Talk:Anthony Joshua vs Oleksandr Usyk

Hometown

@DontBeSuchANerdDude:, why do you think Usyk's hometown must be as it was at his birth? I'm not saying it shouldn't, but currently it reads as if Usyk should be fighting for Soviet Union instead of Ukraine :) If your edit is based on a rule, then articles about Klitschko fights should be fixed as well. --Amakuha (talk) 02:46, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

I disagree that readers would misconstrue it as Usyk fighting for the Soviet Union as he has the current Ukrainian flag next to his name. The main reason is to keep consistency with Usyk's page which also lists his place of birth as it was when he was born. Having said that I don't mind too much whether Usyk's hometown is listed as the Soviet Union or the current Ukraine, but if we were to list Usyk's hometown as the current Ukraine, then I believe his hometown should be listed as Kyiv, Ukraine, which is where he is fighting out of,, similar to how Wladimir Klitschko's hometown is listed as Kyiv, Ukraine as that is where he trained and fought out of, as opposed to his birthplace in the Kazakh SSR, Soviet Union. To summarize: I believe Usyk's hometown should be either Simferopol, Ukrainian SSR, Soviet Union, or Kyiv, Ukraine. But not Simferopol, Ukraine. DontBeSuchANerdDude (talk) 03:44, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Just to add to my previous points, Usyk is introduced by ring announcers on fight night as "fighting out of Kyiv, Ukraine". Which is another reason why I think it is preferable to Simferopol, Ukraine as Usyk's listed hometown DontBeSuchANerdDude (talk) 03:50, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

To me as a reader "Kyiv, Ukraine" makes much more sense than Soviet Union for Klitschkos and Usyk.

Moreover, the template description page states: "Hometown – Where the boxer lived?". So, it clearly is supposed to be analogous to "fighting out of". --Amakuha (talk) 08:13, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

@Amakuha: the hometown parameter is where he was born, not where he "represents" (professional boxers do not represent countries in any official capacity anyway) or fights out of. The relevant guideline here would be WP:PLACE. I can't be bothered to go through the guideline to find and quote the exact paragraph, but it's something along the lines of...when a place name is used, we take into account the historical context and use the name of said place as it was at the time. I'll go ahead and restore the original version. – ².O.^Boxing 12:04, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

@Squared.Circle.Boxing: No, it's quite uncertain and inconsistent. For example, Floyd Mayweather Jr. vs. Manny Pacquiao apparently mentions Pacquiao's hometown where he was raised, not born. This doesn't contradict the template documentation's "Where the boxer lived?" though. In this case, "Simferopol, Ukraine" makes more sense for Usyk because he barely remembers his time in Soviet Union. He was raised mostly in Ukraine. --Amakuha (talk) 09:00, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

"Where the boxer lived?"...yea, that needs sorting out. That is so vague that we could put US as Fury's "Hometown" for the Wilder 3 infobox because, well, Fury will be "living" there prior to the fight. Using the parameter for anything other than birth place doesn't make much sense to me, and the example you gave is one reason why; people visiting that article will more than likely assume that Pacquaio was born in General Santos, as the first (and very often, only) location in a BLP infobox is place of birth. – ².O.^Boxing 10:04, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Personally, I don't see any need to duplicate information about birthplace in articles about fights. But as long as there is such field in the template, it should be treated consistently. Klitschko brothers is a problematic examples: born in Kazakhstan, but raised in Ukraine and fighting from Germany. What sense would it make to mention Semipalatinsk as the hometown in Anthony Joshua vs. Wladimir Klitschko? To me it makes little sense. In any case, I just want consistency. Amakuha (talk) 00:47, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

References

Scoring criticism

@Squared.Circle.Boxing: Could you, please, explain this change? I understand your point that one opinion is not significant. However, I would argue that an opinion by a famed sports analyst which is shared by Daily Mirror and other publications (like Pundit Arena [1]) is significant enough for a mention. (Maybe, together with "highly controversial" decision on Campbell Hatton's fight.)

Yet another publication put it this way:

One of the biggest takeaways that fans have had since the scorecards were released focused on Howard Foster. <...> he scored both the first and second round for Joshua when 99.9% of viewers and pundits alike felt Usyk dominated through the first three rounds.

So I suggest to leave the scoring criticism section. --Amakuha (talk) 09:33, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

@Amakuha: I can't see an argument for Bisping's opinion being relevant; he's not a boxing analyst. If there's multiple reliable sources that are discussing the scoring (for example, Mayweather vs. Canelo) then sure, a criticism section would be warranted. However, that's not what I'm seeing on the ol' tinterweb; from my Google searches--Joshua vs Usyk "scorecard", Joshua vs Usyk "judges", Joshua vs Usyk "Howard Foster"--I only found the Bisping rant (picked up and regurgitated by multiple outlets) and the Sporf one you provided above that discussed the scoring. Every other article I skimmed through either didn't discuss the merits of Foster's scorecard at all, or there was just a cheeky one-liner like "Foster's card flattered Joshua". – ².O.^Boxing 11:55, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

My argument is that there are multiple reliable sources that mention Bisping's opinion, therefore this opinion is noteworthy enough to be mentioned. Moreover, Bisping was not the only analyst to bring this up. Teddy Atlas, for example, questioned the scoring for the first three rounds as well: "The judges: looks like they might have been... they might have been trying to rob the guy [Usyk]. Because the first three rounds - really! - I thought it was kindo' easy that Usyk won the first three rounds. And they are giving rounds to Joshua. It was 'be friendly to a Brit' day." [2] --Amakuha (talk) 19:56, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

The fact that some media outlets have regurgitated Bisping's comments does not mean they have encyclopaedic value. Including Bisping's comments--who isn't (and was never) a boxer, a boxing analyst or commentator--is WP:UNDUE; it doesn't appear to be a significant viewpoint. The overwhelming majority of articles I've read make no mention of Foster's scoring. The only ones that do have Bisping in the headlines.

Here's all of the post-fight reporting from a few highly reputable outlets: The Ring; ESPN; BBC; Boxing Scene. Now I obviously haven't read every single article, but the ones I did read/search for "Howard Foster", none criticised the scoring. If expert boxing outlets like The Ring and Boxing Scene aren't discussing the scoring, and the likes of the BBC and ESPN aren't discussing the scoring, I'd say it's a safe bet that this isn't a significant viewpoint. – ².O.^Boxing 12:03, 4 October 2021 (UTC)