Santos Pakau
-
$ bill
- Heavyweight
4-21-2001 vs Clinton Simmons. Footnote says Pakau retains New Zealand Lightweight title. Previous bouts do not show when this 18 year old won the New Zealand title. Was it against Peter Warren on 11-4-2000 (w pts 12)? If so, shouldn't a footnote be in order. Interested in following this youngster to see, if and when he leaves New Zealand, how he fares against better opponents. Or will he just turn out to be another big fish in a little pond.
That would be my guess. However, this does bring up a point. I've always been in favor of using "retains" or "wins" in the footnote for exactly that reason. The user guide advises against it, saying it should be obvious from the result. The fact that he won the fight is obvious, but what is not is whether he captured the title for the first time or he retained it. I believe the user guide note was brought up in the early days and applied to folks entering the more major titles. When it comes to lesser titles, the database is lacking. So in a case like this, having retains in the footnote is a signal that he won the title previously, but, alas, no other fight reflects that fact.
I see that the note has been changed to remove "retains". While correct according to the user guide, I don't believe it's necessarily the right thing to do.
I see that the note has been changed to remove "retains". While correct according to the user guide, I don't believe it's necessarily the right thing to do.
-
$ bill
- Heavyweight
Your user guide instructions are good and should be followed. You made the right footnote correction. Only officially recognized bodies should be noted, even if it is states (NY, Ma, Ca,etc.)or EBU. That sort of recoginition. Otherwise you will get into claimant notes for vacant or important fights. Good rule.
$ - I'm not sure I understand your last post. With the note the way it is now, wouldn't it appear that the Simmons fight was the only time Pakau fought for the title? IMO the word "retained" worked because it signaled any viewer that he had obviously won the title previously, but it just hadn't been recorded. To me any title, regardless of its reputation or standing, should be noted. If it happened, then it happened and we should note it.
-
Guest
- Heavyweight
Brett, I have always preferred the approach you suggest. But I have been diligent to abide by John's wishes. I agree that it would be confusing if the note simply said: "Retains World Bantamweight Title" because it is a bit confusing while reading the loser's record. But, if the comment were clear: "Jones retains World Bantamweight Title" - that I would like to see.
This would also be particularly useful for very incomplete records. I have often come across a bout where, for example, it says "Jones retains bantamweight title." But Jones' BoxRec record may have no prior bouts in it indicating when he won that title. So, I often put in a comment to the effect of: "Canadian Bantamweight Title - Jones was the Canadian Champion at this time." I agree with you, Brett, that it seems cleaner to say: "Jones retains Canadian Bantamweight Title."
Ric
This would also be particularly useful for very incomplete records. I have often come across a bout where, for example, it says "Jones retains bantamweight title." But Jones' BoxRec record may have no prior bouts in it indicating when he won that title. So, I often put in a comment to the effect of: "Canadian Bantamweight Title - Jones was the Canadian Champion at this time." I agree with you, Brett, that it seems cleaner to say: "Jones retains Canadian Bantamweight Title."
Ric
-
$ bill
- Heavyweight
Brett, I will try to explain with what I was getting at about footnotes by examples. You state any championship should be noted if an "official" organization recognizes it (liberal interputation). Then you would list all state boxing commission designated title fights. Some have been listed. Now the examples (this is from memory, don't hold me to the facts) Paul Pender was recognized by Massachusetts as world champ. He was not recognized by all bodies. Fullmer in New York, but again not universal. May not have been simultaneous. footnotes probably would be in order. Let's go back further. This gets into the claimant without recognition that I briefly alluded to. James Corbett retired and designated Peter Maher as his hand picked world champion successor. This was not generally accepted. Is a footnote in order? That's up to you unless guidelines are set down an followed. Jack Sharkey? then beat Maher an claimed the title. Again, many recognized Sharkey, but was not universally accepted. Fitzsimmons beat Sharkey to finally bring overall acceptance. Does what I've stated make sense? You can overdo and underdo (is that a word?)footnotes. Maybe your guidelines should spell out what "officially" recognizing bodies are. Let's go for the absurd. Pretend I am the only Heavyweight boxer in Afghanistan. The Afghan boxing commission won't recognize me as the champ. Would a footnote be listed as Afghan Heavyweight title claimant? You have to draw the line somewhere.
The problem with the ____ wins Bantamweight title. Is that there is no consistency. I've seen "Williams loses Bantamweight title." I still don't think it solve the issue. If someone sees that someone retained a title, they're still going to say "When did he win it, I don't see it?."
I think we need to be consistent.
I think we need to be consistent.
-
$ bill
- Heavyweight
Read Matt's input. I agree. The question he asks is the same one I asked that started all this. Dropping retains was the best, if not, the correct thing to do. Each bout stands alone. Upon documentation, the Warren fight proves to be a title fight, then state New Zealand Lightweight title. The result category tells who is now the titleholder. Draw, No Contest and No Decision results will result in a little more effort on the readers part by clicking on the opponents name. Back to a confirmed Warren title fight footnote. If you would have said Warren was a title fight then I would have asked what about the next three fights. This way you can put the onus back on the forum users by saying "if someone can confirm, we will gladly insert the footnote". You have enough on your plates without getting into this type of investigation, which not even be available.
Passing thought, Shavers-Johnson bout. Leave it in, per Matt, take it out and you could lose it forever. Could be another Shavers or like name. I thought there was a Middleweight? (could have moved up and fought as a Lightheavy). He fought in the Northwest. My memory is faulty, anymore. Might check Pete Rademacher. Could have been on one of those fight cards. Dates don't seem to match up. It would be a stretch.
Passing thought, Shavers-Johnson bout. Leave it in, per Matt, take it out and you could lose it forever. Could be another Shavers or like name. I thought there was a Middleweight? (could have moved up and fought as a Lightheavy). He fought in the Northwest. My memory is faulty, anymore. Might check Pete Rademacher. Could have been on one of those fight cards. Dates don't seem to match up. It would be a stretch.
I also agree with Matt's assessment regarding consistency. I've been on record here several times stating our biggest problem is a lack of consistent data entry.
However, I do not believe we should not do something, because others will "screw it up"
by entering inconsistently. If its the right thing to do, then we should do it and train/educate the others accordingly. I acknowledge, whether it is the right thing to do is debatable. One thing, I do not agree with however, is the statement that "each fight stands alone". I believe that each 'fighter's record' stands alone. When I pull up any fighter's record, I should be able to tell when he first captured any title. Until the database is more complete, I don't see how that is possible under the current guidelines. This type of thing happens to be "one of the things on my plate". One of many things on my Boxrec plate, which I choose to do. And yes, by adding the Warren footnote, I too would then question the next 3 fights, which would just cause me to add to the list of things for me to investigate (which is what I like and choose to do).
However, I do not believe we should not do something, because others will "screw it up"
by entering inconsistently. If its the right thing to do, then we should do it and train/educate the others accordingly. I acknowledge, whether it is the right thing to do is debatable. One thing, I do not agree with however, is the statement that "each fight stands alone". I believe that each 'fighter's record' stands alone. When I pull up any fighter's record, I should be able to tell when he first captured any title. Until the database is more complete, I don't see how that is possible under the current guidelines. This type of thing happens to be "one of the things on my plate". One of many things on my Boxrec plate, which I choose to do. And yes, by adding the Warren footnote, I too would then question the next 3 fights, which would just cause me to add to the list of things for me to investigate (which is what I like and choose to do).
-
$ bill
- Heavyweight
brett- good response, great attitude. I love this website. Never seen anything like it. Yep, total fight record chronology is also correct. The database will get better as the input becomes more complete. Your cross-referencing technique for bouts is a major improvement. I am proof reading your site day by day by way of date-search. Your accuracy on duplicate bouts is outstanding. Results so far are less than twenty. From 2-9-2002 to 2-8-1998 (1 yesterday plus 1 more, I think)10-1-1904 to 10-4-1897 (none, zilch, nada) The following have been reported previously and are still open items to be investigated as possible duplications.
Bob Montgomery vs George Zengaras 3-3-1941
Rosey Stoy vs Jack Rosen 4-9-1923 (could be legit)
Roy Williams vs Charlie Harris 7-23-1973 (reported two different ways in date-search)
Bob Pastor drew Tami Mauriello 5-22-1942
Fernando Montes lost Juan Olvera 9-1-1972.
Don't take my word for it. Check original input. Maybe, another bout should be in the duplicates place.
One last item, database header card, Jem Mace (the gypsy) and Jem Mace are the same. Jem Mace came to this country to stir up interest in pugilism. He went back to England and fought Charlie (charley) Mitchell at age 52, after bad-mouthing the then current crop of English fighters. Mike at CBZ can confirm this. Matt should also be able to confirm with his vast knowledge of the old-timers. That's it, not many, it's almost a futile effort to check. Unbelievable! I checked a boxing encyclopedia that came out in the late 20's, early thirties. Found that many in ten fighters. Got no response. Gave up trying.
Yes, I am old. Thanks for putting up with my pesty input. I would like to be an editor, but health and mental faculties won't allow it. 92, and I expect to wake up dead any day now. I think the only thing that keeps me going is a half a bottle of Blue Sock (booze) and three packs of cigarettes a day. Excuse my ramblings. Please stay after it. It's historicaly very important. Let's sign-off on the footnote subject. There's disagreement and everybody is right. The difference is in the approach.
Bob Montgomery vs George Zengaras 3-3-1941
Rosey Stoy vs Jack Rosen 4-9-1923 (could be legit)
Roy Williams vs Charlie Harris 7-23-1973 (reported two different ways in date-search)
Bob Pastor drew Tami Mauriello 5-22-1942
Fernando Montes lost Juan Olvera 9-1-1972.
Don't take my word for it. Check original input. Maybe, another bout should be in the duplicates place.
One last item, database header card, Jem Mace (the gypsy) and Jem Mace are the same. Jem Mace came to this country to stir up interest in pugilism. He went back to England and fought Charlie (charley) Mitchell at age 52, after bad-mouthing the then current crop of English fighters. Mike at CBZ can confirm this. Matt should also be able to confirm with his vast knowledge of the old-timers. That's it, not many, it's almost a futile effort to check. Unbelievable! I checked a boxing encyclopedia that came out in the late 20's, early thirties. Found that many in ten fighters. Got no response. Gave up trying.
Yes, I am old. Thanks for putting up with my pesty input. I would like to be an editor, but health and mental faculties won't allow it. 92, and I expect to wake up dead any day now. I think the only thing that keeps me going is a half a bottle of Blue Sock (booze) and three packs of cigarettes a day. Excuse my ramblings. Please stay after it. It's historicaly very important. Let's sign-off on the footnote subject. There's disagreement and everybody is right. The difference is in the approach.
I call for a vote on criteria amongst editors.
Basically, list how far you want to go out on locations. For example, state and country, and which countries you want to go out that far (i.e. USA, Canada). And your preference on whether we should be lisiting whether or not the winner of a "title fight" retains or wins a vacant belt.
We can run this in the editors forum and see where it takes us. After we've hopefully got a consensus, we can set the criteria in the FAQ. From that point we can just basically say that you enter things that way, or else we either change them or you don't enter at all.
Basically, list how far you want to go out on locations. For example, state and country, and which countries you want to go out that far (i.e. USA, Canada). And your preference on whether we should be lisiting whether or not the winner of a "title fight" retains or wins a vacant belt.
We can run this in the editors forum and see where it takes us. After we've hopefully got a consensus, we can set the criteria in the FAQ. From that point we can just basically say that you enter things that way, or else we either change them or you don't enter at all.
-
$ bill
- Heavyweight
excuse me for being a buttinski. (non editor-outside viewer). Two points about footnotes. Are non-title fights going to be footnoted? Happened frequently prior to the 1940's. How about exhibitions? Some are hard to tell from research prior to World War I. Will a footnote say possible exhibition? Man, I'm sorry I even brought this shit up.
you're doing just great. Hope this doesn't lead to any hard feelings. Additional thought: If the editors vote for alteration, deviation or change, what happens to the existing records in the database for 83,000+ boxers and nearly a quarter of a million bouts. Does that mean an item for item review? In my opinion, I'd let the issue slide. You can pick yourselves to pieces. The primary thing is to get the bouts entered. Records are being lost and may not be able to be retrieved. Some source documents are gone forever. Please, get on with the business at hand. Enter the bouts. You can always go back and add notes or make corrections. Look at your daily database, you will find numerous fights with no location or incomplete location. You still enter the fight. If you don't have the exact date, you still enter the fight (this could result in a duplication). But isn't it better to have a potential duplication than no entry at all? Isn't it better to enter a contest that appears to be a legitimate bout and find out later that it was an exhibition? God do I ramble. Sorry.
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: $ bill on 2002-02-12 20:16 ]</font>
you're doing just great. Hope this doesn't lead to any hard feelings. Additional thought: If the editors vote for alteration, deviation or change, what happens to the existing records in the database for 83,000+ boxers and nearly a quarter of a million bouts. Does that mean an item for item review? In my opinion, I'd let the issue slide. You can pick yourselves to pieces. The primary thing is to get the bouts entered. Records are being lost and may not be able to be retrieved. Some source documents are gone forever. Please, get on with the business at hand. Enter the bouts. You can always go back and add notes or make corrections. Look at your daily database, you will find numerous fights with no location or incomplete location. You still enter the fight. If you don't have the exact date, you still enter the fight (this could result in a duplication). But isn't it better to have a potential duplication than no entry at all? Isn't it better to enter a contest that appears to be a legitimate bout and find out later that it was an exhibition? God do I ramble. Sorry.
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: $ bill on 2002-02-12 20:16 ]</font>