Talk:UFC 79

UFC 79

Welterweight title bout: Matt Serra vs. Matt Hughes

Lightweight title bout: B.J. Penn vs. Joe Stevenson [1]

Middleweight bout: Dean Lister vs. Jordan Radev

Heavyweight bout: Cheick Kongo vs. Antonio Rodrigo Nogueira

"Possible" matchups

As indicated by myself (and several other editors) on the AfD page, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Those matchups you keep adding back, aside from Clementi/Guillard, are not "well documented." I've read the sources. They all say variations of "there's some speculation that such and such fight might happen"; "So-and-so said that he wants to fight X at UFC 79"; or "X fight might happen, if things come together and everyone signs contracts." That's a FAAAAAR cry from "well documented."

Until there's something concrete that a fight is actually going to happen, it does not belong on the Wiki page. It either needs to be officially announced by the UFC, or one of the participants needs to confirm that the match has been completely finalized. Yes, the card may still be subject to change. But, at least at that point, there's a solid factual basis to believe the fight will happen. Until then, if people want to see what's been rumored, they can go to MMA Weekly's Rumors section. Tuckdogg 12:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I updated the references so none say "likely" or "expected". All say they are happening. The info on Lister vs Radev comes from a quote on Lister's official website. - Indecision 05:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Silva/Liddell

I'm getting sick of going repeatedly over rumored matchups on upcoming UFC events. This has been discussed REPEATEDLY on various MMA pages, and we keep coming to the same consensus. For a match to be listed, it must meet one of two criteria:

• It is confirmed as an official match by the organization directly (such as being posted on UFC.com); or
• It is confirmed as officially signed by at least one fighter or their camp.

This meets neither, as everyone is completely tight-lipped about what's going on. Until there's an announcement, there's no fight. Also, DirecTV has taken down the poster. That could mean they spilled the beans early. It could also mean the fight hasn't been signed, they jumped the gun in advertising it, and the UFC jumped all down their throats. I have no idea what it really means, and neither does anyone else. Since Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, we'll just have to wait until there's something official.Tuckdogg 00:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that for a fight to be mentioned it must meet the above criteria. I agree with not listing fights that haven't been confirmed in the "Matchup" section. But I see no problem with adding rumored fights to the article as long as they are clearly labeled as such. In the case of the Liddell/Silva fight, it is a fact that there's a huge amount of speculation that it will take place. That information adds value to the UFC 79 page. The "Crystal Ball" section that always gets referenced is far from clear on how to handle this. Nor were the rules ever designed to be set in stone. That very same page even says: "If the rules prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, you should ignore them". I believe that having info on rumored fights, as long as they are clearly labeled as such, adds value to Wikipedia. Looking at the page history, clearly many people agree. So why so much effort into reverting info by people trying to improve the page? - Indecision 21:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Many reasons, but just for a start, rumors are not an "improvement" to an encyclopedia, and multiple wiki policies prohibit rumors. WP:CRYSTAL is just one. I think something needs to be said in the narrative about Silva/Liddell because of the DirecTV ad, but that's about it. If we don't have anything about a fight beyond speculation, there's no reason to put it down in the article. As soon as we have a solid reference that says it's actually been signed and scheduled for that event, that can change.

Like, hopefully Silva actually IS in Cincinnati tonight and will announce that he and Chuck will be fighting at UFC 79. Then we can put this to rest. Tuckdogg 22:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Rumors are just that, rumors! They are not encyclopedic and don't really help improve articles. This isn't a news site, it's an encyclopedia and it should be treated as such. Adding rumors doesn't improve the page, instead it just adds garbage that is usually wrong. People seem to forget what an encyclopedia actually is. Thesaddestday 05:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's centralize this discussion back to WT:MMA. east.718 at 06:28, 10/21/2007

Kongo vs. Nogueira

After the Fight Network story was released they were fighting on NYE, they released another saying it was unlikely (I couldn't find it in a quick search, but it's not important now)... recently in an interview Nogueira said his next fight is February 3 ([2]). I removed the fight since it's obviously not happened at UFC 79 now. Thesaddestday 15:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

411mania.com

Anyone know why they're reporting that UFC.com confirmed Silva/Liddell today?[3] No such announcement on UFC.com anywhere that I can see... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuckdogg (talk • contribs) 02:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

It was announced on UFC.com, I'm just having trouble finding the link ATM. east.718 at 03:53, 10/23/2007

OK, it was in the mouseover box for 79 on the main page, but it looks like they've removed it since. east.718 at 03:56, 10/23/2007

Matt Hughes vs. Matt Serra is OFF!

For those unaware, Matt Serra injured his back earlier this week and was forced to pull out from his scheduled UFC 79 fight with Matt Hughes. When this fight will happen now is unknown at this point, though the only thing that is certain is that Hughes vs. Serra will not happen at UFC 79. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SuzukS (talk • contribs) 11:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

ITS NOW HUGHES VS ST. PIERRE FOR THE INTERIM TITLE. http://www.mmaweekly.com/absolutenm/templates/dailynews.asp?articleid=5137&zoneid=2

hey guys the photo here for UFC 79 is not the same one shown on ufc.com u guyz should change it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.166.241 (talk) 03:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)