Jump to content

Talk:Floyd Mayweather Jr.

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 198.22.236.230 (talk) at 17:27, 10 September 2010. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former good articleFloyd Mayweather Jr. was one of the Sports and recreation good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 27, 2006Good article nomineeListed
June 20, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
May 9, 2008Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

The Real No.1 Pound-For-Pound Boxer

According to thesweetscience.com in March 4, 2008 Article, Mayweather is the No.1 pound-for-pound boxer. See: http://www.thesweetscience.com/boxing-article/5718/pound-pound-list/

However, in May 11, 2010 Article, thesweetscience.com's No.1 Pound-For-Pound Boxer is Pacquiao and Mayweather both at a tie!!!!!. See: http://www.thesweetscience.com/boxing-article/8013/avila-pound-pound-list/

Please check the site properly before stating your views Jailbreaker212 (talk) 01:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Therefore, thesweetscience.com's current No.1 Pound-For-Pound Boxer is Manny Pacquiao and Floyd Mayweather.

AND

Many fans, critics and writers choose The Ring Magazine Rankings / Ratings over other sources. Check back with DoghouseBoxing weekly for an updated list. - http://www.doghouseboxing.com/Ring/Ring071910.htm

Bad Guy?

He has several convictions for situations involving alleged violence.[1]

Should this not be mentioned along with the domestic violence acquittal, given that he was required to clear this charge in order to keep the fight? And he has two prior convictions for Domestic Violence prior to the reported acquittal according to this news report.[2]


I have declined to insert these items directly into the article as I am unsure of treatment of such items.

Timeline

Outdated: "De La Hoya has been quoted as saying his goal is 2 million buys, which, given the amount of time still remaining to promote the fight, is a definite possibility."

We cant decide based on opinion we need sources.The commentators say he's the best pound-for-pund boxer in the world and so does Oscar DeLahoyaSistersboy 12:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed clear NPOV violation

I removed the following sentence from the section on the De La Hoya fight:

However, due to the dull nature of the fight, (Floyd was incredibly defensive and lacked meaningful aggression)....

.

There was even an attempt to provide a reference so one is forced to draw the conclusion that this is the editor's opinion and clearly violates both the letter and spirit of the NPOV policy.

At the very least, if the editor is a boxer or expert on boxing (Burt Sugar?), then this would count as original research, another no-no.

Also referring to the subject of the article by his first name is un-encyclopedic since Mayweather doesn't go by one name as some celebrities do (e.g. Raven).

The article also has numerous un-sourced quotes that clearly need to be fixed. I did not have time to search/list them all; only the ones in the aforementioned section.

I'm also adding the appropriate tag to the section.

PainMan 07:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hatton KO?

I says Mayweather won by KO but it was actually TKO, change it or unlock the page already —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.141.19.40 (talk) 10:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

it has been changed Sennen goroshi (talk) 14:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

good for you. nice description of the fight too. 1 line. nicely done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.46.10 (talk) 19:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He did win by KO. ref stopped the fight when Hatton was knocked down and wasnt gonna get up. KO —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.2.50.9 (talk) 19:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How could he know? The ref stopped the fight. TKO. Learn, jackass. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.53.151.203 (talk) 20:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the fight was stopped due to 3 knockdows in a round, there was no count, thus a TKO a KO only occurs when you fail to answer a 10 count. Skitzo (talk) 22:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No it wasnt stopped on a 3 knock down - and I dont think that that rule was even in effect last night! It was a TKO because the RSF as he deemed the fighter was unable to continue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vintagekits (talk • contribs) 22:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ah sorry, my mistake, either way it was still a TKO not a KO. Skitzo (talk) 22:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are making a habit of being wrong! ;) --Vintagekits (talk) 23:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

can you stop reformatting how i post, it's very annoying. Skitzo (talk) 23:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll tell you what is annoying and that is people not indenting their comments - when you reply to comment you are supposed to make an indent. Please format correctly and no one will have you reformat your posts.--Vintagekits (talk) 12:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"I knew it was going to be tough," Mayweather said. "That's why I didn't do anything halfway. He was definitely the toughest competitor I've ever faced."

Associated Press http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jcyNIpIR8zr3Tt8fvFrvy9DDenbAD8TE03H00 I think that, when you have achieved what Hatton has, and given that this is all we know of Floyd's reaction to the fight at this point, it is perfectly reasonable to put this at the end of the article just before it mentions his 2 year retirement. Fair enough? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.254.81.209 (talk) 00:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In sentence "however, replay video showed that Hatton's alleged punch didn't even land." The words "alleged" and "even" imply that the encyclopedia has an opinion about this being an unjust call. Changing it to "however, replay video showed that Hatton's punch didn't actually land" would be a better choice of words to ensure that the encyclopedia remains neutral and simply states fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.225.17.17 (talk) 16:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

penis anatomy

I was just looked up this page to see who won the match and someone hacked this article so some anatomy of a penis covers the screen! Will someone please find out who the hell did this, and ban him from editing PERMANENTLY! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.75.102.66 (talk) 16:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Floyd Joy Sinclair?

Someone in the article claimed that Floyd Mayweather was born Floyd Joy Sinclair? It this true? If it is, then a source online or anything should be applied so that it'll be confirmed. 202.69.177.61 (talk) 02:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A source may have been added but it appears there that the name Sinclair was merely the surname of his mother before marriage. I can't say that this is acceptable. 122.3.106.142 (talk) 15:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the timeline below the picture of floyd it says right there that he was born floyd joy sinclair. Rvk41 (talk) 02:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MMA

Why is the completely bias MMA controversy section back up?! Do the mods have something personally against mayweather? put in both sides!! Mayweather offered chuck liddela million dollars - He didn't get intimidated into apologizing - floyd could care less about dana white buying tickets with sean sherk to see his fight - that was simply thier way of trying to get publicity for ufc at the biggest ppv event of all time! take it down or fix its obviously bias nature this is ridiculous.

The MMA Controversy section of Floyd's page is completely biased in supporting a UFC depiction of the situation, furthermore its sources don't back up anything. the Cite for Floyds retraction is merely a cite to his boxing rec page. This illustration of the chain of events is structured to look like Floyd Mayweather was "intimidated" into retracting which is not at all what happened. Floyd rejected Dana Whites offer because it was a very low 2 million dollars. Floyd counter offered Dana White for Chuck Liddel to not even fight a champ but merely a 10-0 boxer. Much of it was a hype campaign by both parties, because as evidence Dana White has only offered one fight for a boxer to compete in MMA and has denied his own fighters the opportunities on two separate occasions for UFC champions to face boxers in their respective sport. Change its bias nature and post the other side as soon as possible.

Floyd offering the 1 million (http://www.mmapunch.com/2007/03/31/floyd-mayweather-talks-smack-about-the-ice-man/)

Floyd saying ("Why would I go into a sport paying hundreds of thousands when I'm in a sport paying $20 million?" Mayweather said. )http://sports.yahoo.com/box/news?slug=dw-mayweather041807&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

The highest offer Dana White ever made was 2 million - find a source to prove me wrong, and please fix the page.


I heard Floyd might do MMA.. anyone know anything? —Preceding

yeah he was talking about it but i doubt he'll do it.


Can someone please update the MMA section, the style is too informal and one-sided —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bertje82 (talk • contribs) 16:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC) [reply]

its backed up by sources, find better ones, as i understand thats exactly what happend —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.75.141 (talk) 21:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC) [reply]


why was this section taken out? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.252.141.3 (talk) 13:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WWE

How can Mayweather 'lose' this fight it's not possible. The result is already known. Big Show cannot injure Mayweather either as then that injury would have to occur in reality. There will probably be some kind of interference from Rey Mysterio. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.51.181 (talk) 06:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]



On the 2/18/08 edition of Raw, Floyd accepted a challenge to fight Paul Wight, aka the Big Show, presumably at WrestleMania XXIV. Minizilla (talk) 03:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

unsigned comment added by 67.169.225.199 (talk) 02:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is in the article, but we can't put in that it is at Wrestlemania, because there is no guarantee of this, and that would be a violation on WP:CRYSTAL. LessThanClippers (talk) 20:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually we can't put it in the article either because that is we dont put week by week events. or in this case day by day. WP is an encyclopedia not a news site. We will add it once we have a set location of when it will be added, or after it happens.--TrUCo9311 00:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would say it is already notable enough to say they had a stand off and agreed to a match, since its a special one time situation and not our usual type of match. We put that pac man jones had agreed to a match. It is already notable, its on non wrestling news sites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LessThanClippers (talk • contribs) 00:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just give it time, or if you want to add it that bad add a small sentence. --TrUCo9311 00:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All that was in there was that he had agreed to a match against the Big Show. Thats notable. LessThanClippers (talk) 00:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well go ahead and write it, make sure you source it =)TrUCo9311 00:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We don't know when the match will happen, just that a match will eventually happen. TJ Spyke 02:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point but I think that he'd want it on his record fake or not it's no mean feat to defeat a 7 foot giant. The actual match type has not been specified but I presume it will be a boxing match. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.51.181 (talk) 06:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

why is he doing this anyway? is he trying to tell us that boxing is fixed? 86.138.167.124 (talk) 14:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

im a huge wrestling fan, but someone wrote on his page that is record is 40-0. However we all know that this does not count on his profesional boxing record. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hyrule Historian (talk • contribs) 20:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WM 24

the Match with the Big show Will be a MMA Fight it said it on raw the other day, So By Means Floyd Will Box During the Match and the Big show will wrestle.Big show lost Mayweather won the match.

Worthy of an article?

Sure, he's reknown. Sure, he might have defeated a couple of journeymen and paper champions. But does this waste of flesh truly deserves a Wikipedia article? I think not. And what I think stands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.222.230.206 (talk) 04:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

De la hoya fight

why is the de la hoya fight red on his record and all the others green, he won the fight, it should be the same as the others, doesnt matter if it was a split decision, he still won so make it the same as the others —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.35.103.196 (talk) 12:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC) floyd is the best[reply]


WWE Question

Why is there no mention at all of his WWE appearances? He was in quite a big angle and it seems stupid to just leave it out like it never happened. The main picture on his article is a picture of him in a WWE ring, how do you explain that picture without having any references to his WWE appearances? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.238.154.242 (talk) 17:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MANNY THE WACKMAN IS A BITCH

fight record

sum1 fix the fight record it has hatton on the same line as marquez

comments on mma

In a July 2009 interview with CBS Sports, Mayweather once again criticized MMA by saying, "MMA is for beer drinkers. I'm a monkey and I like running away from people as I fight them."

Mayweather never referred to himself as a monkey who likes to run away from people when he fights them, this is obvious derogatory vandalism, in fact i dont even think a comments on mma section even belongs on here, its obviously biased.

all there is in that section is quotes of what mayweather has said and others have responded (with the exception of the iron ring thing), its in the correct order and rather complete to my knowledge, however feel free to edit it if you find diffrent quotes mayweather made about mma —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.76.142.200 (talk) 03:53, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mayweather dose not want to figth Sugar shane Mostley. Mostley call him out. Floyd Mayeather said no I would not fight fight you.

Marquez

The Marquez fight is not on the fight record??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.87.155 (talk) 16:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good and Bad Editor

It seems obvious that vandalism is occurring, but not knowledgeable enough about subject to determine where to revert to. User:Cluebot caught some, but not all of it. Thatguyflint (talk) 08:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


LOCK THIS PAGE ALREADY!!!

  WHY ISN'T THIS PAGE LOCKED LIKE THOSE OF SIMILAR FAME AND STATURE???  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.33.78.130 (talk) 09:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


"Comments on MMA"

Please stop adding this section, it holds no relevance in the scheme of his life. Nothing came out of it. He said in part of an interview that he didn't like MMA, it doesn't warrant a section in his biography per WP:BLP. It defies policy to include every opinion someone has when it holds no relevance in his life. 128.54.33.196 (talk) 06:29, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

yes it does, because he made it so, do people not quote ali over his opinions on other fighters? what he said about his views? the fact of the matter is its relevent because mayweather mentions it, he makes his views known, so as long as there is no bias in there (only quotes used) then it should be in there, and the fact that he had a team in the iron ring is just as relevent as the WWE (97.124.84.88 (talk) 09:42, 13 March 2010 (UTC)).[reply]

Just because he makes one of his ideologies known doesn't mean it's notable in his life. Nothing aspired because of it. He was asked about MMA and he said he didn't like it, big deal. Many celebrities say they don't like many things, you can't and shouldn't include them all. 128.54.169.184 (talk) 21:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Response to third opinion request:
I'm here to provide a third opinion. I'm not an expert on the issues and I've never edited this article. The section cites no references. Without references, it should definitely be deleted. If or when wp:rs references are found, you would then need to debate if it's worthy of mention. Without the references, its hard for me to judge right now how relevant MMA, or FM's comments on them, are to his bio. Once you have references, you can read wp:undue for guidelines on what and what not to include in an article. In my opinion, if FM's banter on MMA was just isolated banter that was covered by a few news sources, it does not deserve mention. Perhaps it deserves a sentence or two in another section in the article, if the issue has had significant coverage by the national press. To include mention, you would then have to demonstrate that this MMA affair is/was a significant issue in FM's life. One way to judge is to count how many news articles were written on this MMA affair and compare that to the total number if articles on FM. I'm going to guess that ratio is small. If it were, then you should not include any mention. Similarly, I seriously doubt it deserves an entire section. To warrant an entire section would be similar to having an entire chapter in a biography dedicated to this MMA affair. If you can find a book on FM's life that has a chapter dedicated to MMA, then perhaps an entire section is appropriate. As I said before, this is just an opinion. I'm not here to judge—Work permit (talk) 22:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At most, some small internet-only MMA sites and blogs have possibly mentioned it. Nothing more than that as far as I'm aware. 128.54.169.184 (talk) 22:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What happens next?

  • If my opinion misses the point
Explain why you think I missed the point. Give me a reasonable time to justify or revise my opinion. I'm not an expert on the topic and may have unintentionally overlooked a detail.
  • If my opinion needs clarification
Please reply in Plain English. I'd appreciate references to Wikipedia guidelines and policies. If I was confusing or you can not see which part of the referenced material applies, then ask me for further clarification. Please remember to remain civil.
  • If my opinion is not accepted
If my opinion is firmly rejected, it's probably not worth while going over the same ground again. Ask the non-accepting party to clarify their viewpoint and summarize the current situation. Remember to stay cool and give reasonable time for contributions from other editors who may act as local mediators.
Your next step is probably to consider one of the other dispute resolution options. The most common of these at this stage are:
  1. A request for comment, a good solution for agreeing a proposed exception to the guidance, or rejecting it.
  2. Raising a Wikiquette alert, a fair way of dealing with another editor who consistently shows what you think is poor etiquette. Going through the third opinion process should demonstrate that you have made reasonable attempts to resolve issues locally before raising the alert.
  3. Requesting advice on a Wikipedia noticeboard. For example Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard is particularly helpful in those cases where the inclusion of problematic biographical material for a living person is under debate.
  4. Requesting advice on a Wikiproject talk page. Nearly all articles fall within the jurisdiction of a Wikiproject, and the members of that project can be helpful in further bringing about consensus on that page.
  • If my opinion worked and resolved the dispute
Don't forget to express thanks to everyone involved. Positive feedback is encouraged as it shows that their contributions are appreciated which will help to ensure the future of the third opinion project. If my third opinion was especially thoughtful or particularly helpful, you might consider awarding a Third Opinion Award on my talk page.


i disagree, i do believe, at least the first back and forth was a big deal (i do agree that the second statement didnt get much attention), he made that (any boxer could become ufc champ) statement during HBO, it came on the evening news, it was on news sites, a fight deal was drawn up because of it (granted it was rejected by mayweather), and the media only stopped persuing the story because mayweather appoligized, it probably doesnt deserve its own section, but it only got that way because people kept saying mayweather was being unfairly critcized so i took all opinion out of it and changed it to quotes only, it originally started out as part of the oscar del hoya build up and i believe two or three sentences, i do thank you for your third opiniion though (75.172.242.15 (talk) 15:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC)).[reply]



NYYIronHorse4 (talk) 06:55, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requests to edit semi-protected articles must be accompanied by reference(s) to reliable sources.  Chzz  ►  08:34, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done

Mayweather didn't get the WBA title

It was not on the line...http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/boxing/columns/story?columnist=rafael_dan&id=5155050 —Preceding unsigned comment added by EpicPofBOE (talk • contribs) 07:27, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pacquiao

I echo the sentiments below. Pacquiao called him on his bluff, Floyd showed his true intent of not fighting Pacquiao. I am a big fan, but this is disappointing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.178.224.130 (talk) 19:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Has now agreed to the blood tests and is just waiting for a response from Floyd. Surely this warrants inclusion. http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,12183_6193745,00.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maktardo (talk • contribs) 14:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On July 14, 2010, Bob Arum publicized that Pacquiao accepted the terms of the random drug testing, blood and urine, leading up to the fight just to make this super fight happen. - http://www.boxingnews24.com/2010/07/manny-pacquiao-agreed-to-drug-testing-all-the-way-to-the-fight/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.200.159.37 (talk) 05:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah this article is clearly biased towards Mayweather and flat out lies about Pacquiao. Pacquiao has agreed to the whole field of random drug testing, and Mayweather still has been dodging this fight. If the article's not gonna be altered to be less biased, at least open it up so visitors can fix it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.170.250.137 (talk) 23:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited the "future plans" section to reflect the fact that Pacquiao did indeed agree to drug testing until the day of the fight. I'm going to see if I can improve the section further to make it more neutral, but this should do for now. Cinderkun (talk) 20:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Sorry, but there's a big difference between actual fact, and what promoters leak out into the media.

Both Manny and Arum were asked what they agreed to, in regards to drug testing, right after negotiations collapsed. Arum refused to give any information, and Manny stated that he had agreed to the 14 day cut off. You know, the fact that Manny is now saying 2 weeks after he's already signed for someone else that he "agrees to do full random testing" is just his own word against the 5-6 people who've said it's not the case.

Most sources linked to the fight stated pretty clearly, that the negotiations never went anywhere, because of a basic dispute on whether there should be a cut off date for drug testing or not.

Here'say from both sides is expected after the actual event

Cjmooney9 (talk) 16:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


"Yeah this article is clearly biased towards Mayweather and flat out lies about Pacquiao. Pacquiao has agreed to the whole field of random drug testing, and Mayweather still has been dodging this figh"

The article is a factual piece. There's nothing factual at all about rumours on fan boards. There's no evidence whatsoever that Manny agreed to full random testing during the negotiations. In fact, he himself states he didn't. As did Arum. They both state clearly that they only agreed to the 14 day cut off.

Boxers talking after the event, as a bit of PR, is what it is. It's easy to agree to all testing, when you're fighting someone else.

Pacquiao fans are sorry to say, notoriously, fanatical.

Cjmooney9 (talk) 16:21, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


"Bob Arum publicized that Pacquiao accepted the terms of the random drug testing, blood and urine, leading up to the fight just to make this super fight happen. - http://www.boxingnews24.com/2010/07/manny-pacquiao-agreed-to-drug-testing-all-the-way-to-the-fight"

BoxingNews 24 is owned by Top Rank you muppet!? Nearly all of these fan contribution sites are little more than blogs for the fighters.

They're not professional sites. They're hyped up blogs, funded by the people involved, to leak what they want on to the web

Cjmooney9 (talk) 16:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Undefeated Put in Quotation Marks?

He has never lost a professional boxing contest. By definition, this makes him undefeated. The quotation marks imply that this is somehow deceptive. 24.42.94.52 (talk) 02:40, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are millions of morons out there who believe that you can add quotes anywhere in order to add emphasis (or, as they would write it, "emphasis"). You'll probably love this site, which is devoted to photographs of this idiocy. 98.82.22.154 (talk) 18:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pound for Pound

We get it, some people think Floyd is P4P#1. There is no need for 14 references to prove it. Did Leonard Ellerbe write this article?? Mr.Apples2010 (talk) 18:34, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many fans, critics and writers choose The Ring Magazine Rankings / Ratings over other sources. Check back with DoghouseBoxing weekly for an updated list. - http://www.doghouseboxing.com/Ring/Ring071910.htm

This page looks incredibly biased toward Mayweather and has poor grammar in multiple areas.

Is there another good page we can revert to? It seems like someone heavily biased toward Mayweather has changed multiple sections of this page. This is not neutral at all. No other boxer has such a massive amount of information about their accomplishments at the start of their page. I also notice a large amount of incorrect grammar (randomly capitalized words, run-on sentences) that needs to be fixed. 69.149.214.61 (talk) 00:29, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's terrible. Is there anyway of protecting the article from User:Balagonj786? He has turned this page into a Mayweather love-fest. Mr.Apples2010 (talk) 13:17, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Lots of error. Wrong grammar, inappropriate punctuation marks, wrong caps, etc. Some references dated more than a year ago. Some information are bias, always provide favoritism and positive statements that leads to unfair article.

Now that Balagonj has been blocked from editing, can we please revert the page to a much more neutral and higher quality version? I see there are several pages that would make good candidates. Cinderkun (talk) 08:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


It seems biased to Pacquiao fans as it's based only on fact. Not web myths, rumours, and fan site trash, that they seem to use for most of their knowledge. If you've got anything to add, based on a real, official source (not some fan site) please go ahead and make changes.

It's very neutral already. Pacquiao fans don't believe in neutral. They just want to add all of their Pacland trash, that's based on next to nothing but rumour, and what they read on fan sites.

Cjmooney9 (talk) 16:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Errors abound

Look at the opening:

Floyd Joy Mayweather, Jr., Jr. (born Floyd Sinclair on February 24, 1977), is an Undefeated American professional boxer. He is the son of Floyd Mayweather, Sr.
  • "Jr., Jr."? Can boxing fans be that stupid?
  • "He is the son of Floyd Mayweather, Sr." No shit? Is that a coincidence or what? Of COURSE he's the son of FM, Sr., you morons.
  • Impressive as it is, this is en.wiki, not de.wiki, so "undefeated" doesn't need to be capitalized.
98.82.22.154 (talk) 18:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pound For Pound List and References


Please post an updated and correct reference for this page. References reveals the TRUTH if Mayweather is still the current pound-for-pound this year. He might be the No.1 pound for pound in the past years but not this year 2010. PLEASE DON'T BE BIASED!

I also notice a large amount of incorrect grammar that needs to be fixed.


The PFP claims for Pacquiao are exactly the same. Shall I delete them as the reference is a year old?

Cjmooney9 (talk) 16:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nicknames

The nicknames Pretty Boy Floyd and Money Mayweather should be Pretty Boy and Money only as per BoxRec - http://boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=000352&cat=boxer

There are no references that recognize Floyd Mayweather Jr. as the Pay Per View "King" (?) Cash Cow (?) Cash "King" (?) and specially T.B.E The Best Ever (What ??? Oh really???) Please provide references from a prominent boxing websites for this nicknames or else I will delete it!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doughn (talk • contribs) 04:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate for revert

As this page has clearly crossed the line from neutral to biased quite some time ago, I suggest that we revert it to the following version: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Floyd_Mayweather,_Jr.&oldid=361820279

If one compares the two, the differences in bias, accuracy, spelling and grammar are quite apparent. This is the version that existed just before User:Balagonj786 began to change the page to the heavily biased, inaccurate, and grammatically incorrect version that exists today. I recommend that this user be barred from editing this page any further. Cinderkun (talk) 08:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support It seems that only Mayweather's fans destroy the Manny Pacquiao page and this Floyd Mayweather, Jr. page. They put invalid, inaccurate and wrong information to both pages/articles. Moreover, User:Balagonj786 always insist that the references that he provides in this page are correct even if these references are too old and the given information are "too bias". I also notice more spelling, punctuation marks and grammar errors in this page/article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.200.158.134 (talk) 06:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Please don't use simple fan numbers, to try and force through this type of thing. The Pacquiao page is probably the most biased thing I've ever read. There's even a section boasting about his endorsements.............50% of the information on there is either wrong, or useless boasting.........

Being factual about someone you don't like isn't biased. It's just stating what what happened. The fact that a lot of people want to try and portray the guy more negatively is their own problem.

Please stop this stupid power struggle, and just accept basic facts. There's nothing on this page that isn't actually true. If I'm seeing people trying to use fan numbers, to consensus build, in an attempt to put their own POV on the page, I'll put the wheels in motion to just get it locked.

Cjmooney9 (talk) 16:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um, dude, you know that this page was reverted a long time ago, right? It's much better right now than it ever was, though it still needs a few small adjustments. This isn't about trying to make Mayweather look bad and Pacquiao look good. I've never even edited Pacquiao's page in my life. It's about improving Wikipedia articles so that they're about giving neutral information, not about expressing one's love of a particular boxer. So stop bringing up Pacquiao and take a look at some of Balagonj's old edits to see how horribly biased, grammatically incorrect, and spelling-error-ridden they were.

We made the page more neutral and higher-quality. That's it. Cinderkun (talk) 00:34, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from Cinderkun, 31 July 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

I request that this page be reverted from the current version to the version that existed just before User:Balagonj786 began to edit the Floyd Mayweather page. Here is a link to said version: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Floyd_Mayweather,_Jr.&oldid=361820279

Balagonj786 has refused to cooperate with other Wikipedia users and has attempted to force his version of the page onto Wikipedia by using edit warring instea

d of ratioIndented linenal discussion. Furthermore, Balagonj786 has distorted the accuracy, neutrality, spelling, and grammar of this page to such a degree that it would be easier to simply revert to an earlier, more neutral version. From that point, minor and neutral details can easily be added to update the article to July 2010 standards. Four other people have agreed with me in the talk page of Floyd Mayweather, Jr. Therefore, I believe that the page should be reverted.

Cinderkun (talk) 21:24, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Dabomb87 (talk) 22:34, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Error.

"From July 18, 2005 through June 2, 2008 he was rated by The Ring magazine as the number-two pound for pound boxer in the world." This is clearly wrong. He was ranked number-one in that time frame. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Obamination19794876 (talk • contribs) 00:16, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Change it then. Mr.Apples2010 (talk) 00:33, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot of mistakes on mayweather's article including pound for pound ratings, he was not rated number 2 but number 1 so i will revert the article back to how it was.Balagonj786 (talk) 01:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fanboys are back

I see the Mayweather fanboys have overtaken this page again....sigh. Mr.Apples2010 (talk) 15:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

mr apple and cinderkun are vandaling this article 23:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Not vandalism, they only removed biased content, you like it or not, r to you your sockpuppet, there were a consensus. And If I like Pacquiao you must love Mayweather. TbhotchTalk C. 23:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We need to get them both banned. Mr.Apples2010 (talk) 23:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with Apples. He just vandalized the talk page, as well. I agreed and said that Balagonj and Jailbreaker are the same person, and then Jailbreaker removed what I said. Cinderkun (talk) 23:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References.

The references for some of the pound for pound ratings are outdated. I suggest they either be updated or removed. I also encourage people to correct any grammatical errors. But as far as the information is concerned, it is a 100% accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Obamination19794876 (talk • contribs) 08:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Apples, when "fact" doesn't match your own POV on a subject, it's is your own problem. I feel you just want the page to have a more negative tone.

Cjmooney9 (talk) 16:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction

The introduction to the article is far too long and is filled with unnecessary information. Awards such as For his achievements he was named Ring Magazine Fighter of the Year in 1998 and 2007; Best Fighter ESPY Award 2007, 2008 and currently 2010; BWAA Fighter of the Year 2007 by Boxing Writers Association of America; ESPN.com Fighter of the year 2007; The Ring Magazine event of the year 2007, 2008; and currently The Ring Magazine comeback of the year 2009 should be moved to another place in the article, if they aren't already.

Do we need to have a full paragraph of all the titles Mayweather used to hold? The fourth paragraph of the article is not grammatically correct. And rated by Prominent boxing websites and magazines as "Number 1" pound for pound boxer in the world such as... . Do we need to list all these websites? If so, can we simply state something to the effect of Mayweather is regarded by several boxing websites as the number 1 pound for pound boxer in the world. and provide the references at the end of the sentence?

I'm not sure if we need 2 whole paragraphs in the intro detailing his fight with Oscar De la Hoya and the money it generated. The last 2 paragraphs also seem a bit excessive.

I think an old revision of the page would suit the introduction nicely. This one looks pretty good. Courier00 (talk) 14:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The version you suggest is very narrow. The info. written in this version might seem extreme to you but these are his accomplishments. If there are grammatical errors please correct them, otherwise the old version is just too narrow and lacks a great deal of information and detail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Obamination19794876 (talk • contribs) 19:52, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, he does have many accomplishments, but we don't need to list them all in the introduction of the article. The introduction is just that, an introduction, not a compilation of every website that lists Mayweather among their greatest boxers. Courier00 (talk) 23:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Some of the websites listed are a little too much and could be deleted. Otherwise can you please point out the differences in introduction between this page and thisManny_Pacquiaoone.
Indented line —Preceding unsigned comment added by Obamination19794876 (talk • contribs) 11:21, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Obamination19794876, not changing the Mayweather article just because the Pacquiao one is just as awful is not a good reason. I generally try and steer clear of these pages as it just seems people use it a a canvas to illustrate their love or hate of either boxer. Mr.Apples2010 (talk) 18:33, 21 August 2010 (UTC) Mr.Apples2010 (talk) 18:33, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You have to understand that these two names have been tied together for a while now and probably will be forever. It's only natural for myself or anyone else to weight. This is the reason i do not understand why this page has to be changed, while there is no difference between the two. Now i suggest that both pages stay as they are since they are very detailed and informative. For example, i did not know Mayweather is a nine time world champion just as i did not know Pacquiao is an eleven time world champion. This infromation was not included in the previous review. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Obamination19794876 (talk • contribs) 02:26, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We can move all the excessive information to other parts of the article. We don't need it to be listed in the introduction. If you'll look at Manny Pacquiao's page, at the time of this comment, you'll see an introduction I wrote that still covers Pacquiao's major accomplishments without going on to list so many of his minor ones. The same could be applied to this article. Courier00 (talk) 14:36, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree that the Pacquiao introduction has been much improved, it would be good to do the same to Mayweather. Mr.Apples2010 (talk) 14:43, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
O.K.Obamination19794876 (talk) 22:33, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As with the Pacquiao I agree the lead here needs to be cut down dramatically - most of the content should be in the article with the lead containing only the most notable (brief) facts of his career. --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 08:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC) [reply]

really?

As a disclaimer: I don't edit wikipedia and don't want to. That being said how exactly is the WWE relevant to anything? If Mayweather were to guest star on a soap opera and "fight" someone would that really make it worth including? Should I be less subtle? And where exactly is the mention of Mayweather's 10 minute racist and homophobic tirade towards Pacquiao?

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Floyd_Mayweather_Jr.&oldid=384053275"