Knowledge talk:WikiProject Boxing/Archive 9

3740:

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 Knowledge 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 Knowledge 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.

2848:

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.

4662: 342:

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 Knowledge - 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.

4654: 4670: 2291:. 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. 1436:

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.

31: 169:(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 3963:

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.

3156: 3680:– 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. 3827:

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. –

396:. 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. – 2921:"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)" 1801:

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. --

2625:

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).

2776:

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.

4136:

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.

1121:, 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 1738:. 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 3826:

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

3115:

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

2775:

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

1994:

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.

1435:

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

424:

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

160:

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

4135:

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

4118:

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

2874:

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

2789:

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

2688:

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

2216:

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

1227:

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

1188:

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

506:

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

502:

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

3739:

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.

3693:

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?

3052:

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

2847:

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

2624:

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

560:

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

3962:

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

2294:

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

183:

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

3031:

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

2930:

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

374:

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

105:

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

3351:

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

2470:

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"

2453:

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

4606:, 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) 3785:

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

3232:

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

4057:. 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 1800:

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

341:

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

3358:

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

1005:

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

2806:

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

2583:

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.

2582:

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

2254:

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

1595:. 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. 3522:

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

4234:

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.

2950:(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. 732:

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

2814:, 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. – 2588:

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

3506:

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?

4173:

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

2642:

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 Knowledge editors to retrospectively add ratings to female boxer pages, across the board, is to use LBC

2059:

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.

428:

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.

2264:

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

3893:

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

2891:

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

1742:). 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. – 2738:

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

3856:

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

3120:, for example, the following is stated "Holloway is scheduled to face Yair Rodríguez on November 13, 2021, at UFC Fight Night 197.". As an encyclopedia that shouldn't provide upcoming events, this section of his article should adhere to this concept, no? 2985:, 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 3766:'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 4178:' 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. 3628:

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(!)

447:

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.

4602:: 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 432:

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.

4522:

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,

4119:

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. --

587:) 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. – 2125:

Can someone explain to me, why exactly BoxRec is not regarded by Knowledge 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

2875:

more. If their rankings are cited frequently then they belong in Knowledge. 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.--

507:

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.

3560:

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

4482:

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.,

641:

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?

2606:

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

2131: 1977: 1936: 4677:

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 Knowledge articles showing them:

3888:

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

3823:

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

3908: 2807:

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?).

2260:

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

161:

fights onto Knowledge, 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

3486:

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.

2660:

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

4812: 4622:'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 3986: 3972: 648:

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.

3982: 2790:

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?

3359:

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). –

4706:

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,

3734:

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

4686:. 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 2520:, 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 Knowledge's standards. The website itself fails to satisfy 3241:, 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 4559:

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.

3729:

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.

1254:

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.--

503:

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.

1913: 540:

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?

4821:

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.

4816: 2965:

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:

583:. 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, 3957: 2353:

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"

2295:

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.

4254:

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 --

3930: 1458:

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.

4830: 1592: 3053:

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

2236:

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.

2810:

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

3721:

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.

3579:

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. –

2107:. 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 2834: 2801: 2762: 2715: 698: 607: 416: 384: 366: 4300: 4263: 2471:

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!!! –

485:

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.

4280:

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. –

3314:

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

2437:

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."--

1102:", 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. 465:- 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. 3087:

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.

1348:

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

102:"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" 4244: 4167: 4073: 3770:

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?

1329:

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".

1088:

or . 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.

3274:

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

3062: 722: 713: 4753: 2855: 2793: 2707: 2666:

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.

2507: 2015: 664: 650: 622: 546: 508: 489: 434: 376: 354: 312: 4802: 4453: 4113: 3872: 3847: 3599: 3221: 3041: 3022: 2141:

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

1067: 1045: 897: 234: 204: 4808: 4064:

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.

2867: 2324:

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.--

2130:

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.

3438: 3412: 3379: 3338: 3298: 3978: 3964: 2576: 2389: 1787: 1762: 704: 2884: 4856:, 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. 4716: 4379: 2959: 2347: 1925: 1340: 543:

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.

4848: 4776: 4402: 4319: 4200: 3813: 3795: 3711: 3664: 3638: 3547: 3096: 2446: 2384:

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

2029: 1263: 570: 531: 178: 151: 4512: 4226: 4145: 3574: 2154: 2120: 1533: 1500: 1480:

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. –

263: 2491: 2463: 2135: 2092: 1981: 4217:

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.

4044: 2901: 2401: 1877: 2728: 2020:

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.--

4474: 2333: 2277: 1604: 1566: 1552: 1319:

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 Knowledge to be in chronological order

750: 2176: 2050: 1581: 1215: 1201: 672: 658: 630: 554: 516: 497: 442: 3129: 3110: 2724: 2516:

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

2069: 4865: 4417: 4249: 4128: 4088: 3080: 2532:. So, by extension, it's rankings aren't notable either. Knowledge's standards are what matter here, not what a journalist decides to write, so your rationale 2388:

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

2087: 1836: 1310: 1228:

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. –

1134: 737:

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

335: 129:

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

115: 4690:

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.

4151:

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.

3480: 299:

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

3749: 3618: 3532: 1891: 1810: 764:(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: 3516: 2735:

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.

2431: 3424:

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.--

2041:

heard "BoxRec-rated fights" or "BoxRec points" being cited in any mainstream coverage. Lead sections are already inundated with rankings trivia as it is.

1467: 1426: 1178: 727: 3903: 3863:

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.

3779: 1019: 996: 871: 3496: 1970: 1713: 4040:- "The talk page or noticeboard of one or more WikiProjects or other Knowledge collaborations which may have interest in the topic under discussion" 4019: 3259: 2906: 1907: 1635: 1301:

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.

2362: 2318: 2304: 2245: 1445: 1361: 481:

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?

4324: 3997: 3968: 1657:, 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 1282:. 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. 635:

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.

3168: 1025:

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. –

4691: 4679: 1206:

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.

4008: 2203: 1985: 457: 3941: 1248: 738: 4030: 2989:, 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. 2309:

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.

4187:

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

3179: 2863: 1827:

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.

678:

We don't include things because they're useful, we include them because they're deemed notable, which, by Knowledge standards, LBC is not. –

362: 2975:

until the event actually takes place, as even otherwise-notable events can be cancelled or postponed at the last minute by a major incident.

2536:

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

3476: 3206: 2500: 2367: 1291: 89: 84: 4053:. "Confirmed" date or not, it looks unprofessional, incomplete, reeks of fanboy'ism ("I get to add it first, wheee!"), and above all it's 4429:. 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 4362:. The very brief discussion was focused on pro boxers, with explanations on how these boxers do not represent a specific country, and so 4158:“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.“ 2226: 72: 67: 59: 4210: 3918: 3609:

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?

1111: 468:- 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. 3557: 2208:

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

1654: 289: 3952: 2159:

The BoxRec Wiki Encyclopedia that is usually being used as the source for the annual rankings is not a reliable source because it is

2074:

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

1450: 4694:

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

1278:

through FAC. One reviewer has raised concerns over the fight record list not being in chronological order as generally required by

4495:

has variously "represented" (informally, not in an international sense) Germany, Syria and Lebanon over the course of his career.

2936: 1730:, 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. 4627: 4425:. Professional boxers do not represent any nation in an official capacity, so those indicating nationality should be removed per 3101:

A schedule of upcoming fights is one of several things that Boxrec provides. It isn't something an encylopedia should provide. --

1882:

My views on Boxrec are just my opinion. There appears to be some consensus from previous discussions that it's ok as a source. --

2190:

Well, now there’s an issue of somebody trying to keep boxing records off of Knowledge articles…Go check out the edit history of

4050: 2373: 1431:

I might be confused by the original editor. All of our boxing record tables are in descending order…The way it is formatted on

97: 2544:

including female rankings from The Ring, as The Ring is indisputably notable (that's not even up for debate). Do you have any

2468:"Where the boxer lived?" is too vague. The question mark at the end indicates the template creator wasn't even quite sure lol 2268:

Change the colour coding for the newspaper decisions. Maybe i'm colour-blind, but I find it too similar to the loss colour.--

2095:, you're unwisely choosing to edit war over this. Your insistence to include every bit of trivia from BoxRec is bordering on 1157:(2) IBF, WBA, WBC, and WBO - the four major sanctioning bodies. These four (along with The Ring) are the rankings used for 3233:

across an article under the scope of this project that could use some hardcore attention from some experts on the subject:

4763:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

4669: 4661: 4653: 3501: 2859: 2338:

On boxrec, they list no decisions with the same color as no contests so I've been doing the same officially on Knowledge.

537:

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

358: 3322: 2742:

I don't intend to be dismissive here, but there's no other way of saying it; your other points are irrelevant, sorry. –

1084:, TBRB, ESPN and BoxRec all being promoted, essentially. I think some editors may have tried to shoehorn others in like 904: 251: 3472: 2720: 303:

secondary sources that discuss their rankings, not even a passing mention of the website itself. Additions like these:

2998:

has recently added a few upcoming fights to tables inside the hidden message thingymabob. Could this be an option for

1169:

BTW, if we do go with this and it comes to a vote, I vote (1) because those rankings are more legitimate/independent.

488:

I just checked the ESPN ratings panel members. Who is Bernardo Pilatti? Charlie Moynihan? Kel Dansby? I have no idea.

3245:, but I figured I would give cleanup a chance. Thank you! I will go ahead and tag the article as necessary as well.-- 2797: 2711: 1976:

An average sports fan havent heard of many things, that is still not a justified reason to remove BoxRec from there.

1640: 1139:

Maybe a good alternative is modifying the infobox to put in a ranking. That is what they do for tennis players (see

668: 654: 626: 550: 512: 493: 477:- Inaky Arzate - I think is a pundit and presenter for Mexico’s top boxing channel, TUDN. Not 100% sure on that one. 438: 380: 47: 17: 2164: 4259: 3144: 2683:

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

1010:

win for Prograis, later ruled a TKO" and let the prose (whoever gets around to writing it) handle all the details?

311:, are just more unnecessary fluff from a completely unknown entity. Something I think we could do without. Pinging 294: 4839:, second sentence. Anyone who wants the little flaggies back had their chance. Come back in another seven years. 4800: 4751: 4451: 4298: 4111: 4093:

No objection from me. I assume this would also include the ones I've seen being added inside a hidden comment? –

3991: 3845: 3754: 3597: 3410: 3377: 3296: 3227: 3204: 3183: 3020: 2832: 2760: 2574: 2489: 2429: 2013: 1968: 1760: 1531: 1498: 1424: 1246: 1151: 1043: 895: 755: 696: 605: 414: 333: 202: 903:

I'm also experimenting with the wording for technical decisions/draws. Again, just a minor tweak—see example at

4333: 2525: 1698: 4013: 3452: 3356:). Let me know if that's in contradiction to any guidelines and I'll happily comply with what they recommend. 1939:, I've pasted the discussion from Jersey Joe to here for more eyes. For clarity, the edit being discussed is 1383: 1349: 706: 3804:"Obnoxious" is a good way to describe their inconsistency. Like listing obvious KOs as TKOs and vice versa. 375:

that will make no sense. And as stated previously, ESPN do not make divisional rankings for female boxing.

4695: 4354:

flags from boxing-related record tables. Although there appeared to be no disagreement among participants,

3148: 2406: 1658: 3032:

matter how official or set in stone it may be. Any fight card is subject to cancellation even on the day.

1375: 1098:

that TBRB and ESPN should not be present at all. I don't quite want to say "Let's ditch everything except

1002: 522:

The bottom line is that nobody in boxing cares about rankings from this website, and neither should we. --

218: 4369: 4271: 4255: 3468: 2231: 1609: 1269: 3237:. I don't think I have ever seen an article so poorly maintained. Every date provided is a violation of 645:

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

581:

She is also ranked 6th in IBO, 4th in WIBA, 3rd in WBF, 4th in UBF and 6th in the Lineal Boxing Champion

222: 4790: 4783: 4741: 4734: 4726: 4441: 4434: 4288: 4281: 4101: 4094: 3835: 3828: 3587: 3580: 3419: 3400: 3393: 3367: 3360: 3305: 3286: 3279: 3194: 3187: 3139: 3058: 3010: 3003: 2822: 2815: 2750: 2743: 2732: 2564: 2557: 2529: 2479: 2472: 2419: 2412: 2003: 1996: 1958: 1951: 1773: 1750: 1743: 1628: 1521: 1514: 1488: 1481: 1414: 1407: 1335: 1236: 1229: 1033: 1026: 885: 878: 862:

NCs changed retroactively ("Originally an SD win for , later ruled an NC after...") will be unchanged.

686: 679: 595: 588: 576: 425:

a niche sport - it’s hardly surprising you don’t see the ratings published in newspaper articles etc.

404: 397: 323: 316: 192: 185: 38: 3461:, can I put this data in as part of his boxing record infobox? Is this a reliable source? Thank you. 2142: 4826: 4712: 4240: 4163: 3899: 3791: 3745: 3660: 3614: 3528: 3492: 3125: 3092: 2897: 2358: 2343: 2314: 2300: 2241: 2199: 1600: 1562: 1548: 1441: 1357: 174: 111: 106:

boxer's Knowledge page, which they wouldn't have a reason to do necessarily if the belt isn't listed.

4807:

leave the flags!!! it makes the record look so much better, flagless makes it look cheap and rushed

4844: 4772: 4508: 4398: 4222: 4196: 4141: 4069: 3917:

If you have views on this proposal, one way or the other, please feel free to add your comments at

3868: 3809: 3775: 3707: 3634: 3570: 3543: 3512: 3217: 3164: 3037: 2955: 2397: 2150: 2116: 2083: 2046: 1921: 1832: 1694: 1395: 1306: 1211: 1107: 1063: 1015: 992: 867: 389:

My issue is that the website hasn't (as far as I can see, correct me if I'm wrong) been covered in

285: 259: 230: 147: 1387: 4687: 4683: 4631: 4152: 3384:

I've finished the UK section. In addition to the changes above I've change the family names from

3234: 2209: 2160: 1930: 125:, which (as you've seen me explain to editors unfamiliar with it) was to maintain brevity in the 2556:, as the editor in question is pushing this website and it's rankings into multiple articles. – 1947: 1940: 3625: 3434: 3334: 3255: 1672: 308: 254:

was a bit trickier because it was so specific, but it's the best I could come up with for now.

225:. It's perhaps a smidge wordy, but not much different to our myriad TD, DQ or NC explanations. 4576: 1916:

as to whether all WBA titles lower than 'Super' should be omitted. All hands on deck, please!

304: 4767:

So that's it, then? They can go...? Well hey, it only took seven years! Let's start zapping.

2995: 2811: 1873: 1783: 1709: 1621: 1543:'s full record. When I'm done (likely today) I will run through Ankrah's record for you guys. 1330: 1147: 1095: 3913:

A new proposal is now pending to add language to NSPORT providing, among other things, that

3647:

If it is such a nuisance, then why should any record have it at all? If it's too clunky for

2971:

should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Dates are

2533: 1739: 1379: 1371: 1370:

record database used by the Association of Boxing Commissions and Combative Sports (as seen

4822: 4708: 4374: 4236: 4159: 3935: 3895: 3787: 3741: 3656: 3610: 3524: 3488: 3464: 3121: 3088: 3071:

I would support this. Fights that haven't happened yet are not part of a boxer's record. --

2893: 2851: 2354: 2339: 2310: 2296: 2237: 2195: 1596: 1558: 1544: 1508: 1437: 1353: 350: 170: 122: 107: 4586:

4. We do not know which country every fight fought by boxers with Knowledge articles. See

4366:

applies, but with no clear agreement on whether this should be applied to amateur boxers.

1943: 8: 4853: 4840: 4768: 4504: 4470: 4462: 4394: 4218: 4192: 4137: 4065: 3864: 3805: 3771: 3703: 3630: 3566: 3539: 3508: 3213: 3160: 3033: 2951: 2553: 2393: 2146: 2112: 2079: 2042: 1917: 1828: 1616: 1302: 1207: 1103: 1059: 1011: 988: 863: 281: 255: 226: 143: 4730: 4615: 4594:

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

4528: 4500: 4430: 4315: 2880: 2442: 2329: 2273: 2251: 2222: 2172: 2104: 2025: 1399: 1259: 1197: 1185:

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

1174: 4698:'s flag. Over 100 years later, this same situation could perhaps be on the horizon... 1402:. I think a widely (if not universally) used format is a good enough reason to ignore 1374:). The Descending order is the standard format used in combat sports. A few examples: 4623: 4037: 3648: 3431: 3346: 3331: 3269: 3252: 3238: 2924: 2916: 2537: 1577: 1463: 1403: 1279: 1080:

These paragraphs are turning into mucho clutter in lead sections. Currently we have

4861: 4603: 4413: 4393:) be removed from all boxing record tables, including professional and exhibition? 4175: 4124: 4084: 3722: 3106: 3076: 2459: 2065: 1887: 1869: 1806: 1779: 1721: 1705: 1287: 1130: 1075: 734: 566: 527: 453: 3212:

I remember when that was compiled sometime in 2017. Main British title only, yes.

1146:(1) Ring, TBRB, and Boxrec - the historical rankings, the modern equivalent after 4619: 4213:

are even worse. It makes a mockery of what WP is meant to be—an encyclopaedia of

3926: 3731: 2165:

https://boxrec.com/media/index.php/BoxRec%27s_Annual_Ratings:_Heavyweight_Annuals

2096: 2034: 1991: 1665: 851:

What's changed is I've done away with "NC after", since it's clear to see in the

746: 717: 4531:. The addition of flags also cause many other issues not previously stated here. 4306:

There is this one site that is credible in searching up amateur boxing history.

2283:

I feel that I have come up with a sufficient option in the last two months. See

2167:). Are these rankings available in a database like their current rankings are?-- 121:

You have a valid point. It was one of the first elements originally included in

46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

4647: 4599: 4556: 4543: 4466: 3726: 3652: 3319: 3152: 2521: 2513: 2100: 1727: 1158: 275: 133:

or even worse.. catchweights. I would vehemently oppose the inclusion of those.

4666:...something doesn't seem right...Let's try 1937-1940 (end of his career) now 1681:--meaning that any BoxRec Boxing Encyclopedia page can be edited at any time." 1325:

boxing records, so it's good to see that the better material, e.g. GA/FA, now

4836: 4703: 4524: 4496: 4492: 4465:

items, since they are, by definition, unrelated to national representation. -

4426: 4363: 4311: 4307: 4183:

However, the keyword in record table is just that—it's meant to be a factual

4058: 3915:"meeting would not serve as a valid keep argument in a deletion discussion." 3909:

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

3736: 3278:

for living people be better? That's the format I usually see in BLP lists. –

3242: 2876: 2517: 2438: 2325: 2288: 2269: 2218: 2168: 2021: 1686: 1255: 1193: 1170: 1140: 3861:

the commissions' jurisdiction, therefore Price keeps his NC (commission: -->

3458: 3324:. If they don't have a page, I honestly think they should just be removed.-- 2411:

Is the "hometown" parameter for a boxer's birth place or where they live? –

4276:

is this for an amateur record and not professional? If so, I don't know of

4024: 4002: 3946: 3885: 3315: 3173: 3117: 2284: 2191: 1865: 1588: 1573: 1540: 1475: 1459: 1051: 393: 1995:

It's unnecessary fluff, and in some cases, comes across as promotional. –

980:

Majority TD: unable to continue after a cut from an accidental head clash

4857: 4733:, but I wasn't all that confident of doing so due to the previous RfC. – 4409: 4356:

there is a consensus that flags should be removed from tables related to

4120: 4080: 3890: 3767: 3763: 3759: 3102: 3072: 2947: 2455: 2061: 1883: 1859: 1802: 1734:, which is what this project recommends using, can only be edited by the 1432: 1283: 1275: 1166:

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

1150:

takeover, and the accepted computer. All three of these are features at

1126: 1091: 1055: 562: 523: 449: 3457:

Working on Justann Crawford's wikipage here, found his boxing record on

1391: 4639: 4587: 4546: 4488: 4484: 3922: 3881: 1452: 742: 166: 2981:

In addition to Mac's point regarding boxing events/fights never being

613:

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

3698:

notable. How about we just establish winning or defending a title at

2727:

is the only mention of LBC by DAZN; Badlefthook returned no results;

4650:. How would he be shown on other fighter's records from 1924-1929? 3054: 2111:

justified the removal of your content using several WP guidelines.

162: 3392:. Let me know if that goes against any guidelines or consensus. – 184:

weight and becomes ineligible, I think it should be left blank. –

3958:

Floyd Patterson 1983 New York City Marathon results/data addition

1735: 976:

Unanimous TD: unable to continue after an accidental head clash

2380:

sections is dumb. Very, very dumb. It's not the same as adding

1650: 1642: 1298: 4626:

makes it so that the official flag was not the consensus. See

4538:

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

1587:

Apologies, life has gotten in the way somewhat and I have put

3880:

While reading this whole thread, I can't stop thinking about

2372:

People, I cannot emphasise this enough: adding a link to the

3151:

to hundreds of articles, which is spam by any definition at

2552:

arguments for it's inclusion? I've copied this comment from

1513:

who may enjoy diving into it and doing a bit of research. –

1117:

None of the above rankings mean very much, apart from maybe

859:. They're still quite wordy, but trimmed at least somewhat. 840:

unable to continue after a cut from an accidental head clash

712:

There is a discussion on SSN (sport specific guidelines) at

575:

I searched WBAN for mentions of LBC and one result came up,

4643: 4577:

https://apnews.com/article/557e07b4e38ebd65e50d322a42f5ebd6

3538:

But where does it end? Does every fighter need to have it?

2939:

is OK. However, in boxing, it just doesn't work like that.

978:

Split TD: unable to continue after falling out of the ring

1661:, one user, PollShark, said that they use it as a source. 739:

Knowledge talk:Notability (sports)#Fram's revised proposal

165:

record and look at his fights against Martin Judge (2nd),

3186:

refers to the British title and not the regional ones? –

3159:

to find which articles have it, and start zapping away.

3002:

fights to be added, then unhid when the fight starts? –

1731: 1693:, especially for biographical information, specifically 1058:

might be the ones you're thinking of. That works great.

714:

RFC on Notability (sports) policy and reliability issues

280:

Practising my style. 1 day left at recently died board.

2942:

Therefore, we should be adding fights to record tables

842:

unable to continue after a cut from an accidental elbow

4702:

7. I added another one because I just remembered that

3919:

Knowledge:Village pump (policy)#Subproposal 1 (NSPORT)

2037:

should apply here. As Squared mentioned above, I have

4049:

OK, need to vent. I hate the sight of something like

3702:

as the magic number for the inclusion of the column?

4332:

The following discussion is an archived record of a

663:(and do not exist in the case of ESPN and the TBRB) 474:- Blanca Guttierrez is in the Women’s Hall of Fame. 347:I hope this adds to your discussion. Kind regards. 4342:

No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2935:go ahead no matter what. A schedule of events like 1653:is used by editors on this project as a source. At 131:" was stripped of after this fight for inactivity" 3862:EBU) and Soliman has his NC scratched (courts: --> 987:I'll find and edit them via a Google string soon. 4610:6. Civil Wars, Proxy Nations, and regime changes 4542:EX. Teo Dominguez as he appears on the record of 4045:Remove upcoming fights from record tables, take 2 836:unable to continue after an accidental head clash 462:FYI. I have some knowledge of the panel members. 4590:and view the first 10 fights for the locations. 1274:Hi all, I'm currently in the process of running 1143:). For as who to include, I suggest two paths. 838:unable to continue after falling out of the ring 4692:Flag of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic 4680:Flag of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic 2454:expression - makes them sound like a horse). -- 1297:There's no particular reason for it other than 716:. Feel free to go there and post your comments. 4250:Credible sites for bout records besides BoxRec 1864:So what should I do insofar as its use in the 1685:A number of editors in multiple discussion at 1620:. Any project members care to help expand? --- 1366:BoxRec isn't just "another website", it's the 638:LBC does, and its rankings pre-date The Ring. 471:- Cocks writes for Boxing Monthy. Or used to. 4345:A summary of the conclusions reached follows. 3180:Knowledge:WikiProject Boxing/Title Assessment 2731:is the only mention of LBC by MMA Mania; and 2694:I hope you find this contribution worthwhile. 1726:the general disclaimer you've linked is from 1336:Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!! 3556:This is getting out of hand. Now it's being 1704:Your thoughts would be appreciated. Thanks. 315:to the discussion as they're their edits. – 4350:The RfC opens by suggesting the removal of 2723:is the only mention of LBC by BoxingScene; 907:. Therefore we'd get something like these: 728:Proposed change in sports notability policy 4308:http://amateur-boxing.strefa.pl/index.html 1671:BoxRec, after all, is a wiki. On BoxRec's 1664:My question is, how does this not violate 1655:Knowledge:WikiProject Boxing/MOSGuidelines 1007: 956: 140:" missed weight; title at stake for only" 3459:https://boxrec.com/en/amateurboxer/935079 2913:remove upcoming fights from record tables 2907:Remove upcoming fights from record tables 2214:another discussion on rankings in general 1908:Super/Regular/interim/in recess champions 4325:RfC on flagicons in boxing record tables 3565:warrant it), or we ditch it altogether. 4809:2603:8001:C83D:E0C7:4955:A042:1671:E71B 4628:Nationalist faction (Spanish Civil War) 4551:2. People can have dual citizenships. 2212:). Their current rankings were part of 14: 3979:2601:581:8402:6620:7938:72B1:D6C8:BEF8 3965:2601:581:8402:6620:304C:CD3D:3958:6A95 3678:"hy should any record have it at all?" 3651:, then shouldn't it be too clunky for 2915:. Firstly, this would be in line with 2374:list of current world boxing champions 1914:list of current world boxing champions 1557:Also, I rewrote the opening paragraph. 1125:rankings should appear in the lede. -- 217:First examples with the new format at 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 3725:won the middleweight title at 19 and 2653:A Note on BoxRec, ESPN, and The Ring* 2635:Only Site With An Electronic Archive* 4729:. I would have closed it myself per 4588:https://boxrec.com/en/proboxer/41487 4547:https://boxrec.com/en/proboxer/50954 2501:Linealboxingchampion.com (round two) 2392:and zapping them, past and present. 2368:See also / list of current champions 1593:List of NSYAC world boxing champions 25: 2969:scheduled or expected future events 2689:produced by Lineal Boxing Champion. 2540:. There is no imbalance or bias in 1591:on hold until I finish a draft for 619:This only leaves The Ring and LBC. 561:give any weight to in Knowledge. -- 23: 2923:), as well as adhering rigidly to 1572:Nice work! That reads much better. 816: 24: 4885: 4725:: I've made a closure request at 3624:No need to do maths when there's 18:Knowledge talk:WikiProject Boxing 4759:The discussion above is closed. 4668: 4660: 4652: 2944:only after they have taken place 2911:I would like to propose that we 2078:section which no-one will read. 844:unable to continue after a foul 29: 3184:British Boxing Board of Control 1728:BoxRec's "sister encyclopaedia" 1649:Hi. I've recently learned that 1152:List of current boxing rankings 760:For no-contests which occurred 4642:was born December 15, 1904 in 4570: 3081:18:11, 12 September 2021 (UTC) 3063:00:04, 15 September 2021 (UTC) 3042:00:19, 13 September 2021 (UTC) 3023:23:51, 11 September 2021 (UTC) 2960:20:48, 10 September 2021 (UTC) 2432:01:13, 28 September 2021 (UTC) 1677:"This is an extremely dynamic 913: 770: 705:Request for Comment on SSN at 138:I will suggest something like 98:Title bouts for missed weights 13: 1: 4717:03:15, 26 February 2022 (UTC) 4513:19:07, 25 February 2022 (UTC) 4475:07:16, 22 February 2022 (UTC) 4454:19:02, 19 February 2022 (UTC) 4418:18:46, 19 February 2022 (UTC) 4408:For pro boxing, certainly. -- 4403:15:50, 19 February 2022 (UTC) 4227:23:00, 17 February 2022 (UTC) 4201:18:57, 16 February 2022 (UTC) 4168:04:28, 16 February 2022 (UTC) 4155:for example, currently shows 4146:19:00, 14 February 2022 (UTC) 4129:12:13, 14 February 2022 (UTC) 4114:10:50, 14 February 2022 (UTC) 4089:10:08, 12 February 2022 (UTC) 4074:20:15, 11 February 2022 (UTC) 4031:20:14, 25 February 2022 (UTC) 4009:17:27, 17 February 2022 (UTC) 3712:18:37, 16 December 2021 (UTC) 3439:05:48, 16 December 2021 (UTC) 3413:00:23, 16 December 2021 (UTC) 3380:22:49, 15 December 2021 (UTC) 3339:23:16, 14 December 2021 (UTC) 3299:21:49, 14 December 2021 (UTC) 3260:06:04, 13 December 2021 (UTC) 2363:17:05, 3 September 2021 (UTC) 2348:21:00, 4 September 2021 (UTC) 2334:20:37, 4 September 2021 (UTC) 2319:16:48, 3 September 2021 (UTC) 2305:14:12, 2 September 2021 (UTC) 2278:20:43, 1 September 2021 (UTC) 2227:20:01, 1 September 2021 (UTC) 2213: 1912:There is a discussion at the 1350:Boxing career of Muhammad Ali 1216:18:32, 22 February 2021 (UTC) 1202:17:49, 22 February 2021 (UTC) 1179:13:10, 21 February 2021 (UTC) 1135:21:47, 16 February 2021 (UTC) 1112:18:39, 16 February 2021 (UTC) 1001:Ugh.. this latest fiasco for 3987:22:10, 2 February 2022 (UTC) 3973:03:11, 1 February 2022 (UTC) 3953:13:12, 26 January 2022 (UTC) 3931:15:16, 22 January 2022 (UTC) 3665:03:23, 6 December 2021 (UTC) 3639:19:04, 9 November 2021 (UTC) 3619:16:01, 6 November 2021 (UTC) 3600:15:15, 30 October 2021 (UTC) 3575:18:15, 20 October 2021 (UTC) 3548:17:41, 12 October 2021 (UTC) 3533:01:51, 12 October 2021 (UTC) 3517:20:51, 11 October 2021 (UTC) 3222:23:21, 3 December 2021 (UTC) 3207:21:03, 3 December 2021 (UTC) 3169:20:35, 9 November 2021 (UTC) 3130:04:16, 9 November 2021 (UTC) 3111:18:09, 6 November 2021 (UTC) 3097:18:11, 10 October 2021 (UTC) 2987:almost certain to take place 2983:almost certain to take place 2902:04:09, 9 November 2021 (UTC) 2885:19:12, 5 November 2021 (UTC) 2868:21:00, 3 November 2021 (UTC) 2835:17:52, 30 October 2021 (UTC) 2802:16:20, 30 October 2021 (UTC) 2763:16:00, 30 October 2021 (UTC) 2716:15:02, 30 October 2021 (UTC) 2577:14:39, 30 October 2021 (UTC) 2492:15:05, 30 October 2021 (UTC) 2464:08:25, 29 October 2021 (UTC) 2447:21:09, 25 October 2021 (UTC) 2402:18:02, 12 October 2021 (UTC) 2138:) 8:54, 17 March 2021 (UTC) 1659:Knowledge:WikiProject Boxing 616:BoxRec’s are not respected. 7: 4782:I've already started lol – 4696:Ukrainian People's Republic 4358:professional and exhibition 4301:11:19, 4 January 2022 (UTC) 4264:08:05, 4 January 2022 (UTC) 3904:05:10, 7 January 2022 (UTC) 3873:21:57, 7 January 2022 (UTC) 3848:11:09, 4 January 2022 (UTC) 3814:15:36, 3 January 2022 (UTC) 3796:20:55, 2 January 2022 (UTC) 3780:20:42, 2 January 2022 (UTC) 3750:05:30, 7 January 2022 (UTC) 3502:Record table age parameters 3497:20:08, 3 January 2022 (UTC) 3481:07:38, 3 January 2022 (UTC) 10: 4890: 4866:01:50, 31 March 2022 (UTC) 4849:20:17, 30 March 2022 (UTC) 4831:19:54, 30 March 2022 (UTC) 4817:19:43, 30 March 2022 (UTC) 4803:20:26, 28 March 2022 (UTC) 4777:20:16, 28 March 2022 (UTC) 4754:22:33, 24 March 2022 (UTC) 4727:Knowledge:Closure requests 4658:How about from 1929-1937? 4380:19:34, 28 March 2022 (UTC) 3354:(Bob's brother; born 1980) 2155:17:28, 21 March 2021 (UTC) 2121:18:35, 16 March 2021 (UTC) 2088:17:00, 14 March 2021 (UTC) 2070:15:23, 14 March 2021 (UTC) 2051:14:51, 14 March 2021 (UTC) 2030:14:39, 14 March 2021 (UTC) 1689:have indicated that it is 1311:17:14, 29 April 2021 (UTC) 1292:07:25, 29 April 2021 (UTC) 1068:21:51, 20 April 2021 (UTC) 1046:21:14, 20 April 2021 (UTC) 1020:20:29, 20 April 2021 (UTC) 997:17:00, 14 April 2021 (UTC) 898:09:55, 14 April 2021 (UTC) 877:I agree, seems logical. – 872:19:08, 12 April 2021 (UTC) 723:00:53, 30 March 2021 (UTC) 699:11:57, 26 March 2021 (UTC) 673:22:54, 22 March 2021 (UTC) 659:22:52, 22 March 2021 (UTC) 631:22:39, 22 March 2021 (UTC) 608:20:20, 22 March 2021 (UTC) 571:08:28, 22 March 2021 (UTC) 555:23:24, 21 March 2021 (UTC) 532:17:15, 21 March 2021 (UTC) 517:18:16, 18 March 2021 (UTC) 498:10:19, 18 March 2021 (UTC) 458:07:48, 18 March 2021 (UTC) 443:07:38, 18 March 2021 (UTC) 417:21:57, 17 March 2021 (UTC) 385:19:56, 17 March 2021 (UTC) 367:17:19, 17 March 2021 (UTC) 336:16:27, 17 March 2021 (UTC) 290:15:32, 19 March 2021 (UTC) 142:. Similar to no-contests. 4320:08:30, 6 March 2022 (UTC) 4245:16:18, 3 March 2022 (UTC) 2246:13:25, 25 July 2021 (UTC) 2217:okay with leaving them.-- 2204:19:58, 20 July 2021 (UTC) 2099:, and makes a mockery of 2016:11:17, 7 March 2021 (UTC) 1986:11:00, 7 March 2021 (UTC) 1971:11:31, 7 March 2021 (UTC) 1926:11:29, 31 July 2021 (UTC) 1892:17:55, 30 July 2021 (UTC) 1878:19:56, 28 July 2021 (UTC) 1837:19:47, 28 July 2021 (UTC) 1811:19:36, 28 July 2021 (UTC) 1788:00:32, 28 July 2021 (UTC) 1763:15:40, 25 July 2021 (UTC) 1714:13:19, 25 July 2021 (UTC) 1605:16:03, 24 June 2021 (UTC) 1582:17:03, 16 June 2021 (UTC) 1567:14:54, 16 June 2021 (UTC) 1553:14:42, 16 June 2021 (UTC) 1534:14:34, 16 June 2021 (UTC) 1501:14:31, 16 June 2021 (UTC) 1468:13:53, 16 June 2021 (UTC) 1446:15:57, 18 June 2021 (UTC) 1427:11:52, 18 June 2021 (UTC) 1362:14:46, 16 June 2021 (UTC) 1341:10:17, 18 June 2021 (UTC) 1249:11:41, 7 March 2021 (UTC) 751:19:00, 5 April 2021 (UTC) 264:22:22, 8 March 2021 (UTC) 235:20:54, 8 March 2021 (UTC) 205:12:06, 7 March 2021 (UTC) 179:19:19, 5 March 2021 (UTC) 152:18:49, 5 March 2021 (UTC) 116:03:20, 5 March 2021 (UTC) 4761:Please do not modify it. 4339:Please do not modify it. 2946:. That way we adhere to 2177:19:23, 12 May 2021 (UTC) 1636:17:51, 8 July 2021 (UTC) 1396:World Boxing Association 1264:18:06, 26 May 2021 (UTC) 1006:"Originally a unanimous 762:at the time of the fight 295:Linealboxingchampion.com 4688:List of Ukrainian flags 4684:List of Ukrainian flags 4632:Second Spanish Republic 4153:Johnny Walker (fighter) 3992:Veikko Huuskonen at AfD 3755:Overturned/disputed NCs 3235:List of boxing families 3228:List of boxing families 2856:Anthony Williams Boxing 2794:Anthony Williams Boxing 2708:Anthony Williams Boxing 2526:WP:Significant coverage 2508:Anthony Williams Boxing 1451:Copy editing needed at 756:Minor NC wording change 665:Anthony Williams Boxing 651:Anthony Williams Boxing 623:Anthony Williams Boxing 547:Anthony Williams Boxing 509:Anthony Williams Boxing 490:Anthony Williams Boxing 435:Anthony Williams Boxing 377:Anthony Williams Boxing 355:Anthony Williams Boxing 313:Anthony Williams Boxing 4385:Should flagicons (for 4272:Hopefullynotilliterate 4256:Hopefullynotilliterate 3469:Hopefullynotilliterate 1191: 707:WP:Notability (sports) 4491:since 2020. Likewise 4014:Rudolf Andreassen AfD 3453:Boxing Record Infobox 3420:Squared.Circle.Boxing 3306:Squared.Circle.Boxing 2382:world champions]] or 1774:Squared.Circle.Boxing 1186: 1148:Golden Boy Promotions 42:of past discussions. 4059:Alexander Dimitrenko 3000:officially announced 2931:COVID, their events 2407:Boxing match infobox 2143:a few sections above 2093:User:Виктор Не Вацко 1942:, and by extension, 1384:mixedmartialarts.com 123:MOS:BOXING/RECORDNOT 4835:Pfff.. right. Read 4334:request for comment 3558:added to Lomachenko 2554:Talk:Amanda Serrano 2530:WP:Reliable sources 2252:Newspaper decisions 2232:Newspaper decisions 1732:The BoxRec database 1617:Cannabis and sports 1610:Cannabis and sports 1270:Fight record tables 1050:Oh yes, good spot! 4616:Baltasar Sangchili 4529:MOS:WORDPRECEDENCE 4501:MOS:WORDPRECEDENCE 4431:MOS:WORDPRECEDENCE 3140:Link spam clean-up 1679:Wiki-based website 1673:General disclaimer 4624:Spanish Civil War 4618:as he appears on 4378: 4373: 4370:non-admin closure 4041: 3649:Vasily Lomachenko 3467:comment added by 3155:. Here's a handy 2854:comment added by 1539:I'm finishing up 1404:MOS:CHRONOLOGICAL 1339: 1280:MOS:CHRONOLOGICAL 1094:brought it up at 985: 984: 849: 848: 353:comment added by 95: 94: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 4881: 4797: 4787: 4748: 4738: 4673: 4672: 4665: 4664: 4657: 4656: 4604:Kingdom of Italy 4579: 4574: 4448: 4438: 4423:Remove all flags 4377: 4367: 4341: 4295: 4285: 4275: 4176:Michael Katsidis 4108: 4098: 4035: 4027: 4005: 3949: 3842: 3832: 3723:Al McCoy (boxer) 3594: 3584: 3483: 3429: 3423: 3407: 3397: 3374: 3364: 3350: 3329: 3309: 3293: 3283: 3273: 3250: 3201: 3191: 3147:has gone around 3059:Blizzythesnowman 3017: 3007: 2996:Blizzythesnowman 2870: 2829: 2819: 2757: 2747: 2571: 2561: 2511: 2486: 2476: 2426: 2416: 2210:WP:USERGENERATED 2161:WP:USERGENERATED 2010: 2000: 1965: 1955: 1863: 1777: 1757: 1747: 1725: 1631: 1624: 1623:Another Believer 1528: 1518: 1512: 1495: 1485: 1479: 1421: 1411: 1333: 1331:The Rambling Man 1243: 1233: 1040: 1030: 1009: 981: 972: 964: 958: 915: 910: 909: 892: 882: 845: 832: 824: 818: 810: 772: 767: 766: 693: 683: 602: 592: 411: 401: 369: 330: 320: 199: 189: 81: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 4889: 4888: 4884: 4883: 4882: 4880: 4879: 4878: 4823:CaPslOcksBroKEn 4791: 4784: 4765: 4764: 4742: 4735: 4709:CaPslOcksBroKEn 4667: 4659: 4651: 4620:Panama Al Brown 4584: 4583: 4582: 4575: 4571: 4442: 4435: 4382: 4337: 4327: 4289: 4282: 4269: 4252: 4237:CaPslOcksBroKEn 4160:CaPslOcksBroKEn 4102: 4095: 4055:unencyclopaedic 4047: 4025: 4020:this discussion 4018:Hi. Please see 4016: 4003: 3998:this discussion 3996:Hi. Please see 3994: 3960: 3947: 3942:this discussion 3940:Hi. Please see 3938: 3911: 3896:CaPslOcksBroKEn 3836: 3829: 3788:CaPslOcksBroKEn 3757: 3742:CaPslOcksBroKEn 3732:Nipper Pat Daly 3657:CaPslOcksBroKEn 3611:CaPslOcksBroKEn 3588: 3581: 3525:CaPslOcksBroKEn 3504: 3489:CaPslOcksBroKEn 3462: 3455: 3425: 3417: 3401: 3394: 3368: 3361: 3344: 3325: 3303: 3287: 3280: 3267: 3246: 3230: 3195: 3188: 3182:, I'm assuming 3176: 3142: 3122:CaPslOcksBroKEn 3116:the article of 3089:CaPslOcksBroKEn 3011: 3004: 2909: 2894:CaPslOcksBroKEn 2849: 2823: 2816: 2751: 2744: 2565: 2558: 2505: 2503: 2480: 2473: 2420: 2413: 2409: 2370: 2355:CaPslOcksBroKEn 2340:CaPslOcksBroKEn 2311:CaPslOcksBroKEn 2297:CaPslOcksBroKEn 2238:CaPslOcksBroKEn 2234: 2196:CaPslOcksBroKEn 2132:Виктор Не Вацко 2004: 1997: 1978:Виктор Не Вацко 1959: 1952: 1937:Виктор Не Вацко 1933: 1931:BoxRec mentions 1910: 1857: 1771: 1751: 1744: 1736:editorial staff 1719: 1647: 1634: 1629: 1622: 1612: 1597:CaPslOcksBroKEn 1559:CaPslOcksBroKEn 1545:CaPslOcksBroKEn 1522: 1515: 1509:CaPslOcksBroKEn 1506: 1489: 1482: 1473: 1456: 1438:CaPslOcksBroKEn 1415: 1408: 1354:CaPslOcksBroKEn 1272: 1237: 1230: 1096:Talk:Tyson Fury 1078: 1034: 1027: 975: 970: 962: 886: 879: 835: 830: 822: 808: 758: 730: 710: 687: 680: 633: 596: 589: 557: 405: 398: 394:reliable source 348: 324: 317: 297: 278: 193: 186: 171:CaPslOcksBroKEn 108:CaPslOcksBroKEn 100: 77: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 4887: 4877: 4876: 4875: 4874: 4873: 4872: 4871: 4870: 4869: 4868: 4854:Mac Dreamstate 4841:Mac Dreamstate 4769:Mac Dreamstate 4758: 4757: 4756: 4699: 4674: 4648:Russian Empire 4635: 4613: 4607: 4600:Ezzard Charles 4595: 4591: 4581: 4580: 4568: 4567: 4563: 4561: 4557:Trevor Berbick 4552: 4544:Rocky Mattioli 4539: 4535: 4533: 4532: 4516: 4515: 4505:Mac Dreamstate 4503:should apply. 4477: 4456: 4420: 4395:Mac Dreamstate 4383: 4349: 4348: 4347: 4328: 4326: 4323: 4304: 4303: 4251: 4248: 4232: 4231: 4230: 4229: 4219:Mac Dreamstate 4204: 4203: 4193:Mac Dreamstate 4180: 4179: 4149: 4148: 4138:Mac Dreamstate 4132: 4131: 4116: 4091: 4066:Mac Dreamstate 4046: 4043: 4015: 4012: 3993: 3990: 3959: 3956: 3937: 3934: 3910: 3907: 3878: 3877: 3876: 3875: 3865:Mac Dreamstate 3851: 3850: 3819: 3818: 3817: 3816: 3806:Mac Dreamstate 3799: 3798: 3772:Mac Dreamstate 3756: 3753: 3727:Baby Arizmendi 3719: 3718: 3717: 3716: 3715: 3714: 3704:Mac Dreamstate 3686: 3685: 3684: 3683: 3682: 3681: 3670: 3669: 3668: 3667: 3653:George Foreman 3642: 3641: 3631:Mac Dreamstate 3607: 3606: 3605: 3604: 3603: 3602: 3567:Mac Dreamstate 3551: 3550: 3540:Mac Dreamstate 3521: 3509:Mac Dreamstate 3503: 3500: 3454: 3451: 3450: 3449: 3448: 3447: 3446: 3445: 3444: 3443: 3442: 3441: 3382: 3320:Nico Ali Walsh 3229: 3226: 3225: 3224: 3214:Mac Dreamstate 3178:In regards to 3175: 3172: 3161:Mac Dreamstate 3141: 3138: 3137: 3136: 3135: 3134: 3133: 3132: 3084: 3083: 3068: 3067: 3066: 3065: 3047: 3046: 3045: 3044: 3034:Mac Dreamstate 3026: 3025: 2991: 2990: 2978: 2977: 2952:Mac Dreamstate 2908: 2905: 2890: 2888: 2887: 2846: 2844: 2843: 2842: 2841: 2840: 2839: 2838: 2837: 2812:WP:Promotional 2808: 2791: 2782: 2781: 2780: 2779: 2778: 2777: 2768: 2767: 2766: 2765: 2740: 2736: 2703: 2701: 2700: 2696: 2695: 2691: 2690: 2685: 2684: 2680: 2679: 2678: 2677: 2670: 2668: 2667: 2663: 2662: 2657: 2656: 2655: 2654: 2647: 2645: 2644: 2639: 2638: 2637: 2636: 2629: 2627: 2626: 2621: 2620: 2619: 2618: 2611: 2609: 2608: 2603: 2602: 2601: 2600: 2599:Panel Members* 2593: 2591: 2590: 2585: 2584: 2502: 2499: 2498: 2497: 2496: 2495: 2450: 2449: 2408: 2405: 2394:Mac Dreamstate 2369: 2366: 2351: 2350: 2336: 2281: 2280: 2266: 2262: 2257: 2256: 2233: 2230: 2188: 2187: 2186: 2185: 2184: 2183: 2182: 2181: 2180: 2179: 2157: 2147:Mac Dreamstate 2113:Mac Dreamstate 2101:MOS:LEADLENGTH 2080:Mac Dreamstate 2057: 2056: 2055: 2054: 2053: 2043:Mac Dreamstate 1974: 1973: 1932: 1929: 1918:Mac Dreamstate 1909: 1906: 1905: 1904: 1903: 1902: 1901: 1900: 1899: 1898: 1897: 1896: 1895: 1894: 1846: 1845: 1844: 1843: 1842: 1841: 1840: 1839: 1829:Mac Dreamstate 1818: 1817: 1816: 1815: 1814: 1813: 1793: 1792: 1791: 1790: 1766: 1765: 1646: 1639: 1626: 1611: 1608: 1585: 1584: 1537: 1536: 1503: 1455: 1449: 1346: 1345: 1344: 1343: 1314: 1313: 1303:Mac Dreamstate 1271: 1268: 1267: 1266: 1221: 1220: 1219: 1218: 1208:Mac Dreamstate 1183: 1182: 1181: 1167: 1164: 1163: 1162: 1155: 1104:Mac Dreamstate 1077: 1074: 1073: 1072: 1071: 1070: 1060:Mac Dreamstate 1012:Mac Dreamstate 1003:Regis Prograis 989:Mac Dreamstate 983: 982: 979: 977: 973: 968: 965: 959: 954: 951: 948: 945: 941: 940: 937: 934: 931: 928: 925: 922: 919: 916: 901: 900: 864:Mac Dreamstate 847: 846: 843: 841: 839: 837: 833: 828: 825: 819: 814: 811: 805: 802: 798: 797: 794: 791: 788: 785: 782: 779: 776: 773: 757: 754: 729: 726: 709: 703: 702: 701: 621: 611: 610: 573: 545: 535: 534: 483: 482: 422: 421: 420: 419: 371: 370: 344: 343: 296: 293: 282:Bokoharamwatch 277: 274: 273: 272: 271: 270: 269: 268: 267: 266: 256:Mac Dreamstate 242: 241: 240: 239: 238: 237: 227:Mac Dreamstate 219:Gervonta Davis 210: 209: 208: 207: 181: 155: 154: 144:Mac Dreamstate 135: 134: 99: 96: 93: 92: 87: 82: 75: 70: 65: 62: 52: 51: 34: 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 4886: 4867: 4863: 4859: 4855: 4852: 4851: 4850: 4846: 4842: 4838: 4834: 4833: 4832: 4828: 4824: 4820: 4819: 4818: 4814: 4810: 4806: 4805: 4804: 4801: 4798: 4796: 4795: 4788: 4786: 4781: 4780: 4779: 4778: 4774: 4770: 4762: 4755: 4752: 4749: 4747: 4746: 4739: 4737: 4732: 4728: 4724: 4721: 4720: 4719: 4718: 4714: 4710: 4705: 4704:Roy Jones Jr. 4700: 4697: 4693: 4689: 4685: 4681: 4675: 4671: 4663: 4655: 4649: 4645: 4641: 4636: 4633: 4629: 4625: 4621: 4617: 4611: 4608: 4605: 4601: 4596: 4592: 4589: 4578: 4573: 4569: 4566: 4562: 4558: 4553: 4549: 4548: 4545: 4540: 4536: 4530: 4526: 4525:MOS:SPORTFLAG 4521: 4518: 4517: 4514: 4510: 4506: 4502: 4498: 4497:MOS:SPORTFLAG 4494: 4493:Mahmoud Charr 4490: 4486: 4481: 4478: 4476: 4472: 4468: 4464: 4460: 4457: 4455: 4452: 4449: 4447: 4446: 4439: 4437: 4432: 4428: 4427:MOS:SPORTFLAG 4424: 4421: 4419: 4415: 4411: 4407: 4406: 4405: 4404: 4400: 4396: 4392: 4388: 4381: 4376: 4371: 4365: 4364:MOS:SPORTFLAG 4361: 4359: 4353: 4346: 4343: 4340: 4335: 4330: 4329: 4322: 4321: 4317: 4313: 4309: 4302: 4299: 4296: 4294: 4293: 4286: 4284: 4279: 4273: 4268: 4267: 4266: 4265: 4261: 4257: 4247: 4246: 4242: 4238: 4228: 4224: 4220: 4216: 4212: 4208: 4207: 4206: 4205: 4202: 4198: 4194: 4190: 4186: 4182: 4181: 4177: 4172: 4171: 4170: 4169: 4165: 4161: 4156: 4154: 4147: 4143: 4139: 4134: 4133: 4130: 4126: 4122: 4117: 4115: 4112: 4109: 4107: 4106: 4099: 4097: 4092: 4090: 4086: 4082: 4078: 4077: 4076: 4075: 4071: 4067: 4062: 4060: 4056: 4052: 4042: 4039: 4033: 4032: 4029: 4028: 4021: 4011: 4010: 4007: 4006: 3999: 3989: 3988: 3984: 3980: 3975: 3974: 3970: 3966: 3955: 3954: 3951: 3950: 3943: 3933: 3932: 3928: 3924: 3920: 3916: 3906: 3905: 3901: 3897: 3892: 3887: 3883: 3874: 3870: 3866: 3860: 3855: 3854: 3853: 3852: 3849: 3846: 3843: 3841: 3840: 3833: 3831: 3825: 3821: 3820: 3815: 3811: 3807: 3803: 3802: 3801: 3800: 3797: 3793: 3789: 3784: 3783: 3782: 3781: 3777: 3773: 3769: 3765: 3761: 3752: 3751: 3747: 3743: 3738: 3737:Roberto Duran 3733: 3728: 3724: 3713: 3709: 3705: 3701: 3697: 3692: 3691: 3690: 3689: 3688: 3687: 3679: 3676: 3675: 3674: 3673: 3672: 3671: 3666: 3662: 3658: 3654: 3650: 3646: 3645: 3644: 3643: 3640: 3636: 3632: 3627: 3623: 3622: 3621: 3620: 3616: 3612: 3601: 3598: 3595: 3593: 3592: 3585: 3583: 3578: 3577: 3576: 3572: 3568: 3564: 3559: 3555: 3554: 3553: 3552: 3549: 3545: 3541: 3537: 3536: 3535: 3534: 3530: 3526: 3519: 3518: 3514: 3510: 3499: 3498: 3494: 3490: 3484: 3482: 3478: 3474: 3470: 3466: 3460: 3440: 3437: 3436: 3433: 3428: 3421: 3416: 3415: 3414: 3411: 3408: 3406: 3405: 3398: 3396: 3391: 3387: 3383: 3381: 3378: 3375: 3373: 3372: 3365: 3363: 3357: 3355: 3348: 3342: 3341: 3340: 3337: 3336: 3333: 3328: 3323: 3321: 3317: 3313: 3307: 3302: 3301: 3300: 3297: 3294: 3292: 3291: 3284: 3282: 3277: 3271: 3266: 3265: 3264: 3263: 3262: 3261: 3258: 3257: 3254: 3249: 3244: 3240: 3236: 3223: 3219: 3215: 3211: 3210: 3209: 3208: 3205: 3202: 3200: 3199: 3192: 3190: 3185: 3181: 3171: 3170: 3166: 3162: 3158: 3157:Google string 3154: 3150: 3149:adding a link 3146: 3131: 3127: 3123: 3119: 3114: 3113: 3112: 3108: 3104: 3100: 3099: 3098: 3094: 3090: 3086: 3085: 3082: 3078: 3074: 3070: 3069: 3064: 3060: 3056: 3051: 3050: 3049: 3048: 3043: 3039: 3035: 3030: 3029: 3028: 3027: 3024: 3021: 3018: 3016: 3015: 3008: 3006: 3001: 2997: 2993: 2992: 2988: 2984: 2980: 2979: 2976: 2974: 2970: 2964: 2963: 2962: 2961: 2957: 2953: 2949: 2945: 2940: 2938: 2934: 2928: 2926: 2922: 2918: 2914: 2904: 2903: 2899: 2895: 2886: 2882: 2878: 2873: 2872: 2871: 2869: 2865: 2861: 2857: 2853: 2836: 2833: 2830: 2828: 2827: 2820: 2818: 2813: 2809: 2805: 2804: 2803: 2799: 2795: 2792: 2788: 2787: 2786: 2785: 2784: 2783: 2774: 2773: 2772: 2771: 2770: 2769: 2764: 2761: 2758: 2756: 2755: 2748: 2746: 2741: 2737: 2734: 2730: 2726: 2722: 2719: 2718: 2717: 2713: 2709: 2706: 2705: 2704: 2699:Kind regards, 2698: 2697: 2693: 2692: 2687: 2686: 2682: 2681: 2675: 2674: 2673: 2672: 2671: 2665: 2664: 2659: 2658: 2652: 2651: 2650: 2649: 2648: 2641: 2640: 2634: 2633: 2632: 2631: 2630: 2623: 2622: 2616: 2615: 2614: 2613: 2612: 2605: 2604: 2598: 2597: 2596: 2595: 2594: 2587: 2586: 2581: 2580: 2579: 2578: 2575: 2572: 2570: 2569: 2562: 2560: 2555: 2551: 2547: 2543: 2539: 2535: 2531: 2527: 2523: 2519: 2515: 2509: 2494: 2493: 2490: 2487: 2485: 2484: 2477: 2475: 2467: 2466: 2465: 2461: 2457: 2452: 2451: 2448: 2444: 2440: 2436: 2435: 2434: 2433: 2430: 2427: 2425: 2424: 2417: 2415: 2404: 2403: 2399: 2395: 2391: 2390:WhatLinksHere 2387: 2383: 2381: 2379: 2375: 2365: 2364: 2360: 2356: 2349: 2345: 2341: 2337: 2335: 2331: 2327: 2323: 2322: 2321: 2320: 2316: 2312: 2307: 2306: 2302: 2298: 2292: 2290: 2289:Ted Kid Lewis 2286: 2279: 2275: 2271: 2267: 2263: 2259: 2258: 2253: 2250: 2249: 2248: 2247: 2243: 2239: 2229: 2228: 2224: 2220: 2215: 2211: 2206: 2205: 2201: 2197: 2193: 2178: 2174: 2170: 2166: 2162: 2158: 2156: 2152: 2148: 2144: 2140: 2139: 2137: 2133: 2129: 2124: 2123: 2122: 2118: 2114: 2110: 2106: 2102: 2098: 2094: 2091: 2090: 2089: 2085: 2081: 2077: 2073: 2072: 2071: 2067: 2063: 2058: 2052: 2048: 2044: 2040: 2036: 2033: 2032: 2031: 2027: 2023: 2019: 2018: 2017: 2014: 2011: 2009: 2008: 2001: 1999: 1993: 1990: 1989: 1988: 1987: 1983: 1979: 1972: 1969: 1966: 1964: 1963: 1956: 1954: 1949: 1945: 1941: 1938: 1935: 1934: 1928: 1927: 1923: 1919: 1915: 1893: 1889: 1885: 1881: 1880: 1879: 1875: 1871: 1867: 1861: 1856: 1855: 1854: 1853: 1852: 1851: 1850: 1849: 1848: 1847: 1838: 1834: 1830: 1826: 1825: 1824: 1823: 1822: 1821: 1820: 1819: 1812: 1808: 1804: 1799: 1798: 1797: 1796: 1795: 1794: 1789: 1785: 1781: 1775: 1770: 1769: 1768: 1767: 1764: 1761: 1758: 1756: 1755: 1748: 1746: 1741: 1737: 1733: 1729: 1723: 1718: 1717: 1716: 1715: 1711: 1707: 1702: 1700: 1696: 1692: 1688: 1683: 1682: 1680: 1675:, it states: 1674: 1669: 1667: 1662: 1660: 1656: 1652: 1644: 1638: 1637: 1632: 1625: 1619: 1618: 1607: 1606: 1602: 1598: 1594: 1590: 1583: 1579: 1575: 1571: 1570: 1569: 1568: 1564: 1560: 1555: 1554: 1550: 1546: 1542: 1535: 1532: 1529: 1527: 1526: 1519: 1517: 1510: 1504: 1502: 1499: 1496: 1494: 1493: 1486: 1484: 1477: 1472: 1471: 1470: 1469: 1465: 1461: 1454: 1448: 1447: 1443: 1439: 1434: 1429: 1428: 1425: 1422: 1420: 1419: 1412: 1410: 1405: 1401: 1397: 1393: 1389: 1385: 1381: 1377: 1373: 1369: 1364: 1363: 1359: 1355: 1351: 1342: 1337: 1332: 1328: 1324: 1323: 1318: 1317: 1316: 1315: 1312: 1308: 1304: 1300: 1296: 1295: 1294: 1293: 1289: 1285: 1281: 1277: 1265: 1261: 1257: 1253: 1252: 1251: 1250: 1247: 1244: 1242: 1241: 1234: 1232: 1226: 1217: 1213: 1209: 1205: 1204: 1203: 1199: 1195: 1190: 1184: 1180: 1176: 1172: 1168: 1165: 1160: 1156: 1153: 1149: 1145: 1144: 1142: 1141:Roger Federer 1138: 1137: 1136: 1132: 1128: 1124: 1120: 1116: 1115: 1114: 1113: 1109: 1105: 1101: 1097: 1093: 1089: 1087: 1083: 1069: 1065: 1061: 1057: 1053: 1049: 1048: 1047: 1044: 1041: 1039: 1038: 1031: 1029: 1024: 1023: 1022: 1021: 1017: 1013: 1004: 999: 998: 994: 990: 974: 969: 966: 960: 955: 952: 949: 946: 943: 942: 938: 935: 932: 929: 926: 923: 920: 917: 912: 911: 908: 906: 905:Paul Williams 899: 896: 893: 891: 890: 883: 881: 876: 875: 874: 873: 869: 865: 860: 858: 854: 834: 829: 826: 820: 815: 812: 806: 803: 800: 799: 795: 792: 789: 786: 783: 780: 777: 774: 769: 768: 765: 763: 753: 752: 748: 744: 740: 736: 725: 724: 721: 720: 715: 708: 700: 697: 694: 692: 691: 684: 682: 677: 676: 675: 674: 670: 666: 661: 660: 656: 652: 646: 643: 639: 636: 632: 628: 624: 620: 617: 614: 609: 606: 603: 601: 600: 593: 591: 586: 582: 578: 574: 572: 568: 564: 559: 558: 556: 552: 548: 544: 541: 538: 533: 529: 525: 521: 520: 519: 518: 514: 510: 504: 500: 499: 495: 491: 486: 480: 479: 478: 475: 472: 469: 466: 463: 460: 459: 455: 451: 445: 444: 440: 436: 430: 426: 418: 415: 412: 410: 409: 402: 400: 395: 392: 388: 387: 386: 382: 378: 373: 372: 368: 364: 360: 356: 352: 346: 345: 340: 339: 338: 337: 334: 331: 329: 328: 321: 319: 314: 310: 306: 302: 292: 291: 287: 283: 265: 261: 257: 253: 252:Daniel Jacobs 250: 249: 248: 247: 246: 245: 244: 243: 236: 232: 228: 224: 223:Adrien Broner 220: 216: 215: 214: 213: 212: 211: 206: 203: 200: 198: 197: 190: 188: 182: 180: 176: 172: 168: 164: 159: 158: 157: 156: 153: 149: 145: 141: 137: 136: 132: 128: 124: 120: 119: 118: 117: 113: 109: 103: 91: 88: 86: 83: 80: 76: 74: 71: 69: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 4793: 4792: 4785: 4766: 4760: 4744: 4743: 4736: 4722: 4701: 4676: 4637: 4612: 4609: 4597: 4593: 4585: 4572: 4564: 4554: 4550: 4541: 4537: 4534: 4519: 4479: 4458: 4444: 4443: 4436: 4422: 4390: 4386: 4384: 4357: 4355: 4351: 4344: 4338: 4331: 4305: 4291: 4290: 4283: 4277: 4253: 4233: 4214: 4188: 4184: 4157: 4150: 4104: 4103: 4096: 4063: 4054: 4048: 4034: 4023: 4017: 4001: 3995: 3976: 3961: 3945: 3939: 3936:Boxer at AfD 3914: 3912: 3879: 3858: 3838: 3837: 3830: 3822: 3758: 3720: 3699: 3695: 3677: 3626:a calculator 3608: 3590: 3589: 3582: 3562: 3520: 3505: 3485: 3463:— Preceding 3456: 3430: 3426: 3403: 3402: 3395: 3389: 3385: 3370: 3369: 3362: 3353: 3347:Rockchalk717 3343: 3330: 3326: 3316:Muhammad Ali 3311: 3289: 3288: 3281: 3275: 3270:Rockchalk717 3251: 3247: 3231: 3197: 3196: 3189: 3177: 3143: 3118:Max Holloway 3013: 3012: 3005: 2999: 2986: 2982: 2973:not definite 2972: 2968: 2966: 2943: 2941: 2932: 2929: 2920: 2912: 2910: 2889: 2850:— Preceding 2845: 2825: 2824: 2817: 2753: 2752: 2745: 2702: 2669: 2646: 2628: 2610: 2592: 2567: 2566: 2559: 2549: 2545: 2541: 2504: 2482: 2481: 2474: 2469: 2422: 2421: 2414: 2410: 2385: 2377: 2371: 2352: 2308: 2293: 2285:Jack Britton 2282: 2235: 2207: 2192:Joe Jeanette 2189: 2127: 2108: 2075: 2038: 2006: 2005: 1998: 1975: 1961: 1960: 1953: 1911: 1866:Joe Jeanette 1753: 1752: 1745: 1703: 1691:not reliable 1690: 1684: 1678: 1676: 1670: 1663: 1648: 1615: 1613: 1589:Tippy Larkin 1586: 1556: 1541:Tippy Larkin 1538: 1524: 1523: 1516: 1491: 1490: 1483: 1457: 1430: 1417: 1416: 1409: 1388:tapology.com 1367: 1365: 1347: 1326: 1321: 1320: 1273: 1239: 1238: 1231: 1224: 1222: 1187: 1122: 1118: 1099: 1090: 1085: 1081: 1079: 1052:Ryan Burnett 1036: 1035: 1028: 1000: 986: 930:Round, time 902: 888: 887: 880: 861: 856: 852: 850: 787:Round, time 761: 759: 731: 718: 711: 689: 688: 681: 662: 647: 644: 640: 637: 634: 618: 615: 612: 598: 597: 590: 584: 580: 542: 539: 536: 505: 501: 487: 484: 476: 473: 470: 467: 464: 461: 446: 431: 427: 423: 407: 406: 399: 390: 349:— Preceding 326: 325: 318: 300: 298: 279: 195: 194: 187: 139: 130: 126: 104: 101: 78: 43: 37: 4731:WP:RFCCLOSE 4209:Edits like 3891:Billy Miske 3886:Mike O'Dowd 3768:Felix Sturm 3764:Sam Soliman 3760:David Price 3312:(born 1999) 3276:(born 1999) 2967:Individual 2676:Conclusion* 2617:References* 2105:WP:FANCRUFT 1870:Nightscream 1780:Nightscream 1722:Nightscream 1706:Nightscream 1645:as a source 1433:Johnny Owen 1276:Johnny Owen 1092:User:Michig 1086:Boxing News 1056:Chad Dawson 967:8 Dec 2022 827:5 Jun 2021 36:This is an 4640:Benny Bass 4565:References 4489:Tyson Fury 4485:David Haye 4463:pro boxing 4079:Agreed. -- 4038:WP:APPNOTE 4022:. Thanks. 4000:. Thanks. 3944:. Thanks. 3882:Harry Greb 3239:WP:DATESNO 2925:WP:CRYSTAL 2892:accurate). 2538:WP:Balance 2524:, with no 2261:decisions. 1614:New stub: 1453:Roy Ankrah 971:Some place 831:Some place 719:Cassiopeia 167:Frank Erne 90:Archive 11 85:Archive 10 4487:in 2012, 4467:The Gnome 4461:from all 3977:Was done. 3786:involved. 3563:obviously 3427:Rockchalk 3352:bracket ( 3327:Rockchalk 3248:Rockchalk 3145:An editor 2739:rankings! 2643:archives. 1868:article? 1189:division. 953:Opponent 936:Location 924:Opponent 813:Opponent 793:Location 781:Opponent 735:WP:SIGCOV 163:Joe Gans’ 79:Archive 9 73:Archive 8 68:Archive 7 60:Archive 5 4391:Location 4387:Opponent 4375:Isabelle 4312:Bennyaha 4215:verified 4191:fought. 3894:decades. 3477:contribs 3465:unsigned 3310:I think 3055:COVID-19 2994:I think 2877:Jahalive 2864:contribs 2852:unsigned 2439:Jahalive 2386:See also 2378:See also 2326:Jahalive 2270:Jahalive 2219:Jahalive 2169:Jahalive 2097:WP:PROMO 2035:WP:CRUFT 2022:Jahalive 1992:WP:UNDUE 1778:Thanks. 1666:WP:USERG 1505:Pinging 1368:official 1327:properly 1256:Jahalive 1225:The Ring 1223:I think 1194:Jahalive 1171:RonSigPi 1119:The Ring 1100:The Ring 1082:The Ring 1076:Rankings 961:5 (12), 821:2 (10), 585:The Ring 363:contribs 351:unsigned 4723:Comment 4026:Lugnuts 4004:Lugnuts 3948:Lugnuts 3523:career. 3153:WP:ELNO 2917:MOS:MMA 2522:WP:NWEB 2514:WP:ONUS 1641:Use of 1574:4meter4 1476:4meter4 1460:4meter4 1380:Sherdog 1159:WP:NBOX 950:15–3–1 921:Record 918:Result 778:Record 775:Result 39:archive 4858:Drmies 4837:WP:CCC 4527:, and 4520:Remove 4480:Remove 4459:Remove 4410:Michig 4360:boxing 4185:record 4121:Michig 4081:Michig 3824:grabs. 3700:age 40 3696:that's 3243:WP:TNT 3103:Michig 3073:Michig 2937:F1 has 2933:always 2661:years! 2607:Cocks. 2589:none). 2546:policy 2518:WP:BRD 2456:Michig 2076:Legacy 2062:Michig 1884:Michig 1860:Michig 1803:Michig 1687:WP:RSN 1651:BoxRec 1643:BoxRec 1322:except 1299:BoxRec 1284:Kosack 1127:Michig 939:Notes 853:Result 796:Notes 563:Michig 524:Michig 450:Michig 276:Hagler 3923:Cbl62 3859:under 2550:based 2265:much. 2163:(ex. 2039:never 933:Date 927:Type 807:49–0 790:Date 784:Type 743:Cbl62 127:Notes 16:< 4862:talk 4845:talk 4827:talk 4813:talk 4773:talk 4713:talk 4682:and 4644:Kyiv 4638:EX. 4630:and 4614:EX. 4598:EX. 4509:talk 4499:and 4471:talk 4433:. – 4414:talk 4399:talk 4389:and 4316:talk 4260:talk 4241:talk 4223:talk 4211:this 4197:talk 4189:have 4164:talk 4142:talk 4125:talk 4085:talk 4070:talk 4051:this 4036:per 3983:talk 3969:talk 3927:talk 3900:talk 3869:talk 3810:talk 3792:talk 3776:talk 3762:and 3746:talk 3708:talk 3694:Now 3661:talk 3635:talk 3615:talk 3571:talk 3544:talk 3529:talk 3513:talk 3493:talk 3473:talk 3390:==== 3318:and 3218:talk 3174:NBOX 3165:talk 3126:talk 3107:talk 3093:talk 3077:talk 3038:talk 2956:talk 2948:WP:V 2898:talk 2881:talk 2860:talk 2798:talk 2733:this 2729:this 2725:this 2721:This 2712:talk 2542:only 2534:here 2512:The 2460:talk 2443:talk 2398:talk 2359:talk 2344:talk 2330:talk 2315:talk 2301:talk 2287:and 2274:talk 2242:talk 2223:talk 2200:talk 2173:talk 2151:talk 2136:talk 2117:talk 2109:have 2103:and 2084:talk 2066:talk 2047:talk 2026:talk 1982:talk 1950:. – 1948:this 1946:and 1944:this 1922:talk 1888:talk 1874:talk 1833:talk 1807:talk 1784:talk 1740:here 1710:talk 1699:here 1697:and 1695:here 1630:Talk 1601:talk 1578:talk 1563:talk 1549:talk 1464:talk 1442:talk 1406:. – 1376:ESPN 1372:here 1358:talk 1307:talk 1288:talk 1260:talk 1212:talk 1198:talk 1175:talk 1131:talk 1108:talk 1064:talk 1054:and 1016:talk 993:talk 963:3:00 947:Win 868:talk 857:Type 855:and 823:1:53 747:talk 669:talk 655:talk 627:talk 577:this 567:talk 551:talk 528:talk 513:talk 494:talk 454:talk 439:talk 381:talk 359:talk 286:talk 260:talk 231:talk 221:and 175:talk 148:talk 112:talk 4707:no? 4555:3. 4352:all 4278:any 4061:). 3884:vs 3388:to 3057:. ( 2528:in 2376:to 2255:we: 2194:…. 2128:why 1400:PBC 1392:UFC 1123:any 944:19 914:No. 809:(1) 804:NC 801:50 771:No. 391:any 301:any 4864:) 4847:) 4829:) 4815:) 4775:) 4715:) 4646:, 4634:. 4511:) 4473:) 4416:) 4401:) 4336:. 4318:) 4310:-- 4262:) 4243:) 4225:) 4199:) 4166:) 4144:) 4127:) 4087:) 4072:) 3985:) 3971:) 3929:) 3921:. 3902:) 3871:) 3812:) 3794:) 3778:) 3748:) 3710:) 3663:) 3637:) 3617:) 3573:) 3546:) 3531:) 3515:) 3495:) 3479:) 3475:• 3435:17 3335:17 3256:17 3220:) 3167:) 3128:) 3109:) 3095:) 3079:) 3061:) 3040:) 2958:) 2927:. 2900:) 2883:) 2866:) 2862:• 2800:) 2714:) 2462:) 2445:) 2400:) 2361:) 2346:) 2332:) 2317:) 2303:) 2276:) 2244:) 2225:) 2202:) 2175:) 2153:) 2145:. 2119:) 2086:) 2068:) 2060:-- 2049:) 2028:) 1984:) 1924:) 1890:) 1876:) 1835:) 1809:) 1786:) 1712:) 1701:. 1668:? 1603:) 1580:) 1565:) 1551:) 1466:) 1444:) 1398:, 1394:, 1390:, 1386:, 1382:, 1378:, 1360:) 1309:) 1290:) 1262:) 1214:) 1200:) 1192:-- 1177:) 1133:) 1110:) 1066:) 1018:) 1008:TD 995:) 957:TD 870:) 817:NC 749:) 741:. 671:) 657:) 629:) 579:. 569:) 553:) 530:) 515:) 496:) 456:) 448:-- 441:) 383:) 365:) 361:• 307:, 288:) 262:) 233:) 177:) 150:) 114:) 64:← 4860:( 4843:( 4825:( 4811:( 4799:. 4794:O 4789:. 4771:( 4750:. 4745:O 4740:. 4711:( 4507:( 4469:( 4450:. 4445:O 4440:. 4412:( 4397:( 4372:) 4368:( 4314:( 4297:. 4292:O 4287:. 4274:: 4270:@ 4258:( 4239:( 4221:( 4195:( 4162:( 4140:( 4123:( 4110:. 4105:O 4100:. 4083:( 4068:( 3981:( 3967:( 3925:( 3898:( 3867:( 3844:. 3839:O 3834:. 3808:( 3790:( 3774:( 3744:( 3706:( 3659:( 3655:? 3633:( 3613:( 3596:. 3591:O 3586:. 3569:( 3542:( 3527:( 3511:( 3491:( 3471:( 3432:7 3422:: 3418:@ 3409:. 3404:O 3399:. 3386:; 3376:. 3371:O 3366:. 3349:: 3345:@ 3332:7 3308:: 3304:@ 3295:. 3290:O 3285:. 3272:: 3268:@ 3253:7 3216:( 3203:. 3198:O 3193:. 3163:( 3124:( 3105:( 3091:( 3075:( 3036:( 3019:. 3014:O 3009:. 2954:( 2919:( 2896:( 2879:( 2858:( 2831:. 2826:O 2821:. 2796:( 2759:. 2754:O 2749:. 2710:( 2573:. 2568:O 2563:. 2548:- 2510:: 2506:@ 2488:. 2483:O 2478:. 2458:( 2441:( 2428:. 2423:O 2418:. 2396:( 2357:( 2342:( 2328:( 2313:( 2299:( 2272:( 2240:( 2221:( 2198:( 2171:( 2149:( 2134:( 2115:( 2082:( 2064:( 2045:( 2024:( 2012:. 2007:O 2002:. 1980:( 1967:. 1962:O 1957:. 1920:( 1886:( 1872:( 1862:: 1858:@ 1831:( 1805:( 1782:( 1776:: 1772:@ 1759:. 1754:O 1749:. 1724:: 1720:@ 1708:( 1633:) 1627:( 1599:( 1576:( 1561:( 1547:( 1530:. 1525:O 1520:. 1511:: 1507:@ 1497:. 1492:O 1487:. 1478:: 1474:@ 1462:( 1440:( 1423:. 1418:O 1413:. 1356:( 1352:. 1338:) 1334:( 1305:( 1286:( 1258:( 1245:. 1240:O 1235:. 1210:( 1196:( 1173:( 1161:. 1154:. 1129:( 1106:( 1062:( 1042:. 1037:O 1032:. 1014:( 991:( 894:. 889:O 884:. 866:( 745:( 695:. 690:O 685:. 667:( 653:( 625:( 604:. 599:O 594:. 565:( 549:( 526:( 511:( 492:( 452:( 437:( 413:. 408:O 403:. 379:( 357:( 332:. 327:O 322:. 309:2 305:1 284:( 258:( 229:( 201:. 196:O 191:. 173:( 146:( 110:( 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge

talk:WikiProject Boxing/Archive 9 - Knowledge

Index