Talk:Bob Baker (boxer)

Untitled
This language is completely speculative: "That rematch was considered a draw by many. It has been said that International Boxing Organization ran by Jim Norris and Arthur Wirtz did not want Baker to face Patterson for the heavyweight title." There is no reason to include it unless you have some sources to back up this assertion. Just saying it was considered a draw "by many" and "it has been said" violates the NPOV standards of Wikipedia.

As far as poorly written language, this sentence is a golden example: "After defeating another leading contender John Holman in Miami Beach Auditorium, FL, May 9th, UD 12/12 (Holman defeated Bob Satterfield who in turn defeated both Baker and Valdez) he lost a rematch with Hurricane on September 26 1956." I tried to clean it up, but you revert it. As you write it, there are a variety of grammar and syntax errors.

As far as this sentence, "The Grinder, Bob Baker is remembered as a good technician and is placed in the top 10 fighters of 1950's boxing. He was rated #1 boxer at least 3 times in 1955 and 1956 by National Boxing Association. (original nba)" One, parentheses go inside a sentence. Two, who rates Baker in the top 10 fighters of 1950's boxing? He ranks up there with Marciano, Robinson, Fullmer, et. al.? I don't think so.

And this: "Baker who was 45-5 had a very good/respectable record, at the time, that was the best record in the heavyweight division, meaning Baker only lost 1 in 10 fights." So that was the best record in the division? Better than Marciano's record? This sentence is also poorly written and is simply an opinion. MKil 21:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)MKil Those things are well known. I will correct any mistakes within languange, it is well known that Arthur Wirtz, NBA, Truman, Gibson, Norris were under federal investigation, you can not dispute that, that's why the federal judge ordered them closed, as far as the 1956 rematch goes, most of the news people gave the bout to Baker, so a sound coclusion is that Baker should have had at least a draw. You are that guy who was demanding that Rocky was not the greatest, you are that guy who wanted to see links for self given, for something that is known? You had some problems before. I understand your point. But these things have been well documented in boxing history. Here's what referees and newspapers reported: 1956-09-26 : Forbes Field, Pittsburgh, PA, USA : Tommy Hurricane Jackson beat Bob Baker by SD in round 12 of 12 Referee: Ernie Sesto Judges: Al Grayber, George Lupinacci Weights: Jackson 195; Baker 213½

Referee Sesto scored the fight 7-4-1 for Baker, but was overruled by judges Grayber and Lupinacci whose respective scorecards read 6-4-2 and 8-4 for Jackson. The Associated Press, scoring the fight 6-5-1 for Jackson, reported that many ring observers felt Jackson won by 'a larger margin than the split decision the officials scored.' The United Press report, scoring the fight 7-5 for Baker, stated that a poll of 13 ringside writers favored Baker 9-4 and that 'many of the fans were thunder struck.' Also I did correct all the parenthesis and other mistakes by me or by anybody else, so read before reverting everything.

Thanks for the cite. However, what you produced does not support your idea that the bout should have been a draw. It simply means that there was a divergence of opinion on who should have won. I'm fine with putting something to this effect in there.

As far as correcting grammar and whatnot, you certainly did not do so. Your revisions make the article much harder to read. MKil 21:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)MKil I may agree with you, it should have been draw, but listen, if I say it should have been a victory of Baker, am I siding with Baker or am I no longer neutral, from my boxing experience, this should have been a draw, ok, how about adding... it should have been a draw or victory? Also I did correct mistakes in subsequent edits, you did not bother to check. I will be more than happy to correct any spelling mistakes or anything else, be my guest, but, do me a favor, stop playing around and inputting your own version, pov statements or anything else that is only true in your world.

Nice. You accuse me of playing around and having POV statements. Look in the mirror, buddy. At least I'm trying to explain to you where I see what you are doing wrong instead of simply reverting changes.

On the Jackson-Baker fight, what I'm saying is that the information you posted here on the AP scoring and the like should be included. That's better than anyone's opinion.

Also, this is simply inaccurate as well as being poorly written: "Baker, who was 45-5 had a very good/respectable record, and at the time, he had the best record in the heavyweight division, meaning Baker only lost 1 in 10 fights." What about Marciano's record?

This sentence -- "After defeating another leading contender John Holman in Miami Beach Auditorium, FL, May 9th, UD 12/12 (Holman defeated Bob Satterfield who in turn defeated both Baker and Valdez) he lost a rematch with Hurricane on September 26 1956." -- is also replete with usage errors.

Furthermore, this sentence -- "The Grinder, Bob Baker is remembered as a good technician and is placed in the top 10 fighters of 1950's boxing." -- is also opinion. Who rates him in the top 10 of 1950's fighters? MKil 21:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)MKil He was in the top 10 many times, he was rated 3 times as best fighter in 1955 and 1956. Again, if there are errors, correct them, I simply copied them from somebody else, ok, but the idea behing them is correct.

Where are you getting this information? I'll grant you that Baker was probably the NBA's #1 heavyweight three times. However, that does not mean he is in the top 10 fighters for the 1950's. MKil 21:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)MKil It is assumed he was, since he started 26-0, how many quality boxers can you name, many boxing historians consider baker a world class boxer of the 1950's. Many old timers, especially.

That's fine, you can assume it, but you can't put your assumptions here. I know Baker was a world-class boxer in the 50's, but he was far from one of the best. Also, why do you insist that his record was the best? It clearly was not. Furthermore, if you are going to put rumors in here, you need to source them. Wikipedia is not a place for rumors; it is a place for fact. MKil 21:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)MKil I did, when I said, he was 26-0., that gives him credibility, nobody, not too many are champions with such a record. And I am not assuming, i am stating them as facts. I did not say best of all 1950's, best at the time, because nobody had such a good record of 45-5 wins, nobody meaning, those who are possible Rocky's challengers, why do you insist and insist and keep on insisting your own truth, i also added word rumor, so it's not a fact in regards to certain people, honestly you are a waste of time and stop signing in and off, using your 58 ip address.

I'm not signing in and out. I'm always logged in as MKil.

As far as a 26-0 record, that is good but it does not necessarily make one great. Look at Billy Fox. And, again, rumors do not belong here. Wikipedia is about facts, not rumors. MKil 22:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)MKil Yea and you forgot to add link about that, than you forgot to add link on pov, then add some other 10 wiki links to make your point good, again, i added word rumored about wirtz, as in a story, i can add allegedly, to make it neutral, just like with marciano, if somebody is 49-0 END OF STORY, I will not LET YOU VANDALIZE THIS PLACE ANYMORE.Not only wiki, but nobody can add rumors - ANYWHERE! I am glad you improved the article, but you are way out of line now.

What? Please try to write a little more clearly because what you are saying makes little sense. I am not vandalizing anything. I am justifying all my changes and not resorting to throwing a temper tantrum when someone changes them. Let's discuss this rationally, in English, without TYPING IN ALL CAPS.

Let's look at the prolems with your edits:


 * "He is considered to be one of the top 10 fighters of the 1950's boxing." This is a violation of the weasel words policy of Wikipedia.  Who considers him at one of the top 10 fighters of 1950's boxing?  You say he's up there with Marciano, Robinson, Fullmer, Gavilan, et. al.?


 * "It has been rumored that International Boxing Organization ran by Jim Norris and Arthur Wirtz did not want Baker to face Patterson for the heavyweight title. Bob Baker was expecting a match between the winner of Hurricane-Patterson match which Patterson won on June 8th 1956" One, the proper format for dates is "Month Day, Year," a comma goes between day and year.  Two, Wikipedia is not a place for rumors. If you have a cite that talks about this, fine. But unsubstantiated rumors do not belong here.


 * "Baker is remembered as a good technician and is was rated the #1 heavyweight contender at least 3 times in 1955 and 1956 by the National Boxing Association (Original NBA)" One, you have no period here. Two, (Original NBA) makes little sense. You should not capitalize "original," as a minor point. But also the hyperlink will take a person to the WBA section where the issue of WBA/NBA is discussed.

Please justify your changes before you make them again. MKil 22:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)MKil I have no problem with original NBA, the above has been explained, same rhetoric, you are simply putting it in different light and context. You do not deserve all this time. If you think word original is bad, no problem! As far as talk, i may agree with you there, may not be reliable, but i had to show you what other people think, so I am not the only one with these ideas and there are many people I know who rate Baker as #1, people even emailed me and I emailed them, I did not just paste these things here without talking to historians.

No, actually, you have not explained your changes. You say that Baker was among the top 10 boxers in the 1950's. Do you mean that he was a top-ten rated heavyweight? Or that he was a top ten boxer, regardless of weight class? I'll agree with the former, but not the latter. Your language, however, makes this very unclear. MKil 22:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)MKil Are you a lawyer? We are talking about bob and heavy weight contenders, right, so why, why do you insist (not only with me) that something is not right, i mean that is logical. duh!

No, you wrote a top ten "boxer," not a top ten "heavyweight." You need to be precise in your language. MKil 22:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)MKil

Neutral POV
Boxingwear, you might benefit by checking up on the Neutrality page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view ):

Attributing and substantiating biased statements Sometimes, a potentially biased statement can be reframed into an NPOV statement by attributing or substantiating it. For instance, "John Doe is the best baseball player" is, by itself, merely an expression of opinion. One way to make it suitable for Wikipedia is to change it into a statement about someone whose opinion it is: "John Doe's baseball skills have been praised by baseball insiders such as Al Kaline and Joe Torre," as long as those statements are correct and can be verified. The goal here is to attribute the opinion to some subject-matter expert, rather than to merely state it as true. A different approach is to substantiate the statement, by giving factual details that back it up: "John Doe had the highest batting average in the major leagues from 2003 through 2006." Instead of using the vague word "best," this statement spells out a particular way in which Doe excels. There is a temptation to rephrase biased or opinion statements with weasel words: "Many people think John Doe is the best baseball player." But statements of this form are subject to obvious attacks: "Yes, many people think so, but only ignorant people"; and "Just how many is 'many'? I think it's only 'a few' who think that!" By attributing the claim to a known authority, or substantiating the facts behind it, you can avoid these problems.

MKil 22:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)MKil