chinarich wrote: ↑13 Aug 2024, 03:50
Scrubbing the WBA titles is ridiculous, it's childish behaviour from a site that promotes itself as the official record keeper for the sport.
Leaving that aside, has the records database become completely unusable for others the last month or so? Apart from full screen ads that are difficult to close, random ad pop-ups and ads covering part of a boxers record which make browsing on a mobile almost impossible, the website freezes regularly and seems to be using an incredible amount of memory when viewing on a computer.
yes, and it constantly forces you to verify you are a human and then dumps you back to the home screen when you do.
that's my biggest gripe with the user experience - just take me to the page i was going to please! not back to home'
sometimes ive opened several records in succession and dont even remember which record the page was going to
This is my second post on Boxrec, but I have been a fan for nearly 20 years. I have used this site religiously during that time and enjoyed it immensely. However the news that the website has erased the history of the WBA due to a disagreement is very disappointing and leaves a bad taste in my mouth when I sign into the website to look at records. Boxrec management must include WBA title fights if it wants to remain legit in my opinion.
I used this example previously..but if I met a boxing fan novice and he asked me for some fighter names that I grew up watching to look into and I said Check out Roberto Duran and he came to this site…he would think Durans first ever title fight was in 1978 vs. Esteban DeJesus….he’d have no idea that Ray Leonard v. Tommy Hearns was a huge unification fight…if he just looked at the fighters bouts pages.
That’s just absurd for the “official record keeper”
Last edited by ldlamb on 14 Aug 2024, 19:58, edited 1 time in total.
ldlamb wrote: ↑13 Aug 2024, 22:51
Yeah…but that’s what they claim at the bottom of their homepage.
I claimed I was brad pitt once and they still wouldnt give me that free hot dog. If you have to proclaim you are the “official” anything then you probably arent.
Is there any official explanation from WBA or Boxrec that explains the discrepancy?
If it is WBA who no longer allows your records on boxrec, then boxrec cannot do anything.
But if it's boxrec that removed the records due to the new partnership between FatFax and WBA, then FatFax or some other fight records site will take first place. We can only wait for the new to emerge.
SteveO wrote: ↑18 Aug 2024, 14:00
Yes, could we please have an official explanation telling us why this ridiculous situation has occurred.
Thank you.
You won't get one.
I was a Boxrec editor for more than 20 years, completely voluntary.
A few months ago in what may have been a precursor of this, the WBA Asia and Continental titles disappeared. A promoter of an event which featured them asked me why. I said I didn't know but would ask. I put the question in the Editors' forum and was kicked out, had my editor's login cancelled, and a polite request via PM for an explanation was ignored.
SteveO wrote: ↑18 Aug 2024, 14:00
Yes, could we please have an official explanation telling us why this ridiculous situation has occurred.
Thank you.
You won't get one.
I was a Boxrec editor for more than 20 years, completely voluntary.
A few months ago in what may have been a precursor of this, the WBA Asia and Continental titles disappeared. A promoter of an event which featured them asked me why. I said I didn't know but would ask. I put the question in the Editors' forum and was kicked out, had my editor's login cancelled, and a polite request via PM for an explanation was ignored.
That is very dissapointing. Are the boxrec management aware that this decision will negativity hurt the sites credibility?
Boxrec need to take the high ground here and list wba titles (at least the real world titles)… unless boxrec genuinely believe they have the swing to discredit WBA as a big 4 belt they gotta keep em there.
JCS wrote: ↑20 Aug 2024, 17:41
Not sure what is more strange... eliminating the WBA histories or removing all "Bridgerweight" boxers from the rankings.
Removing the WBA history is bizarre to say the least. As for the Bridgerweight division boxing needs to consolidate more divisions not add more. Going back to the original 8 divisions is a bit of a stretch but 12 divisions would be more ideal in this era. 17 is ridiculous and waters down the divisons in my opinion.
JCS wrote: ↑20 Aug 2024, 17:41
Not sure what is more strange... eliminating the WBA histories or removing all "Bridgerweight" boxers from the rankings.
Removing the WBA history is bizarre to say the least. As for the Bridgerweight division boxing needs to consolidate more divisions not add more. Going back to the original 8 divisions is a bit of a stretch but 12 divisions would be more ideal in this era. 17 is ridiculous and waters down the divisons in my opinion.
Just set the Bridgerweights to Heavyweight division... call it a day. Don't mark them as inactive.
JCS wrote: ↑20 Aug 2024, 17:41
Not sure what is more strange... eliminating the WBA histories or removing all "Bridgerweight" boxers from the rankings.
Removing the WBA history is bizarre to say the least. As for the Bridgerweight division boxing needs to consolidate more divisions not add more. Going back to the original 8 divisions is a bit of a stretch but 12 divisions would be more ideal in this era. 17 is ridiculous and waters down the divisons in my opinion.
Just set the Bridgerweights to Heavyweight division... call it a day. Don't mark them as inactive.
JCS wrote: ↑20 Aug 2024, 17:41
Not sure what is more strange... eliminating the WBA histories or removing all "Bridgerweight" boxers from the rankings.
Removing the WBA history is bizarre to say the least. As for the Bridgerweight division boxing needs to consolidate more divisions not add more. Going back to the original 8 divisions is a bit of a stretch but 12 divisions would be more ideal in this era. 17 is ridiculous and waters down the divisons in my opinion.
Just set the Bridgerweights to Heavyweight division... call it a day. Don't mark them as inactive.
This is the biggest problem I have with the ratings. How can you just act like they do not exist?
Any update from Boxrec management on deleting WBA history from the website? Wasn't the WBA the original NBA World title in Boxing decades ago or were they called something else? If so that would make the WBA the original World title with the most history. I definitely don't agree with some of the decisions the WBA has made over the years like adding more champions in the same weight class and some of the questionable rankings but once again eliminating their history on the website is baffling.
SteveO wrote: ↑26 Aug 2024, 14:14
At the very least it would be common courtesy to let us know what the problem is between BoxRec and the WBA.
I did some research on the issue and it appears Boxrec has deleted the WBA history because the WBA is working with a competitor in the boxing community known as Fight Fax. I've never heard of fight fax.
SteveO wrote: ↑26 Aug 2024, 14:14
At the very least it would be common courtesy to let us know what the problem is between BoxRec and the WBA.
I did some research on the issue and it appears Boxrec has deleted the WBA history because the WBA is working with a competitor in the boxing community known as Fight Fax. I've never heard of fight fax.
Fight Fax used to publish a book every year called The Boxing Record Book. It was as thick as what the old phone books used to be. It would have the entire record of every boxer who fought in that year. Some of them are for sale on eBay. You could also order individual records of boxers for $10 each which would be emailed as an attached document. The records were not as complete as on BoxRec because Fight Fax does not list fights that were not sanctioned. However, if there was a title at stake, it would be listed. It did not matter whether it was from a major sanctioning body. Even IBA and IBC belts were recognized. Fight Fax now does their own ratings on its website. That was one advantage that BoxRec had over Fight Fax because Fight Fax did not used to do their own ratings. They were just a record keeper. Now it seems that they are trying to compete with BoxRec in this regard.
