Stan,
Under Danny Ferris' record you entered a comment that he was "Inactive 1980-81". This comment is inappropriate because it shows under the record of him and his opponent that he made his return against. Also, shouldn't it be obvious from his record that he was inactive?
http://www.boxrec.com/boxer_display.php?boxer_id=23183
Inappropriate Comments (Stan)
Yes it is obvious, and I did make a change by adding his name in front of the
'Inactive and the year! I made the input just as listed in the ring record book.
Not remembering it would show on both fighters records. I would hope the addition of the boxers name might help.
I think it might still be useful because it shows that a fighter has either not fought soon before or not fought soon after a bout. Sometimes due to an injury, sometimes just 'because'.
John what do you think?
The original reason was just because thats the way it was listed , but doesn,t / isn't more information better most of the time?
'Inactive and the year! I made the input just as listed in the ring record book.
Not remembering it would show on both fighters records. I would hope the addition of the boxers name might help.
I think it might still be useful because it shows that a fighter has either not fought soon before or not fought soon after a bout. Sometimes due to an injury, sometimes just 'because'.
John what do you think?
The original reason was just because thats the way it was listed , but doesn,t / isn't more information better most of the time?
Even if you wanted to put it in the comment section, you'd want to put it in the first bout after his return. The only reason to include it in their would be to draw attention to his inactivity from his opponent's vantage point.
The problem with including stuff like that is the bigger issue of where to draw the line. 1 year, 2 years, how long? Ideally, you'd hope that someone reading the record might dig deeper into something if it seems odd, to find the reason.
Now if you want to say that Ferris went to jail for two years for whatever, or that some fighter was banned for taking a dive or something along those lines; I would think that would be useful.
The problem with including stuff like that is the bigger issue of where to draw the line. 1 year, 2 years, how long? Ideally, you'd hope that someone reading the record might dig deeper into something if it seems odd, to find the reason.
Now if you want to say that Ferris went to jail for two years for whatever, or that some fighter was banned for taking a dive or something along those lines; I would think that would be useful.
<font color=B22222>
Matt, I suggest that if an editor knows the reason for the gap, to add it to the comment field - even if the gap might be only weeks or months. For example, I have seen newspaper accounts that say Smith broke a collar bone during a bout, and then seven weeks later report, "Smith is back after suffering a broken collar bone in his previous outing." Or a broken finger bone. Or a serious illness. Or the guy quit the business, then came back. I think it helps add color and flesh to an otherwise bare-bones W-L-D record. But that's just me.
Of course, if the editor really doesn't know the reason for the gap, s/he shouldn't just add a comment of "Smith inactive for three months." That <i>would</i> get tedious.</font>
Matt, I suggest that if an editor knows the reason for the gap, to add it to the comment field - even if the gap might be only weeks or months. For example, I have seen newspaper accounts that say Smith broke a collar bone during a bout, and then seven weeks later report, "Smith is back after suffering a broken collar bone in his previous outing." Or a broken finger bone. Or a serious illness. Or the guy quit the business, then came back. I think it helps add color and flesh to an otherwise bare-bones W-L-D record. But that's just me.
Of course, if the editor really doesn't know the reason for the gap, s/he shouldn't just add a comment of "Smith inactive for three months." That <i>would</i> get tedious.</font>
-
Guest
- Heavyweight
