not then I'll remove. For birth and relation, I've combined them both within the same bracket ((Bob's brother; born 1980)). Let me know if that's in contradiction to any guidelines and I'll happily comply with what they recommend.

Regarding the Fury family in the UK section; are the relatives with different surnames acceptable? Or should it just be those with the surname Fury? There's a cousin with the surname Gorman and one with Burton, both can be easily referenced, it's just whether or not to include them. I have no preference on the matter; their relation is stated in the individual articles anyway so there's no real loss (full disclosure: I was the div that added all the non-notable Fury relatives in the first place lol). – ².O.^Boxing 22:49, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

I've finished the UK section. In addition to the changes above I've change the family names from ;[Family name] to ==[Family name]==. Let me know if that goes against any guidelines or consensus. – ².O.^Boxing 00:23, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

@Squared.Circle.Boxing: I appreciate it! Regarding the Fury family, it's fine if they have different last names, just as long as it can be verified they are in the Fury family.--Rockchalk717 05:48, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Boxing Record Infobox

Working on Justann Crawford's wikipage here, found his boxing record on https://boxrec.com/en/amateurboxer/935079, can I put this data in as part of his boxing record infobox? Is this a reliable source? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hopefullynotilliterate (talk • contribs) 07:38, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Boxrec is a reliable source for professional boxing records, however, it has insufficient info on amateur boxing records. Muhammad Ali had approximately 100 wins as an amateur, yet boxrec only shows 59 wins as of now. CaPslOcksBroKEn (talk) 20:08, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Record table age parameters

What's with these being added to contemporary fighters who are still at prime fighting age? I get it with fighters who won world titles at an advanced age (Hopkins, Foreman, Pacquiao, etc.), or late 30s/40s, but Fury's only 33! Stand on up—who added it for him, and why? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 20:51, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

The reason I have begun doing this is that with the inactivity of fighters, it helps add context to a career to see their age. 2016-2017 no fights for Fury. It can be used for great context of fighters who win titles at young ages too as well as just overall adding context for every career.CaPslOcksBroKEn (talk) 01:51, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

But where does it end? Does every fighter need to have it? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 17:41, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

This is getting out of hand. Now it's being added to Lomachenko who's in his early 30s, for fuck's sake. I'm not onboard with the current free-for-all usage of this parameter at all. We either come up with a guideline on its inclusion (see above fighters I listed; Pacquiao, Hopkins and Foreman obviously warrant it), or we ditch it altogether. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 18:15, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I think it should only be used for those who have accomplished age-related feats. I can't see much value in having them in the tables of active or retired boxers without such a feat. – ².O.^Boxing 15:15, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

What is the issue with showing the age of fighters? Why must every fan do math for each fighter that doesn't "deserve" to have it there?CaPslOcksBroKEn (talk) 16:01, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

No need to do maths when there's a calculator for that sort of niche information. Let's also include a column for what they weighed, what the opponent weighed, their pre-fight rankings, what they each had for dinner, the attendance figures of the fight, and CompuBox stats. Forget brevity(!) Mac Dreamstate (talk) 19:04, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

If it is such a nuisance, then why should any record have it at all? If it's too clunky for Vasily Lomachenko, then shouldn't it be too clunky for George Foreman?CaPslOcksBroKEn (talk) 03:23, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

"[W]hy should any record have it at all?" – I'm the wrong person to ask, since I didn't come up with the column. I think it was in place for Ali and/or Foreman originally, and it took off from there. I had no problem with the column until it started being added to in-prime fighters like Fury and Lomachenko. All I'm saying is there should be a clearcut age at which winning or defending a world title is a notable achievement.

Mike Tyson winning a world title at age 20? Very notable at the time, but we're actually seeing more and more young fighters winning titles in their early 20s (see current lightweights), so perhaps it's not as big of a deal anymore. Foreman and Hopkins winning titles at ages 45 and 49 respectively? Now that's notable. How about we just establish winning or defending a title at age 40 as the magic number for the inclusion of the column? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 18:37, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, what about fighters that began fighting at young ages and or retired at old ages? Fighters have been winning titles as teens and in their early twenties for over a hundred years. Al McCoy (boxer) won the middleweight title at 19 and Baby Arizmendi won the NYSAC featherweight title at 20 years old. Think about this though, Al McCoy went pro at 15 years old. Baby Arizmendi went pro at 13. Many of the old fighters went pro before they were even adults. Nipper Pat Daly went pro at 9 and retired at 17. These are young ages that would otherwise be overlooked if we only based the age parameter off of the age in which they won world titles (or lack thereof for Daly). Now think of Roberto Duran for instance. He went pro at 16 years old. Very young for a pro boxer, however, he won the world lightweight title at 21 years old. Not significant enough under the proposed suggestion and his entire championship career would be considered as such too if we look solely at the age of winning titles. Duran not only won a title at 21 and went pro at 16, but he also fought until he was 51 years old, which is an age very much worth mentioning. He also won a fight on his birthday. Yes, this could all be added to his article in a section, but the fact is that when we have such a useful tool that can be used in addition to boxing records, why should we limit ourselves to when we can and cannot use it? If we limit ourselves to only writing about age in sections, we slow down progress and make an already impossible completion of full boxing records to each boxer with a Wikipedia article even more impossible to complete. Let's say we somehow reach the point in time in which every single current or former boxing world champion (and claimant) already has a Wikipedia article, but that each one contains a complete boxing record for them. There will not only be numerous mistakes by fault of human error, but if there is no age parameter, there will be no way of knowing which fighters that are less talked about did incredible feats at specific ages. In my opinion, the only fighters that should have no age parameter are those whose age is disputed.CaPslOcksBroKEn (talk) 05:30, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Overturned/disputed NCs

David Price and Sam Soliman's records include fight outcomes which have contradicting sources. In the case of Price, a German athletic commission overturned the result of the sanctioning body (EBU) to an NC. BoxRec does not recognise this. For Soliman, the first fight against Felix Sturm was also changed to an NC by a German athletic commission, but then overturned in court after appeals. Again, BoxRec choosing not to recognise. How do we handle such scenarios? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 20:42, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Boxrec is an obnoxious source very often when it comes to situations like these, and unfortunately, until someone can get inside the website and keep things consistent with the courts and commissions of the countries, we should probably stick with the records as shown on boxrec for each fighter involved.CaPslOcksBroKEn (talk) 20:55, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

"Obnoxious" is a good way to describe their inconsistency. Like listing obvious KOs as TKOs and vice versa. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 15:36, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I think how Price's has been handled is the best way. We should put more stock into what the local commission says rather than the organisation that's just there to collect a cheque for allowing their title to be up for grabs.

As for BoxRec, I lose a little more confidence in them every time I use them. They literally make up their own results as Mac said (and they don't even apply those results in a consistent manner). For instance, if a boxer is stopped within the first 15 seconds of a round, say the fifth, BoxRec policy is to record that as a fourth-round RTD. That's just stupid. I also believe that they're currently attempting to change the meaning of a KO from counted out by a referee, to unconscious. I don't necessarily disagree, but they have no authority to randomly decide to change results. For me, it's a good resource to start from, but never rely on BoxRec, always check multiple RS. – ².O.^Boxing 11:09, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Whilst being selective about BoxRec may be opening up a can of worms, to me it makes the most sense to use whatever outcome a boxing commission declared in overruling a sanctioning body. If we go by authoritative hierarchy, the sanctioning bodies operate under the commissions' jurisdiction, therefore Price keeps his NC (commission>EBU) and Soliman has his NC scratched (courts>commission). The meaning of KOs/TKOs is a whoooooole other thing, and not hugely important at this time unless we end up getting a series of edit wars. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 21:57, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

While reading this whole thread, I can't stop thinking about Harry Greb vs Mike O'Dowd and how it has been recorded as a loss for Greb for YEARS until last year when they turned it into a draw inexplicably. I don't know where to start on finding enough sources as they have also overturned Greb's defeat to Billy Miske to a draw. When I go to the dedicated website for Harry Greb, I see a completely different version of his record and it is simply mind-numbing as I want to just change the O'Dowd fight back to the rightful victory for him that it already had been for years and decades.CaPslOcksBroKEn (talk) 05:10, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Pending proposal to declare NSPORTS (and NBOXING) an invalid argument at AfD

A new proposal is now pending to add language to NSPORT providing, among other things, that "meeting [NSPORTS or NBOXING] would not serve as a valid keep argument in a deletion discussion." If you have views on this proposal, one way or the other, please feel free to add your comments at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Subproposal 1 (NSPORT). Cbl62 (talk) 15:16, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Boxer at AfD

Hi. Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:12, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Floyd Patterson 1983 New York City Marathon results/data addition

Hello and good day. I attempted to add and source Floyd Patterson's 1983 New York City Marathon result from the New York Road Runners Club website, but I botched it up, so I didnt add it after the sentence stating he ran a couple of marathons with Ingemar Johannson in 1982 and 1983. Need help with this please. You can get the URLs info from googling NYRRC (New York Road Runners Club) All Races archives and entering his name. Just add reference after reference #28 and I will fill in the narrative. I ran the 1983 NYC Marathon and beat him by 9 minutes, or 1 mile. He was 21 years older than me at the time, but he ran a very good 3 hours 35 minutes that day. I appreciate your help with this. Thanks and have a good day.2601:581:8402:6620:304C:CD3D:3958:6A95 (talk) 03:11, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Was done.2601:581:8402:6620:7938:72B1:D6C8:BEF8 (talk) 22:10, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Veikko Huuskonen at AfD

Hi. Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:27, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Rudolf Andreassen AfD

Hi. Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 20:14, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

per WP:APPNOTE - "The talk page or noticeboard of one or more WikiProjects or other Wikipedia collaborations which may have interest in the topic under discussion"

Remove upcoming fights from record tables, take 2

OK, need to vent. I hate the sight of something like this. "Confirmed" date or not, it looks unprofessional, incomplete, reeks of fanboy'ism ("I get to add it first, wheee!"), and above all it's unencyclopaedic. Let's remind ourselves what an encyclopaedia is: a publication of factual information which has taken place or been otherwise proven. An upcoming boxing match has not taken place, has not been proven to exist until the bell rings, and could be cancelled within hours of said bell ringing (ask Alexander Dimitrenko).

We've got to get in line with MMA records and do away with upcoming fights—it looks bad on us, as a WikiProject, to include them in tables which are meant to present facts. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 20:15, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

• Agreed. --Michig (talk) 10:08, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
• No objection from me. I assume this would also include the ones I've seen being added inside a hidden comment? – ².O.^Boxing 10:50, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
• Worth noting that while a date has been set for the Fury v Whyte fight, Whyte hasn't signed the contract yet so it still isn't confirmed. Even if it is confirmed, one party could still develop a mysterious training injury which causes the fight to not go ahead, or mistakenly eat some wild boar which causes testing issues. A slightly different case is Dave Allen, who has repeatedly been added to Dennis Hobson cards (no doubt selling a lot of the tickets as the rest of his cards are generally crap) only for the fights to be pulled. --Michig (talk) 12:13, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Again I also need to bring up the stark comparison to other sports, such as football (soccer and American), snooker, tennis, or motorsport. They are annual events scheduled years in advance, and only something Earth-shattering like COVID could ever postpone or cancel those. This is completely unlike boxing, which is never an annual event (not even Canelo's traditional May or September dates are sacred; he's missed a few of those due to promotional and other issues), and—as I keep harping on about—every single fight on the card is subject to change on the same day. No other major sports besides wrestling have that phenomenon. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 19:00, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Based off of this notion of no upcoming fights being listed, MMA should adhere to this in the entirety of every article of a fighter with an upcoming fight. Johnny Walker (fighter) for example, currently shows

“As the first bout of his new six-fight contract, Walker is scheduled to face Jamahal Hill on February 19, 2022 at UFC Fight Night 201.[28]“ CaPslOcksBroKEn (talk) 04:28, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

My profession is data entry, so tables and such are my area of expertise. What goes in the prose isn't of much interest to me nowadays, as I stopped contributing to those long ago when other editors with more patience in writing text showed up. When I was caretaking Michael Katsidis' article, I regularly added fights to the prose that were either scheduled, cancelled, or in discussion (sourced, of course). No issue there—athletes and entertainment personalities always have the prose of their careers updated with new events.

However, the keyword in record table is just that—it's meant to be a factual record of whom a boxer has fought. Not who they might fight, or who they're scheduled to fight, but an indisputable set-in-stone record of who they have fought. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 18:57, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Edits like this are even worse. It makes a mockery of what WP is meant to be—an encyclopaedia of verified factual information, plus my abovementioned rationale of what a record table should be. Eddie Hearn's rumours are nothing but trash until the opening bell has rung. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 23:00, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I focus on records too, but the argument is that this website is an encyclopedia and should not have upcoming events listed in the records. That extends to the entirety of the article and therefore if upcoming fights are gone from records they need to be gone from all sections. CaPslOcksBroKEn (talk) 16:18, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Credible sites for bout records besides BoxRec

Are there any credible sites with accurate boxing records besides BoxRec? Working on a retired Olympic boxer Justann Crawford from Australia but could only find 12 records on BoxRec. Thank you --Hopefullynotilliterate (talk) 08:05, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

@Hopefullynotilliterate: is this for an amateur record and not professional? If so, I don't know of any reliable (or unreliable) site that lists accurate amateur records. And in response to your previous question; no, we don't list amateur records in the infobox, only professional. – ².O.^Boxing 11:19, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

There is this one site that is credible in searching up amateur boxing history. http://amateur-boxing.strefa.pl/index.html --Bennyaha (talk) 08:30, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

RfC on flagicons in boxing record tables

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The RfC opens by suggesting the removal of all flags from boxing-related record tables. Although there appeared to be no disagreement among participants, there is a consensus that flags should be removed from tables related to professional and exhibition boxing. The very brief discussion was focused on pro boxers, with explanations on how these boxers do not represent a specific country, and so MOS:SPORTFLAG applies, but with no clear agreement on whether this should be applied to amateur boxers. (non-admin closure) Isabelle ^🔔 19:34, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

---

Should flagicons (for Opponent and Location) be removed from all boxing record tables, including professional and exhibition? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 15:50, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

• For pro boxing, certainly. --Michig (talk) 18:46, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
• Remove all flags. Professional boxers do not represent any nation in an official capacity, so those indicating nationality should be removed per MOS:SPORTFLAG. For location, the name of the country is all that is needed to convey where the fight took place, so those flags should be removed per MOS:WORDPRECEDENCE. – ².O.^Boxing 19:02, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
• Remove from all pro boxing items, since they are, by definition, unrelated to national representation. -The Gnome (talk) 07:16, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
• Remove flagicons from all professional and exhibition boxing records. Unlike amateur boxing, professionals do not represent nationalities in the same way, and often compete under different licences than their country of birth; e.g., David Haye in 2012, Tyson Fury since 2020. Likewise Mahmoud Charr has variously "represented" (informally, not in an international sense) Germany, Syria and Lebanon over the course of his career. MOS:SPORTFLAG and MOS:WORDPRECEDENCE should apply. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 19:07, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

• Remove from all professional boxing records. I am in complete agreement with all the points made by previous editors here that professional boxers do not represent their nationalities, do not always fight under licensing of their birth nation, MOS:SPORTFLAG, and MOS:WORDPRECEDENCE. The addition of flags also cause many other issues not previously stated here.

1. Not all boxers listed on boxrec have known nationalities.

EX. Teo Dominguez as he appears on the record of Rocky Mattioli https://boxrec.com/en/proboxer/50954

2. People can have dual citizenships.

3. Trevor Berbick considered himself "A citizen of the world." and said "I have no problem living anywhere in the world; anywhere where God wants me to live." He therefore did not represent his birth nation in his own eyes.

References

4. We do not know which country every fight fought by boxers with Wikipedia articles. See https://boxrec.com/en/proboxer/41487 and view the first 10 fights for the locations.

5. Not all historical fighters are showing the flag that existed at the time present.

EX. Ezzard Charles: every American flag showing is the current 50 star flag, which never existed at any point in Charles' career. The two fights he fought in the country of Italy show the Italian flag which was implemented in 1948 after the dissolution of the Kingdom of Italy, four years after the fights took place. I had deleted all the flags from this article, but they were restored by somebody who did not and does not have any care for historical accuracy as they couldn't be bothered to research the history of flags. (I reached out to them and they didn't reply)

6. Civil Wars, Proxy Nations, and regime changes

EX. Baltasar Sangchili as he appears on Panama Al Brown's record. Sangchili was born in 1911 in Spain. The flag which represented Spain at the time of his birth not only was different from the flag which he was used during his professional career, but from 1936-1939, The Spanish Civil War makes it so that the official flag was not the consensus. See Nationalist faction (Spanish Civil War) and Second Spanish Republic.

EX. Benny Bass was born December 15, 1904 in Kyiv, Russian Empire. How would he be shown on other fighter's records from 1924-1929? How about from 1929-1937? ...something doesn't seem right...Let's try 1937-1940 (end of his career) now

Okay, so the first and the third flags are correct for that time, but the second is not correct and the actual flag used to represent the nation is not a flagicon we can use. Here are the Wikipedia articles showing them: Flag of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic and List of Ukrainian flags. These may seem like small grievances, but accuracy is the point. And when it comes to accuracy, this is something we cannot do for the early years of the Ukrainian annexation of the then new Soviet Union. On List of Ukrainian flags the current Ukrainian flag which was reinstated in 1992 after being liberated from the Soviet's control...is shown as having been their flag from 1918–1920. Flag of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic clearly shows that there was no consensus of a flag or government as there are three opposing flags from 1918-1920 from that of The Ukrainian People's Republic's flag. Over 100 years later, this same situation could perhaps be on the horizon...

7. I added another one because I just remembered that Roy Jones Jr. has been a Russian citizen since 2015. All his opponents' records since then are falsely showing the American flag next to his name. To be accurate, there should be both American and Russian flags side by side, no?CaPslOcksBroKEn (talk) 03:15, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: I've made a closure request at Wikipedia:Closure requests. I would have closed it myself per WP:RFCCLOSE, but I wasn't all that confident of doing so due to the previous RfC. – ².O.^Boxing 22:33, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

So that's it, then? They can go...? Well hey, it only took seven years! Let's start zapping. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 20:16, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I've already started lol – ².O.^Boxing 20:26, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

leave the flags!!! it makes the record look so much better, flagless makes it look cheap and rushed 2603:8001:C83D:E0C7:4955:A042:1671:E71B (talk) 19:43, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Did you not read anything here? If that’s not enough, consider the fact that some people have sight issues that make focusing on the actual information of the fights difficult with a bunch of colors. CaPslOcksBroKEn (talk) 19:54, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Pfff.. right. Read WP:CCC, second sentence. Anyone who wants the little flaggies back had their chance. Come back in another seven years. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 20:17, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Mac Dreamstate, I am very happy with this; I've been on this for years now. If MMA could do the right thing, then surely boxing could. Next up: the Tour de France, and club football. Drmies (talk) 01:50, 31 March 2022 (UTC)