Talk:Anderson Silva

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Flag
Portal
 Anderson Silva is within the scope of WikiProject Brazil, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Brazil and Brazil-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
To-do list for Brazil:
Image:UffiziFlorenceWrestlers small.jpg This article is part of WikiProject Mixed martial arts, an attempt to better organise and unify articles relating to mixed martial arts concepts, events, and biographies. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.


Contents

[edit] EXPANSION

Im not that huge of a Silva fan, but I am a fan of Chute Box, and he is a former Chute Box member. After tonight I think he deserves a better wikipedia article so Im gonna give him a mma record box and a picture. If you can make at least part of the names of that table links do so, if it is red and you cannot make it a link then either write and article or ill write one later, but I left certain things red, because although they do not have an article I know enough to write one about the things in red -IvanSanchez716

[edit] MMA Record

Someone delted the mma record table I set, that is completely absurd, that record could be verified by UFC.com and Sherdog.com as well as prides website. It was completely accurate and took a lot of time to make. I consider this vandalism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by IvanSanchez716 (talk • contribs) .

In this case, I think it was accidental, but whether it was or not, feel free to revert when something like that happens. Also, in the future sign your messages on talk pages by putting four tildes (~) at the end of it. SubSeven 02:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outcome of Lutter fight

According to the Nevada State Athletic Commission the fight was ruled a submission due to a triangle choke. Also, according to Travis Lutter in an interview conducted with NBC sports he tapped out due to the choke, not the elbows. You can read the NSAC results at http://boxing.nv.gov/2007%20Results/02-03-07%20MMA.pdf and the interview at http://www.nbcsports.com/ufc/1010414/detail.html

[edit] "Redundant box"

No, is not redundant because facilitate to read wins and losses by type and show total of matches. Please do not remove until to have a better way to show these infos. Carlosguitar 16:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Please do not add it unless there is a need for it. Win-loss is already listed in the infobox in a tabular format and this solution to a nonexistant problem is a clunky eyesore. If you want to add how many matches they have total, then put it on a single line along with the win-loss summary on top of the records table. hateless 17:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Losses is not listed by type, wins do not cite by decision in infobox. The table is more clean and easy than a single line — like ?? Wins (?? (T)KO, ?? Decision ?? Submission) ?? Losses (?? (T)KO, ?? Decision ?? Submission) ? Draw ? No Content — is used in record table.
It is not a solution of a problem but a clean up that facilitate to read the current information. Carlosguitar 17:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
And in the meantime there's a giant block of whitespace to the right which serves no purpose other than to accomodate a square little table, a table that doesn't even list totals wins or losses. Have you considered that your table isn't very good in the first place? Here's a thought: why not propose to alter the infobox to suit your purposes instead of creating a second new table with incrementally more information? Or better yet, why not question the need to present extra information in the first place? Have you heard of information pollution? This table is an example of something that adds more information without adding more comprehension-a badly designed table that does not really show any real relationships between wins and losses (is wins from knockouts connected with losses from knockouts? if not, why are they placed next to each other?) and presents information in a not-easily digestable way (why is 1/2 the table on the left side totally blank save for a total count?). There's already plenty of bad graphic design on WP, I'm not one to let more slip by on my watch. I don't believe you really didn't think this through – you really shouldn't expect you can unilaterally change the format of the MMA bios in WP and not expect resistance. And please don't revert changes while they're in discussion. hateless 18:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
This edit warring should stop, now. You both appear to have good intentions, and should think about that in relation to each other - hateless, ever heard of assume good faith? Carlosguitar's box adds useful information to the article, although it should be better - the total wins and losses are an example. As for how good the tables look, to me Carlos' is better, since the original has huge areas of grey space to the right when the notes are not used, and the smaller format in Carlos' edit makes both tables more aesthetically pleasing. Ideally, all this info would be merged into the same table, but if that is too difficult, Carlos' revision should stand and be built on to include information that he misses out. Both of you are in danger of 3RR, work together to make this infobox and article better. Chrisfow 19:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
If you notice, Chris, I did not attack Carlos personally and I never questioned his intention of improving the encyclopedia. However, his edits are open to criticism, just like anyone elses. I know WP:3RR, I know WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL and I never had any intention of crossing the lines. But a bedrock principle of WP is consensus-forming, and when Carlosguitar decides to alter several pages using a format I feel is a detriment to the quality of the articles, I believe I have a right to protest. As for his changes to the records table, I have no problem with it, my issue is the box. As for consensus, I posed several questions to Carlos, if he would like to answer them then that may be the first steps toward it. As for the idea that more information is always better, I challenge that, and will do it vigorously. hateless 20:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I did notice that hateless, it was your tone about his edits rather than any personal attacks which did not sound like they were made in good faith. I also disagree strongly with reverting or major edits during discussion, and have made that clear to Carlos. However, I would say that what he is aiming to do is of use. Descibing how the wins/draws/losses came about is a legitimate thing for this article and others like it to be doing. It is not information overload, if such a thing can exist on Wikipedia (see Jimbo's comments about "the sum of all human knowledge" etc. etc. etc.), but interesting information which rightly belongs in a martial arts article. I urge Carlos to put his case forward if he still feels the same, else we can forget this before it becomes WP:HORSEMEAT. Chrisfow
  • why not propose to alter the infobox to suit your purposes instead of creating a second new table with incrementally more information?
I did. Why you did not it instead of reverting my good faith edit? Improve my edits do not revert! You did a bad thing reverting my whole edit.
  • Or better yet, why not question the need to present extra information in the first place? Have you heard of information pollution?
You contradict yourself. You readded same info that are complaint now.[1] Instead of erasing it. It is show that these info are useful, but you just disagree with table aesthetically.
  • This table is an example of something that adds more information without adding more comprehension-a badly designed table
Help to improve. Lot of things in wikipedia rise ugly, until get strong.
18 Wins 4 Losses
(T)Knockout 10 0
Submission 3 2
Decision 5 1
Others 0 1
Draw 0
No Contest 0
Total 22 matches

Is it better? If not, please improve it, this table is useful for Mirko Cro Cop and other fighters that cannot be mixed matches from others tournaments on infobox. Another thing Hateless, readd my edits in the MMA record table that you removed and agree that there is no problem on that. Carlosguitar 03:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, like I said, the table is itself the problem. These are my issues with it:

  • Adds unnecessary white space, which also gives it undue emphasis. (Adding color doesn't help at all, it adds even more emphasis)
  • Emphasizes information that does not accurately convey the quality of a fighter (Win-loss is ok in parentheses after a fighter's name in prose because of limited space, in the context of a fighting record it should get second billing)
  • Implies relationships which may or may not be real (ie, wins by submissions next to losses by submission)
  • Creates more elaborate markup (newbie-unfriendly wikitable code) when not necessary: a simple line of text conveys the same information with more efficient use of space.

On top of that, I doubt the necessity of including constantly changing statistics in Wikipedia in general, so while I'm resistant to the idea, I'm a bit more open to adding more info but only if it is justified. The edit you were talking about was a revert to an older version, which I did because there was no consensus to remove that data in the first place. You see, consensus is an important thing here, its useful to get discussion on a change, especially one that can potentially change a hundred or so pages. hateless 21:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

So, what will you do to improve the table your disagreement? I already said why this table is necessary to articles like Mirko Cro Cop.

which I did because there was no consensus to remove that data in the first place.

I never removed any data, I did a clean up. Why are you not understand it?
No, you have no right to revert whole edit of someone because of a minor thing that you disliked, except in vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our neutral point of view. You did a mistake. Carlosguitar 01:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question on Cage Rage Championship

I see the following in the opening paragraph "He is also the current Cage Rage World Middleweight champion, the longest-reigning champion in that promotion."

Anderson hasn't fought in Cage Rage in a year and is under contract to the UFC. How can he be the Cage Rage World Middleweight champion? Bbagot 07:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


ANSWER: he never lost the belt, he never lost his Shooto belt either.

[edit] Height

A rock-solid source needs to be found for this; Sherdog and PRIDE list him at 5'11", FCFighter at 6', and UFC at 6'2". east.718 03:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

On his official site (not sure if it is updated) shows 5'11.[2] I'm going to post it up as that. *the same with his weight. --ShadowSlave 04:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Guess I found a more frequently updated source, UFC (should have went here earlier -.-). Link is here: http://www.ufc.com/index.cfm?fa=fighter.detail&pid=440 -- --ShadowSlave 12:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
"Frequently updated?" It's his height, it should never be changing. east.718 at 07:46, August 14, 2007

his height is without a doubt 6'2

[edit] Black Belts?

I thought I remember hearing on Countdown to UFC 77 that Anderson has a black belt in Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu, Muay Thai, and Tae Kwon Do, but only the former is mentioned in this article. Anyone know if he really does have these other two black belts? – kentyman 21:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

To my knowledge, there are no black belts in Muay Thai. east.718 at 22:38, 10/18/2007
Come to think of it, I think you're right. What about his Tae Kwon Do history? – kentyman 19:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I also came here just to see if he really had a black belt in Tae Kwon Do. -CKL121.131.213.155 (talk) 14:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] PRIDE belt

In the summary as well as the win/loss column it says that Anderson won the "PRIDE FC" MW championship after beating Dan Henderson. I don't see how this is possible as PRIDE FC is long defunct, if anything he may have won a PRIDE World Wide (Zuffa) championsip, but that seems unlikely as well. I believe the event was only marketed as champion vs champion, Anderson didn't ACTUALLY win -any- PRIDE title, only another UFC title. Correct me if I'm wrong here. MMAnzi (talk) 03:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Might need re-phrasing, UFC newsletter & site says he unified the titles --Nate1481(t/c) 10:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

he unified the titles. therefore he is the unified MW champ of the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.169.34.7 (talk) 20:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Boxing history

I don't agree with J18lee's edits, the argument that "You cannot take a fighter's personal account over an impartial respected source - boxrec" is undermined when the bout is listed as unverified and the site has a disclaimer that reads, "this data may be incomplete and/or inaccurate". Still, I don't know where the controversy is exactly... I've seen this Sherdog thread and there is some reasonable doubt suggested in the thread over boxrec's records. Where does Silva dispute his boxing record on boxrec? hateless 21:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

This isn't really an issue of agreeing or not agreeing. His boxing record is properly and reliably sourced to boxrec.com, which shows 2 fights (including him being knocked out in his debut in 1998). There is no reliable source (or any source at all) suggesting anything to the contrary. Reliably sourced >>>> speculation and conjecture, so J18lee's edits should be reverted immediately. Gromlakh (talk) 23:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
My faith in the reliability of databases like boxrec (and that includes Sherdog as well) is obviously nowhere as strong as yours. Still, it does appear boxrec is the strongest source available now, and the article should mention the 1996 fight, but I don't think boxrec is the final word on the matter. hateless 03:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't know that I would say that I have faith in them, it's just that they're generally reliable sources. In this particular case, it's a generally reliable source versus...well, nothing really. Mainly a bunch of anonymous IP editors who say (with no support of any kind) that the '98 fight isn't really him. If there was at least something else reliable out there that called into question the boxrec.com stats, I could at least understand that. If we had that, we could edit the page to reflect the fact that there's a dispute over his boxing record and neutrally show both sides. But when the page is being changed to say that he debuted in '05, sourced to a page that says he debuted in '98...clearly there's a problem. The page should reflect the information gleaned from the available reliable sources, and if more reliable sources emerge the page could be edited to reflect the new information. Gromlakh (talk) 03:11, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

That is exactly what I'm saying (boxrec is better than nothing at all). It's the most reliable information we have. We should not choose no source over a less reliable source.J18lee (talk) 23:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Whoops! Sorry, I thought you were the one that kept removing the earlier fight. I stand corrected and have struck out that part of my earlier comment. I support your edits. Gromlakh (talk) 00:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

boxrec recently added the bout and it is a mistake. there must be some anderson silva haters editing these posts and claiming "he got knocked out in his pro debut" even if boxrec is accurate it is labeled a TKO. seems like there's been a surge of people trying to promote this loss ever since anderson called out roy jones even though anderson's pro boxing record is 1-0.

this pic was posted on boxrec and labeled "MMA Star Anderson Silva's Pro Boxing Debut" year listed as 2005.

http://www.boxrec.com/media/images/3/34/92650119720058815825_anderson.jpg

http://www.boxrec.com/media/index.php/Human:325793. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.168.34.7 (talk) 02:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)