What happened to WBA titles in BoxRec?

[ldlamb]

I have a feeling that was due to GDPR precautions

Then I guess the GDPR precautions don't apply to all the other websites that give their DOB's?

Of course they apply. Boxrec obviously is being more cautious. One GDPR breach could end this site.

Why hasn’t Wikipedia been sued into oblivion

[margaret thatcher]

why yall keep asking josh, he aint boxrec's lawyer

[ldlamb]

why yall keep asking josh, he aint boxrec's lawyer

Because if Boxrecs lawyer is telling them they can’t put a birthday on their website then he’s a hack.

[margaret thatcher]

it seems to be the reason why. i know at least a few mods and of course posters disagree with how boxrec has approached it. there were a few threads in other sections, probably able to find if you enter gdrp

im no expert but i mean date of births are everywhere, would someone really go after boxrec for it, and if they did couldnt they just remove it for that boxer if they were really worried about it

[SportsRatings]

One GDPR breach could end this site.

It's true. I wished a co-worker happy birthday and he said "how did you know that?" and I was hauled off in chains and had to pay a $10,000 fine.

[ldlamb]

it seems to be the reason why. i know at least a few mods and of course posters disagree with how boxrec has approached it. there were a few threads in other sections, probably able to find if you enter gdrp

im no expert but i mean date of births are everywhere, would someone really go after boxrec for it, and if they did couldnt they just remove it for that boxer if they were really worried about it

Since you’re probably British….here’s an example link to the EPL page…they’ve got everyone’s birthday on their individual pages. https://www.premierleague.com/players/8 ... n/overview

And I don’t really know…but I assume Encyclopedia Brittanica is a British company….here is Mike Tyson’s page on their website. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Mike-Tyson

I think you’ll see a big ole birthdate right there for the whole world to see.


Boxrec can do whatever they want….but if their lawyers told them to take down birthdays…then they are hacks.

[joshj909]

why yall keep asking josh, he aint boxrec's lawyer

I will be if they pay me

To be completely honest, I wouldn't be surprised if it was done without professional legal advice or at least paid professional legal advice. Based on the simple instructions and advice, they should remove that information. However, when you look into it more then it probably wouldn't apply as long as the information is obtained from public sources. Unless that's it and they are actually provided the information from a private source? If it's from a private source such as agents, BBBofC or something like that then they need express permission from each boxer to publicize it. The premier League will have that contractually for the players. I'm just guessing that may be it, otherwise the advice is way too cautious.

Have none of you done the GDPR training at work?

[damage]

:T

One GDPR breach could end this site.

It's true. I wished a co-worker happy birthday and he said "how did you know that?" and I was hauled off in chains and had to pay a $10,000 fine.

[Ruthless-RKO]

why yall keep asking josh, he aint boxrec's lawyer

I will be if they pay me

To be completely honest, I wouldn't be surprised if it was done without professional legal advice or at least paid professional legal advice. Based on the simple instructions and advice, they should remove that information. However, when you look into it more then it probably wouldn't apply as long as the information is obtained from public sources. Unless that's it and they are actually provided the information from a private source? If it's from a private source such as agents, BBBofC or something like that then they need express permission from each boxer to publicize it. The premier League will have that contractually for the players. I'm just guessing that may be it, otherwise the advice is way too cautious.

Have none of you done the GDPR training at work?

Back in 2017 when it got introduced lol

[oliverfennell]

The unanswered question I have:

Is it BoxRec that removed WBA history from BoxRec (upset that the WBA left)? Or is it the WBA who didn't want their stuff on BoxRec (in an effort to replace BoxRec)?

I doubt that the WBA would not want their titles listed on BoxRec. The ratings on Fight Fax for male and female boxers do not make sense to me. I know there will probably be changes as they try to improve. It is known that BoxRec does not recognize any of the titles of some sanctioning bodies and sometimes do not recognize secondary titles from other sanctioning bodies while recognize their world titles. I think this decision to erase WBA history from BoxRec was made by BoxRec. I am sure that the boxers who have been or are current WBA champions do not like it and boxing journalists who use BoxRec frequently would not like it either.

Yep, as a boxing journalist I have found Boxrec increasingly frustrating as a research source, with things being omitted or deliberately stalled according to the whims of the sport's "official record keeper".

[RScarf1]

The unanswered question I have:

Is it BoxRec that removed WBA history from BoxRec (upset that the WBA left)? Or is it the WBA who didn't want their stuff on BoxRec (in an effort to replace BoxRec)?

I doubt that the WBA would not want their titles listed on BoxRec. The ratings on Fight Fax for male and female boxers do not make sense to me. I know there will probably be changes as they try to improve. It is known that BoxRec does not recognize any of the titles of some sanctioning bodies and sometimes do not recognize secondary titles from other sanctioning bodies while recognize their world titles. I think this decision to erase WBA history from BoxRec was made by BoxRec. I am sure that the boxers who have been or are current WBA champions do not like it and boxing journalists who use BoxRec frequently would not like it either.

Yep, as a boxing journalist I have found Boxrec increasingly frustrating as a research source, with things being omitted or deliberately stalled according to the whims of the sport's "official record keeper".

I am a boxing writer too and it is very frustrating to write an article about WBA champions and title fights. The WBA website is a good source, but I believe that writers will have to use other sources such as Fight Fax. I found an article which may have the reason why the WBA has been omitted from BoxRec:

https://www.worldboxingnews.net/2024/08 ... n-similar/

[SteveO]

Thank you for the link explaining the possible reason BoxRec are no longer listing the WBA titles.
It is a very petty reason and seems like a childish attitude to me.

[SportsRatings]

I doubt that the WBA would not want their titles listed on BoxRec. The ratings on Fight Fax for male and female boxers do not make sense to me. I know there will probably be changes as they try to improve. It is known that BoxRec does not recognize any of the titles of some sanctioning bodies and sometimes do not recognize secondary titles from other sanctioning bodies while recognize their world titles. I think this decision to erase WBA history from BoxRec was made by BoxRec. I am sure that the boxers who have been or are current WBA champions do not like it and boxing journalists who use BoxRec frequently would not like it either.

Yep, as a boxing journalist I have found Boxrec increasingly frustrating as a research source, with things being omitted or deliberately stalled according to the whims of the sport's "official record keeper".

I am a boxing writer too and it is very frustrating to write an article about WBA champions and title fights. The WBA website is a good source, but I believe that writers will have to use other sources such as Fight Fax. I found an article which may have the reason why the WBA has been omitted from BoxRec:

https://www.worldboxingnews.net/2024/08 ... n-similar/

Again, any article calling Fight Fax "an old statistics website that disbanded but has re-emerged" doesn't have much to add to the topic. Fight Fax is much older than Boxrec and was still the co-official boxing record keeper along with Boxrec. Starting in the 1980s they published books filled with fight record data, and in the 90s started a phone-in service (hence the name Fight FAX) where you could request a fighter's full official record.

Not long after Boxrec came along, Fight Fax record keeper Anibal Miramontes bought out Fight Fax and ran it himself for the most part. He made only a token effort to move to the web, mostly to advertise Fight Fax's yearly record books. Fight Fax was renewed as official ABC record keeper in 2005, but Boxrec became co-official record keeper in 2016. Miramontes died in 2021 and it appears that a Saudi-led consortium—including the WBA—bought the Fight Fax name.

Not sure if they got any of Fight Fax's records because that stuff wasn't online, and some say the Fight Fax website so far has a lot of data that might have been scraped from Boxrec (of course, then one could ask: where did a lot of the info in Boxrec come from in the first place? Maybe from FightFax's record books?)

[RScarf1]

Again, any article calling Fight Fax "an old statistics website that disbanded but has re-emerged" doesn't have much to add to the topic. Fight Fax is much older than Boxrec and was still the co-official boxing record keeper along with Boxrec. Starting in the 1980s they published books filled with fight record data, and in the 90s started a phone-in service (hence the name Fight FAX) where you could request a fighter's full official record.

Not long after Boxrec came along, Fight Fax record keeper Anibal Miramontes bought out Fight Fax and ran it himself for the most part. He made only a token effort to move to the web, mostly to advertise Fight Fax's yearly record books. Fight Fax was renewed as official ABC record keeper in 2005, but Boxrec became co-official record keeper in 2016. Miramontes died in 2021 and it appears that a Saudi-led consortium—including the WBA—bought the Fight Fax name.

Not sure if they got any of Fight Fax's records because that stuff wasn't online, and some say the Fight Fax website so far has a lot of data that might have been scraped from Boxrec (of course, then one could ask: where did a lot of the info in Boxrec come from in the first place? Maybe from FightFax's record books?)

Fight Fax did not originally include fights that were not sanctioned by a boxing commission. BoxRec does include them, but has a yellow triangle with an exclamation point shown to the left of the listing when a fight is unsanctioned. On Fight Fax, unsanctioned fights are listed, but do not state that they are unsanctioned. BoxRec definitely did not get the unsanctioned fights from Fight Fax because they were never there in the boxing record books that they used to publish.

Regarding the name Fight Fax, I did not know it was because they faxed a boxer's record. I thought it was a different spelling of the word "facts." Before I started writing for boxing websites, I wrote a boxing article for The Miami Herald newspaper. I was a freelance writer, so I was just paid for each article. This was in the year 2000 and at that time, BoxRec was not considered to be an official record keeper. I interviewed Razor Ruddock (who fought Mike Tyson twice) and Ricky Quiles who were two contenders. The article was about a local gym and they were training there. I wanted to be accurate with their records, so I paid for their records from Fight Fax. They were emailed to me as attachments.

[SteveO]

I wonder if FightFax will include the Bridgerweight title fights - another thing BoxRec refuses to do!
I don't personally agree with the new division but it exists nevertheless.

[SportsRatings]

Regarding the name Fight Fax, I did not know it was because they faxed a boxer's record. I thought it was a different spelling of the word "facts."

Right, it was both a play on words (facts) and focused on what they did (fax) at the time. At some point in the early 90s they changed their name to Fight Fax from something like "Computer Boxing Records Inc" or "Computer Boxing Data"

Before I started writing for boxing websites, I wrote a boxing article for The Miami Herald newspaper. I was a freelance writer, so I was just paid for each article. This was in the year 2000 and at that time, BoxRec was not considered to be an official record keeper. I interviewed Razor Ruddock (who fought Mike Tyson twice) and Ricky Quiles who were two contenders. The article was about a local gym and they were training there. I wanted to be accurate with their records, so I paid for their records from Fight Fax. They were emailed to me as attachments.

Interesting info, to hear how the process worked! I guess by 2000 Fight Fax had switched to emailing the record, which makes sense. In 2000 BoxRec looked more like a simple wiki to me, and I wouldn't have thought of it as official at that point. But I thought it was one of the best things ever on the web, to be able to instantly look up a fighter's record, even if it wasn't perfectly correct. 2000 would have been just a few years or so before Miramontes took over Fight Fax completely when the previous owner retired.

[SportsRatings]

Fight Fax did not originally include fights that were not sanctioned by a boxing commission.

I remember Fight Fax listed the World Series of Boxing as pro fights, while Boxrec recorded them as amateur. And Boxrec listed thousands of bare-knuckle fights initially, before clearing them out over the years when they decided to go Queensbury-only. Unfortunately they deleted all of these instead of putting them in a separate bare-knuckle tab. I notice they do have a BK tab now, but John Sullivan only has 1 fight listed, and he had a lot more in the early 2000s!

[RScarf1]

I wonder if FightFax will include the Bridgerweight title fights - another thing BoxRec refuses to do!
I don't personally agree with the new division but it exists nevertheless.

I agree with BoxRec on this one. There is not a consensus because the WBO and IBF have not recognized this weight class. I am not against having a bridgerweight/super cruiserweight division, but this has been done all wrong by the WBC and WBA in my opinion. If the sanctioning bodies lowered the cruiserweight limit from 200 to 195 and then made the bridgerweight limit at 215, there would be a 20 pound gap between light heavyweight (175) and cruiserweight (195).

There would also be a 20 pound gap between bridgerweight (215) and cruiserweight (195). This would make more logical sense and I believe that the other major sanctioning bodies would agree to this. 224 pounds is too high for a bridgerweight limit because heavyweights would have to be heavier than that.

If Evander Holyfield was in his prime now and trying to move from cruiserweight to heavyweight, it would be more difficult to get above 224 pounds as opposed to 215. He did not fight above 224 until the last year of his career. He usually fought about 215-220 pounds as a heavyweight. It seems that the WBC did not look at boxing history too closely. They were just saying that heavyweights are getting taller and heavier, so this is what we are doing.

[oliverfennell]

I wonder if FightFax will include the Bridgerweight title fights - another thing BoxRec refuses to do!
I don't personally agree with the new division but it exists nevertheless.

I agree with BoxRec on this one. There is not a consensus because the WBO and IBF have not recognized this weight class. I am not against having a bridgerweight/super cruiserweight division, but this has been done all wrong by the WBC and WBA in my opinion. If the sanctioning bodies lowered the cruiserweight limit from 200 to 195 and then made the bridgerweight limit at 215, there would be a 20 pound gap between light heavyweight (175) and cruiserweight (195).

There would also be a 20 pound gap between bridgerweight (215) and cruiserweight (195). This would make more logical sense and I believe that the other major sanctioning bodies would agree to this. 224 pounds is too high for a bridgerweight limit because heavyweights would have to be heavier than that.

If Evander Holyfield was in his prime now and trying to move from cruiserweight to heavyweight, it would be more difficult to get above 224 pounds as opposed to 215. He did not fight above 224 until the last year of his career. He usually fought about 215-220 pounds as a heavyweight. It seems that the WBC did not look at boxing history too closely. They were just saying that heavyweights are getting taller and heavier, so this is what we are doing.

If they don't want to recognise bridgerweight, that's fine, but why not simply list bridgerweight boxers as heavyweights then? As it is, none of them are now ranked anywhere. Another example of penalising the boxers themselves for Boxrec's own stance.

[gilgamesh]

I wonder if FightFax will include the Bridgerweight title fights - another thing BoxRec refuses to do!
I don't personally agree with the new division but it exists nevertheless.

No it doesn't

[Tony1244]

I wonder if FightFax will include the Bridgerweight title fights - another thing BoxRec refuses to do!
I don't personally agree with the new division but it exists nevertheless.

No it doesn't

Bridgerweight and super heavyweight should always be ignored.

[1307268]

Glad boxrec stopped it. Recently WBA Oceania appointed a 3 match experience Judge to be judge for a regional title.

[RScarf1]

If they don't want to recognise bridgerweight, that's fine, but why not simply list bridgerweight boxers as heavyweights then? As it is, none of them are now ranked anywhere. Another example of penalising the boxers themselves for Boxrec's own stance.

That's a good point. If the boxers are fighting over 200 pounds, then they should be categorized as heavyweight. This entire thing with BoxRec not showing WBA titles and not rating boxers who chose to compete in the WBC's bridgerweight division seems vindictive. BoxRec doesn't recognize some minor sanctioning bodies, but it is not as noticeable as removing one of the big four such as the WBA. WBA current and former champions are being penalized by not showing their WBA titles. I think BoxRec and FightFax are going to coexist. BoxRec has records for other combat sports such as bare knuckle boxing and kickboxing. BoxRec's ratings are much better than FightFax. If information is incomplete or inaccurate, then people will want to find the information elsewhere such as FightFax and other websites. I doubt we are going to change BoxRec's stance (opinion, not boxing stance).

[ldlamb]

Just want to bump this…and say again if anyone at Boxrec is listening.

It is bullsh!t for any organization that bills itself as:

“ BoxRec or boxrec.com is the official record keeper of the sport of boxing.”

To leave out a major world title from its database….no matter what the beef is.

[jjcorbett]

I agree. Although the mountain of criticism of the WBA (and other sanctioning bodies) on this board is more than justified, given the long history of the WBA, its titles should still be listed. "Revisionist history" has little value to the boxing historian. I'm no programmer, but perhaps an asterisk next to the title with a footnote at the bottom of the page indicating that BoxRec no longer recognizes WBA titles would be a workable compromise. BoxRec could do the same with the titles of any minor organizations it doesn't recognize.

-JJC