Former good article nomineeBoxing was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. 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
December 20, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
June 29, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
September 6, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 January 2020 and 29 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Emperorvenz.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mikeeduley.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:10, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nubian Boxing[edit]

I was reading online and in books and I found out that nubians practiced boxing and wrestling. I also have references. would this be good to add to the article.

An in fighter has an advantage over an out fighter?[edit]

"There is a generally accepted rule of thumb about the success each of these boxing styles has against the others. In general, an in-fighter has an advantage over an out-fighter, an out-fighter has an advantage over a puncher, and a puncher has an advantage over an in-fighter"

I can't see this statement as being in anyway true, especially not without a citation. Out fighters always have the advantage, all an in fighter can do is try take that advantage away from them. There's no such thing as a small arm advantage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.110.92 (talk) 01:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New Page[edit]

I suggest start topics with boxing rules, importance of draws, I suggest if a fight is decided by one point e.g. 114-113, 113-114, 113-114 should be automatic draw, such score is way too close to call, difference of couple more or less punches should not decide an outcome!

Weight Classes?[edit]

There is no list of boxing weight classes here - which seems ridiculous considering the detail of other technical info - it seems to me that this is one of the first things a novice looking up boxing in an encyclopaedia would want to know - i've added a link in the see also section - but sadly don't have time - or interest - to do more : --kyle mew 22:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kylemew (talk • contribs)

Article really needs help[edit]

Note: This is not to insult anyone specifically, it is just what I found when I got here. This article is informative, but kind of overloads the average Wikipedia reader. Entire sections should probably be removed, summarized, and/or put into their own pages. Examples include: Clothing Style Terminology Technique Corner I am not, however, an expert on Boxing, so I'm probably not going to touch it much more than the random touch-up as I read through the article. Just thought I'd bring it to people's attention. Firestorm713 (talk) 04:15, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WPBF in list of Sanctioning Bodies[edit]

It's difficult to know where to draw the line on this subject, but whilst the other four bodies listed are internationally well-known and have a full complement of champions, the WPBF is virtually unknown and doesn't seem to belong here. Unless someone can come up with a good reason to keep it I am going to delete in 48 hours. Perhaps I should add a separate table for "minor" sanctioning bodies. What do you think? Tigerboy1966 (talk) 19:44, 15 December 2010 (UTC

Jonathan Oakey[edit]

This article makes a couple of references to "young English boxer Jonathan Oakey" as being a prime example of various boxing techniques. I'd never heard of the guy, so I just looked up his wiki page. He's only ever had 8 pro fights, so I think he's hardly deserving of being mentioned in the same context as Ali, Mayweather, La Motta etc as prime examples of particular aspects of boxing. So I've gone ahead and deleted all references to him in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.185.153.35 (talk) 19:18, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Boxing Navbox[edit]

There's so many terms, techniques in plain boxing, that I started a navbox: User:Steveprutz/boxing. Still a rough draft. Hoping to put it in Template:Boxing before the week's end. Request for comment here. StevePrutz (talk) 13:23, 9 November 2011 (UTC) you could talk to me if you like. 860-515-7680. Cell talk/text good too.[reply]

The Second Sentence[edit]

"The boxers are generally continue, if an opponent is disqualified for breaking a rule, or a winner is determined either by the referee's decision or by judges' scorecards at the end of the bout."

This is not English. Maybe someone could fix that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.181.81.222 (talk) 20:35, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ARTHUR KING BRITISH EMPIRE CHAMPION TITLE: OCTOBER 01, 1947[edit]

Hello: I'm not sure which department to contact regarding this issue. In your department named: List of British lightweight boxing champions ARTHUR KING is not mentioned and the existing info in incorrect. I would like to bring to your attention that my father ARTHUR KING won the British Empire Title fight from Billy Thompson on October 01, 1948. For some reason ARTHUR KING is not listed on the "Lightweight British Empire Champions" list. Please see some links below that should help you see that he indeed did win the Title at: King's Hall, Belle Vure, Manchester, Lancashire, United Kingdom. Can you please correct this. If you have any questions, you can contact me by email, kck1@hotmail.com

Kind regards, Kim 

www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20111216.OBITARTHURKING> www.boxrec.com/list; Type in  Arthur King to see boxing record
www.boxingtreasures.com/19bithvsarki.html 
www.boxingtreasures.com/arkivsbithvi.html 
thecruelestsport.com/2011/12/15/arthur-king-1927-2011/Cached
news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1946&dat...id...sjid> http://news.google.com/newspapers?   www.britishpathe.com/video/one-minute-news-15 - starts with fashion show...then see fight  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.254.146.107 (talk) 23:17, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Boxing was also banned in China under Mao. 76.14.45.145 (talk) 06:38, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hit and Away[edit]

"ヒットアンドウェイ" is a Japanese term for Out-boxing. Not sure how to appropriately cover it, though I created a redirect.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 19:37, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Intercontinental-Champion[edit]

Can someone tell me what this title means, and should it be mentioned in the article? It is an often used and heard expression in boxing, but no one seems to know its meaning. --Wikiplex (talk) 00:22, 11 July 2012 (UTC) Yeah I can help you there. It's a lower championship. "Regional". Nothing to worry about. It is like a States championship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnWilkinson (talk • contribs) 07:44, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Medical Concerns[edit]

I have some concerns about two implications in this section. Firstly, 'Since 1980, more than 200 amateur boxers, professional boxers and Toughman fighters have died as the result of ring or training injuries.[30] Thus[clarification needed], in 1983, the Journal of the American Medical Association called for a ban on boxing.' I imagine the AMA's call was based not solely on the deaths in the previous three years, and certainly not on the subsequent twenty-nine. The conjunction of these two sentences by 'Thus' can't be right. Secondly, 'It was banned in Albania from 1965 till the fall of Communism in 1991. Now it is still legal.' This last sentence is either completely irrelevant or carrying a bias, implying that it should be banned.84.192.118.77 (talk) 18:11, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Medical use case for prevention (one of many): swimming pool. Neurons regenerate in water because of its hydrostatic and hydrodynamic properties ORGANIZATION OF NEURONS: NEURONAL POOLS RippleSax (talk) 01:25, 8 December 2015 (UTC) RippleSax[reply]

Lock up the article[edit]

I suggest locking this article for unregistered users because of the frequent vandalism. This article is pretty much complete, and only constructive editations are being made by registered users. Locking up this article would help a lot, as I and other users don't have time to revert endless vandalisms here. Thank you --Novis-M (talk) 12:39, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Mistake[edit]

I believe there has been somewhat of a conflation between a Richard Parkyn and one Thomas Parkyn. The former being a Cornish wrestling champion from St. Columb Major (Bunnyip is certainly not in Cornwall), whilst the latter, whom the information in the article correctly concerns, hails from Bunny in Nottinghamshire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.223.168.223 (talk) 14:43, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Boxing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add ((cbignore)) after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add ((nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot)) to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:49, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Punching[edit]

Added a link to Punch_(combat).

This news item came up recently: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2015/10/21/scientists-slap-stuff-with-cadaver-hands-to-study-the-evolution-of-human-fist-fights/

I wonder if it could be added here at some point. The question that it raises is whether boxing or punching is universal enough to suggest that human hands evolved to form fists. I'm doubtful about this. Kortoso (talk) 18:25, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was no action.Peter Rehse (talk) 11:00, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The content of Amateur boxing entirely overlaps with this article, apart from the three sections on rules in different countries, two of which are uncited. It should be merged here. Or if the rules sections are worth keeping, moved to Amateur boxing rules by country or similar, with the lead and history sections removed. ··gracefool 💬 21:22, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not so sure about this. Professional boxing is an expansion of the Boxing article and it makes sense to have the same for Amateur Boxing. I think in the latter case more could be added.Peter Rehse (talk) 15:15, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. So at least most of the content of the three should be merged. ··gracefool 💬 00:39, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well basically I see either 3 articles or 1 article - and I think 1 article would be way too big. Perhaps moving some of the material from Boxing to both Amateur or Professional would be more helpful.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:04, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Boxing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ((Sourcecheck))).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:41, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft outline[edit]

There is a draft for an outline on the subject of boxing found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Outlines/Drafts/Outline of boxing if anyone is interested. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:37, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography: "Godfrey, John "Boxing" from [...]", domain expired, used for grey/black hat SEO[edit]

Hi,

link under bibliography "Godfrey, John "Boxing" from Treatise Upon the Useful Science of Defense, 1747" isn't available anymore. The domain expired and the NEW owner is using the site now for black hat SEO.

Best regards

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Boxing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:38, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Boxing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:31, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Any opportunity to include Etu?[edit]

After a little look through of this main article, I didn't see a section for other types or cultures of boxing, but I thought Etu might deserve a link, as it's a type of ceremonial boxing that could deserve mentioning. Maybe a Boxing Traditions of the World section or some such.

Etu could use the linkage (it's near-orphan status), and it would help Wikipedia combat its common west-civilization-centric view writings we've been dinged for in the past.

-Cheers!~~ Elfabet (talk) 15:07, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Page protection[edit]

As explained clearly in [1] and [2], there is no mention of 2nd millennium BC reliefs from the Mesopotamian nations of Assyria and Babylonia or Hittite art from Asia Minor in Byron Nakamura's Boxing in the Ancient World. There is mention of 3rd millennium BC Mesopotamian reliefs (which are already covered in the article by the first sentence of the History section), a 2nd millennium BC Egyptian relief (which is already covered in the History section), and 2nd millennium BC Aegean vases (which are also already covered). The reference can be added to the existing references for the existing content but it cannot be used to support any insertion or claim that is not found in the source and should not be placed next to material that is not found in the source. DrKay (talk) 07:14, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Horne book "The Bittersweet Science"[edit]

[3] Book might be useful for this article. 2602:24A:DE47:BB20:50DE:F402:42A6:A17D (talk) 21:44, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

kicks in ancient greek boxing.[edit]

Hello. I made an edit adding reference by Hopkins University to evidence of kicks in ancient Greek boxing as well as ancient Indian boxing. However, it was removed. Why? All the best. Parmenides64 (talk) 15:20, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The given source gives a very nuanced view, one which gives both evidence for and evidence against. It was removed because it made an at best dubious statement of fact which is not the one made in the source... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:21, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this assessment. The wording of the added statement indicated that kicks were definitely allowed, while the source casts doubt on the evidence previously presented for it. --Kinu t/c 15:24, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
By the same logic, I've removed similar statements at Ancient Greek boxing and Kickboxing. Parmenides64, as these edits have been contested, please continue discussing the changes here or at the relevant articles' talk pages per WP:BRD to achieve consensus on if/how they should be added, to avoid the perception of edit warring. --Kinu t/c 15:46, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see it well. I added a second reference to the use of cambridge legs. The point is that, since there is an article that discusses the use of legs, it is understood that there is evidence of its use, although it is open to debate, and it should at least expose its possible use and that it is debated, although in the article from wikipedia it is already exposed that what is exposed in this article should not be taken as categorical evidence, but interpretive. Sorry for my English, it's not native. Parmenides64 (talk) 15:58, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Cambridge Companion to Boxing edited by Gerald Early Pg100 "It pitted age-graded combatants among the largely fishing communities in contests which featured the exchange of bare-knuckled blows and kicks which utilized the soles of the feet. Whereas the British and American narrative of the ..." Parmenides64 (talk) 16:01, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone have an edition of this book to see their opinion on the first reference I made? Thanks. Parmenides64 (talk) 16:04, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. there is a reference to the one I exposed. I would like to see the opinion of the author of the book and his references if any. Parmenides64 (talk) 16:07, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Among the Ga people, the genesis of a boxing culture was the result of the outlawing of traditional forms of martial warfare by the British-imposed colonial order. Asafo atwele, a form of group fighting among the urban poor of the city of Accra, emerged in the early part of the twentieth century. It pitted age-graded combatants among the largely fishing communities in contests which featured the exchange of bare-knuckled blows and kicks which utilized the soles of the feet.

I made a mistake. I mean the reference I put in the main article. In the book there is a reference to: https://www.jstor.org/stable/294973. Parmenides64 (talk) 16:13, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's already discussed. Quoting the conclusion:

In conclusion, the references discussed are not strong evidence for kicking in Greek boxing. The passage of Eusebius is difficult to explain as not suggesting kicking in boxing, but this is of late date and may be confusing a form of Roman boxing with Greek. Even the Roman epic writers who describe boxing do not mention kicking, even though they do "Romanize" the boxing "gloves". The most convincing reference is from Theocritus who distinguishes between boxing and kicking. Also noteworthy is the absence of definite allusions to kicking in the numerous accounts of Greek writers on boxing.

That might be used to support a limited statement about kicking, but certainly not the one you put in. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:18, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in the absence of more references, I suggest that the possibility and the lack of evidence of this use of attacks be exposed. It may seem silly, but in many forms of ancient boxing and in the Greek pankration there were kicks, and I think the possibility of kicks in Greek boxing was real. Parmenides64 (talk) 16:23, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that what you or I think does not matter. At best, with the given source, the only material that could be added is "There is no strong evidence that kicking was practiced in ancient Greek boxing." RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:13, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Based on how Crowther frames it, the possibility that kicking existed in ancient Greek boxing does not appear to be a widely held belief (e.g., barring additional sources to suggest otherwise, Harris and Juthner seem to be the principal proponents of the theory), and thus I would contend that mentioning the possibility at all seems undue. --Kinu t/c 17:32, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are probably wondering why my interest in kicks in the ancient European boxing arts. Boxing and wrestling are usually mentioned as the oldest forms of combat, but I think history owes a debt to kick boxing (in the broad term of the name), being as old as the other two. In addition to being a student, I am a practitioner of martial arts (I imagine that like some of you), specifically kyokushin, and I am convinced that the art of combat in all its legitimate forms is as old as man, and none of the current ones forms have invented nothing beyond their own system of rules. There is evidence of kick boxing in ancient Asian arts before Christ, and there is no reason to think that ancient European arts are any different. But wikipedia is not about own studies or theses, but about exposing referenced content. However, due to the fact that most of the articles that I have found are paid, and beyond the anō pankration, I have not found anything except that there seems to be some debate without clear evidence. I would like to know if you have access to academic websites where there could be references, or at least enough evidence to consider an alleged existing debate in the academic field. https://scholar.google.es/scholar?hl=es&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=kicks+on+ancient+greek+boxing&btnG= Parmenides64 (talk) 22:44, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Other than that, it was essentially a free for all, but scholarsstill debate if kicking were allowed." -Boxing Gloves of the Ancient World-Steven Ross Murray I think it would be fair to point out that there is a debate in this regard. Parmenides64 (talk) 23:16, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If this was the page specifically about Ancient Greek boxing, and if this debate could be substantiated with further sources (for example, including some which are not so dismissive of it), it might warrant inclusion there, but here it would be a bit off-topic as this is just a general summary page about the whole of boxing, including not just ancient Greek boxing but also more modern forms. Such a minor detail would be WP:UNDUE.
If there are any seemingly interesting academic sources, I might have access to them (as I happened to with the ones you previously listed), but WP:RX is usually the place to go. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:27, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I will open the debate in said article and look for more sources. Greetings and sorry for any inconvenience. Parmenides64 (talk) 23:34, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Changes reverted when trying to improve the article, and other problems[edit]

Recently I was making some minor changes to improve the article, and try to make it as objective as possible, taking some things from the article in Spanish on boxing, which has a quality certification. However, my changes have been reverted. I have reset them. Of course I don't want to start an edit war. In fact, I am the first that if they convince me, or if I see that I am wrong, I rectify.

I may seem new, but I have previously contributed to wikipedia with another account that I lost, and was able to make some very good contributions to various articles (and were recognized as such). I only say this in case I could be taken lightly or a vandal, and I'm sure you guys are much better at contributing to wikipedia than I am. In fact, I take this opportunity to say that I have great respect for English Wikipedia for its quality, in the vast majority of cases superior to the Spanish-speaking one. I hope we can come to an understanding, and deal with some issues that I have in mind. All the best.--Parmenides64 (talk) 18:08, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The way to approach this article on boxing can be from a western boxing point of view or from boxing in general. Of course, I think it would be a mistake to do it from a point of view other than the Western one. But neither can we ignore that boxing, from the historical point of view to the present day, includes much more than Western boxing, with its respective rules, which focus only on the use of fists. In fact, the first prehistoric references to some kind of boxing come from Asia, where the term boxing not only implies the use of the fists, but also of other parts of the body, even including wrestling, in the case of malla-yudda . In addition, it was not until writing that rules could be compiled. I have searched for information on ancient Egyptian boxing rules, but have not found anything. The only rules that come down to us are from ancient Greece, and apparently shin kicking was allowed during a period of BCE Olympia boxing, but it's not dated, and I'm trying to find a good reference for this. In any case, academics do not agree with the use of kicks in ancient Greek boxing, so we will ignore this, and we will only leave it as additional information. The point is that the evidence of boxing where only fists are involved dates back to ancient Greece, although it surely has prehistoric origins. All this that I am saying is referenced. For all this, I think my edition is fair, where the only thing I do is make a terminological paragraph with the term boxing, which is three lines. If the problem is that it is included in the introduction, I suppose that there would be no problem in including this data in the "history" section, although I suspect that there will be discussion about it.

On the other hand, I do not understand the problem of putting relationships in the table of the introduction of the article. Kinships in all forms of combat are exposed on wikipedia. Why is the boxing article different?--Parmenides64 (talk) 00:26, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You made multiple changes. Other language Wikipedias are not reliable sources (see WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source), nor is this one, so that is why that information was removed. On top of that, it was also removed because article leads have a rather standard format, which usually requires summarising the information which is in the article, yet none of that information is presented anywhere else in the article, and, even more importantly, no reliable sources (a necessity, see WP:V) were presented to support this either.
Another part which I removed is needless capital letters. Titles (and alternative titles, by the same token) are usually written in sentence case (like they are always in French - I don't know if this standard is also followed in Spanish)
Finally, other parts of the edit were reverted because they were unnecessarily verbose - i.e. concise writing is preferred. Instead of writing "the earliest evidence of fights where at least fists are involved [...]", it is much better to write "the earliest evidence of fist-fighting".
Please stop reverting and explain why you think each part of your edit should be reinstated. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:38, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have left the table of the introduction as it was, except for the nuance of prehistory and ancient history, being more faithful to the source number [2]. On the other hand, everything I have commented on previously I have not taken from wikipedia, but from studies with references. If you want I can make a description in the "history" section.
On the other hand, the phrase "earliest evidence of fistfights" is tendentious because it implies that it is the first evidence of only fistfights, where my nuance is much more accurate. On the other hand, look at the changes, because I'm not just reverting.
Regarding capital letters, they were like that in the Spanish version, but this is not a problem, don't worry. --Parmenides64 (talk) 01:05, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"earliest evidence of fistfights" is what the source says: Boxing first appeared as a formal Olympic event in the 23rd Olympiad (688 BCE), but fist-fighting contests must certainly have had their origin in mankind’s prehistory. The earliest visual evidence for boxing appears in Sumerian relief carvings from the 3rd millennium BCE. No mention of anything but "fist-fighting". Insisting otherwise is borderline tendentious. Please also find sources to support the rest of your edit. WP:V is a requirement, not an option. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:12, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have already put all the references. On the other hand, in the reference that he quotes me, it does not textually state that the first evidence of fist fighting (it is implied that it is only fist fighting) is from the Sumerian tables. Therefore, I have put a description that I think will please both of you. Parmenides64 (talk) 18:59, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New article for boxing (global) and change title of this[edit]

Hello. I'm thinking of doing a new article on boxing in the broad sense of the word, analogous to wrestling. The thing is, I didn't know what name to put on the article. I had thought of several possibilities, how to move this to "boxing (combat sport)", or name the new article "boxing (...). To make it equitable to wrestling, I think the first proposal would be better. Any suggestions? Parmenides64 (talk) 10:03, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm doing an article about boxing globally. Due to the lack of debate, proposals and silence, I decided to move the article to "Werster boxing". Wikipedia has problems of geographic bias, and several Wikipedians are collaborating where we can. Boxing as a striking system is not only western boxing (or international, English, ... the name depends on the geography), it is something global, where the rules depend on the area and the culture where it is practiced, and it is so as old as the history of physical and strength competitions. However, the article was reversed. If there are efforts to reverse, there should also be one to debate. I understand that it is a delicate subject. I try again to open a debate for consensus and make several proposals. If there is no answer, I will understand that they agree or that they simply do not care, and I will act as I consider best:
1; change the name of this article to "western boxing".
2; change the name of this article to "boxing (western)".
3; call new article "boxing (global)".
I think option 2 or 3 is the best. I await your answers.--Parmenides64 (talk) 17:19, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In that sense, I agree. Thai boxing has its own name, "Muay-Thai", and Western boxing is called "boxing", which is where the global term "boxing" originates. The problem is that this article focuses on western boxing, and I think there is a lack of content like boxing in general and historical terms. In fact, musty-yudda is named, which has more to do with Asian boxing than Western boxing, which is closer to Greek boxing, which started with two men sitting down punching each other and progressed to Greek Olympic boxing, although in some places in Greece allowed kicking, although that doesn't matter much. Also, changing the name of this article is problematic because numerous articles link here from a western boxing context, and changing it to a historical or world context would be confusing. The question is either to make a new boxing article leaving this one as it is, or to add different styles of boxing to this article in a section, so that the reader has a better understanding of "boxing" both as a specific sport and as a global striking system.--Parmenides64 (talk) 07:40, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ethical concerns[edit]

We should add a separate section that covers all criticisms of boxing as well as ethical concerns ranging from religious or non religious concerns Nlivataye (talk) 20:05, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Pugilistic" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Pugilistic and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 11 § Pugilistic until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 15:36, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RfC notification[edit]

Greetings, all. In case anyone's interested to participate, a Request for Comments was opened in the talk page of the infobox template for boxing match. The question posed is whether the age of the participants in a boxing match is worth mentioning or not. - The Gnome (talk) 13:18, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Renewing invitation to all and syndry to check out this RfC and pehaps participate in it. -The Gnome (talk) 11:30, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Implicit gender?[edit]

It seems that large portions of the article concerning the modern sport at the time of writing only address men's boxing, not acknowledging the existence of differences in regulations between men's and women's versions of the sport. Though a link to the separate Women's boxing article can be found in the "See also" section for those who go looking for it, I think it's easy for a casual reader to assume that the "Rules" section does not contain any information specific to a gender, since the article up until that point has discussed boxing from both a male and female perspective. (E.g. under "History", the "Early London prize ring rules" subsection brings up an example of how the rules also applied to women fighters).

I suggest either that the article is edited to clarify that the rules described apply to men's boxing, with a link to the relevant section of the Women's boxing article added to the beginning of the "Rules" section, or that that section is rewritten to mention where the rules differ for men and women. Radiant64 (talk) 08:10, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography[edit]

82.20.143.37 (talk) 14:46, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Categories