Talk:Choke (sports)

Recidivism - Michael Ballack?
I think German footballer Michael Ballack deserves a mention. By my count, he has lost two UEFA Champions League finals, one World Cup final (and finished third in 2006), one European Championship final (in 2008), not to mention his 2001-2002 season when he missed out on three trophies with Bayer Leverkusen

86.138.171.236 (talk) 01:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

US centrism
Needs thorough cleansing of US centrism. Some of it is just plain wrong from a non US-centric point of view.Wincoote 03:38, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree, to much American sports. Maybe a list of examples could go down well?Hamedog 01:12, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

a list would require a large amount of agreement over and development towards what is generally considered a choke - it's defined as losing a game after establishing a large lead, but i think there are different kinds of chokes. the Red Sox/Yankees ALCS is a good example of the former, but the Colts in the AFC Divisional is an example of a choke of a different nature - performing drastically under expectations. i think a choke list could lead to a choke artist list(possibly article), as well. sorry to use american sports examples. -Nosirrah Yendor 20:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

2004 ALCS: Did the Red Sox win it or the Yankees blow it?
I am sure that such a debate on this topic would stir a lot of rage, but one person's choke is another person's comeback.

Bottom of the eighth in game 4, Yankees' closer Mariano Rivera comes out on what seems like an automatic two inning save. In the bottom of the ninth, Kevin Millar of the Red Sox walks to start the inning, and Dave Roberts takes his place to pinch run. After several pickoff attempts, Rivera finally pitches to Bill Mueller, at which Roberts steals second base. Mueller singles to allow Roberts to score and tie.

Did Mariano Rivera blow the save by paying too much attention to Roberts and not enough attention to Mueller, or did Terry Francona, the Red Sox manager, develop a crafty play?

DaDoc540 14:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

how the hell do you consider the chargers to be chokers. schottenheimer = choker...philip rivers = clutch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.181.214.169 (talk) 08:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Recidivism - Raymond Poulidor
Reading the Recidivism section made me think of the cyclist Raymond Poulidor, who "was known as the eternal second, because he finished the Tour de France in second place three times, and in third place five times (including his final Tour at the age of 40). Despite his consistency, he never wore the Yellow Jersey in 14 Tours, of which he completed 12.". Peoplesunionpro (talk) 19:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

2007 Patriots
[sigh] Some goof is removing references to Super Bowl XLII. This is a significant milestone in sports chokes. We need to acknowledge such, and lock to prevent this user from removing the reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.115.155.55 (talk) 17:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is being removed since the loss was not a choke, a choke is a loss when something is guranteed to be a win. The 2006 loss by the Pats to the colts was a choke job when they gave up a huge lead in the 4th to lose, their loss in Super Bowl XLII was not a choke, it was only an upset. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.153.112.34 (talk) 18:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Wrong, it was a choke because they were anointed by the media and the players themselves as the undisputed champions weeks before the games were played. They choked away the championship they had already 'won'. But you're right on one count, the choke from the 06 AFC Title game should be listed as well. I'll fix. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.115.155.55 (talk) 19:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Only shows you have no real understanding of what a choke is. The game is played on the field, and week 17 proves that it wasn't a choke, since these 2 teams had already played and it was only a 3 point game in week 17, so it could have gone either way with 1 score at any point in both games. now if the pats had blown out the giants in week 17 by 20 points or something like that then yeah, we could probably call this game a choke, but they didn't, therefore not a choke. If you want to make this "complete" they take away your Patriot hate blinders, and throw in the 2001 RAMs as chokers, the 2007 Colts as chokers, the 2001 Steelers as chokers, the 2005 Colts as chokers, and I am sure there are 50 other instances we could put in there, face it, the only reason you are making this a big deal is your jealousy and you want to feel superior in the heat of the moment. It was a well fought battle between 2 very equal teams, "choke" is not part of equation with this Super Bowl, plain and simple. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.153.112.34 (talk) 19:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with making this a complete listing of chokes. The bottom line, however, is that the MAGNITUDE of the Patriot choke (undefeated season on the line, highest scoring team ever, much lower seeded opponent) makes this a historically significant choke, where I do not think you can argue the same for the 01 Steelers, etc. This isn't a Pats bashing session. You have to accomlish a lot to make the kind of historic impact they've made this year... but that also includes the final result, no matter how much of a homer one is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.115.155.55 (talk) 19:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

You made it bashing session by calling it the biggest choke ever, and by making up a section just for the pats. add it to the list in there, but as long as you keep calling it the biggest choke or making up it's ow section just for the pats, I will be removing it. You are showing an bias by the language you are using and it removes any integrity that the article has because you are removing impartiality from it and going based on your own opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.153.112.34 (talk) 19:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Sigh - you're such a homer its silly trying to have a discussion with you. These are not my opinions, they are historical facts. This was in fact the biggest choke ever. Name another? Jets over Colts? Hardly. no other football example comes close. Basketball and baseball have series format, so you can hardly compare those to one game championships. This is in fact the biggest choke in the history of sports, and I will continue to add this historical context to the page.

Admin - please lock 66.153.112.34 from vandalizing further. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.115.155.55 (talk) 20:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Admin's - please stop everyone from vandalizing this page. I think there should be no adding of anything specific to the patriots from this super bowl until a full consensus of the situation can obtained. The above person claiming that this being the bigest choke in sports history is stating an opinion, not a fact. There are plenty of bigger chokes out there. The fact that these teams played 2 games this season, and both of them ended with only a 3 point difference in the final score, with each team winning 1 game invalidates the Super Bowl as a choke, but even if you want to call it a choke, it certainly cannot be considered "the biggest choke" in any sense of the word.

This entire site is about integrity of fact, an opinion is not fact. And for the record, I am a Steelers Fan, not a Pats fan, just look where my IP is located. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.153.112.34 (talk) 20:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Strike my last note about my IP, just realied it shows up at my companies HQ in Jersey, not my actual location in the Pittsburgh burbs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.153.112.34 (talk) 20:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Clinton
I am deleting a reference to Hillary Clinton. While it may be true her campaign choked, this is an article about the term's reference to SPORTS. Any politcal discussion does not belong in this article.

Removals
I've removed the uncited examples (which was almost all of them). This is partially because the article was becoming an example-farm (whereby everyone coming by the page would add their own example) and partially because there was negative information about living people without proper citation. Please only add in an example if a reliable source has written about it using the specific word "choke". Stifle (talk) 13:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, this has become a problem (also in the clutch article). There's so many things that can be classed as choking so we get all these unsourced edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Depor23 (talk • contribs) 08:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree and so will remove all uncited examples. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Bleacher Report
Bleacher Report is not a credible source as anyone can make their own article. Which leads to obvious biasism
 * Depends on the author, obviously some of them are going to be more reliable than others.--'Prisencolinensinainciusol 05:59, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

"Lead" vs. "Led"
Can we all agree that "lead" is present-tense, and "led" is past-tense? I'm correcting the second section to make the meaning clearer. It's a mess. Compdude512 (talk) 01:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Phillip Rivers lead Chargers
Come on-how could we miss the obvious. This era should be added right next to the "Dan Fouts led Chargers" example. Or better yet, just include the San Diego Chargers period!98.176.118.95 (talk) 02:35, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

team vs. individual choke
This article is framed in terms of a team choking. However, I think that the terms can and is applied to an individual as well. If a kicker in American football misses an important field goal or extra point attempt which determines the outcome of the game, he might well be said to have choked. This could occur even in a context where the team as a whole might not be said to have choked, for example, if an underdog battles a superior team down the the final moments of a game and has a chance to win, but the kicker misses. The team as whole, having achieved a result that meets or even exceeds expectations, would not have choked.Wschart (talk) 20:44, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

The term is used for individuals in this article, the basketball section describes Lebron James choking in the playoffs, both during his time on the Cavaliers and now on the Heat  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.32.129.220 (talk) 21:10, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Hockey examples overly narrow
"In the NHL, choking is a common term during the playoffs, but is usually used to name 2 teams: the Vancouver Canucks and the San Jose Sharks." This is rather POV and not particularly true -- because fans poorly understand the concept, virtually every loss by a higher seed in the playoffs tends to get labelled as a "choke" by many, and these two teams are by no means singled out apart from the fact that the writer of this section clearly focused only on the most recent playoffs. Losing a series when up 3-2 is hardly unusual or monumental in hockey, either. 192.197.178.2 (talk) 14:14, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Examples
I'm sure it was better at some point, but right now this article is a pretty big steaming pile, what with everybody adding his or her favorite unsourced "choke" to the list. I've removed a few of the worst offenders, but plenty more should be removed unless they can be properly sourced. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:21, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I have reinstated some of the examples that were both notable and referenced, and added references to notable examples that were previously unreferenced. Can editors please show some care not to simply remove examples they don't like, and try to find a reference on Google before deleting kilobytes worth of well-written entries. Some immense vandalism, under the guise of 'removing unsourced examples' has taken place over the years on this page from wikipedians who should know better, and I shall be watching it in future to ensure this does not recur. AbrahamCat (talk) 06:46, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Further to this I have widened the variety of the examples, so it's less America-centric, and also added citations where they were lacking. I'm not an expert on American Football, but the New York Giants' and Green Bay Packers' chokes don't look all that remarkable. I intend to add a small section on Rugby Union in the upcoming days, noting ASM Clermont Auvergne's 10 French Championship finals before their first win. Resources on the most notable chokes from around the world are incredibly biased and nation-centric, so examples from outside the Anglosphere will be welcomed very much. AbrahamCat (talk) 20:56, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

LeBron as a choker?
I don't think one bad playoff series qualifies LeBron as a choker. The article is poorly written.

And I highly doubt that the latter part of "Lebron's scoring average of 26 ppg fell to a low of 17 ppg, most dropoff in ppg in NBA history." is factual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mat Cee (talk • contribs) 05:21, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Examples...again
The "examples" section is now more than three times as long as the article content otherwise. The section has become a dumping ground for any time someone perceived there to be a choke effect happening on a team/person. It's great that references to these examples have been added. But now the references to those examples outnumber the references to the rest of the article. This is beyond absurd, and needs to end.

The point of examples is to show real life situations where such effects discussed in the article have happened. It is not to be a list of every time a journalist has concluded a team has choked. If you want that, then start List of sports teams that choked. This examples section needs to be dramatically trimmed to maybe five examples at most. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:17, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I have removed every example that did not have a citation. This is the first pass. I've not reviewed the citations on the remaining examples. Our opinion of what a "choke" is should have no bearing on the content of the article. If the remaining examples lack citations that support the events being "chokes", I will remove them as well.

Anyone wishing to add new examples should provide citations from reliable, secondary sources that indicate the event was a "choke". --Hammersoft (talk) 20:35, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I've now removed every example that lacked a citation indicating it was a "choke". We're now down to 30% of the article being examples. As I mentioned, we don't need a list of every time a team/person with a lead lost the lead, much less every time the press decided to call it a "choke". --Hammersoft (talk) 00:44, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi. I've reinstated the examples, most of which had ample citations. Please do not remove examples on the basis that they do not contain the term 'choke', which is a term used in American slang only, and has numerous other terms meaning the same thing. Again, I will state that I consider this action to be vandallism. If you wish to delete more entries, please note me with a good reason why, or establish a list. Thanks. AbrahamCat (talk) 06:50, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Unless you can provide evidence that there are other terms which are equated with "choke" and are used in the citations to support the inclusion, they should be removed. It is not our place to determine what event in sports is a "choke". That is original research. Please read No original research. Simply because a team comes from behind, even a great distance behind, does not quantify it as a "choke". To give a specific example in the case of this article, you've added in information about Jimmy White, yet no citation has been provided to support that this was a "choke". You may think this is a choke. But, without reliable sources attesting to it being a choke, it isn't. All it is, with respect, is your opinion. That's not enough. WP:V; "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by inline citations." Obviously since I've removed the material previously, it's been challenged. Until you can find citations that actually support what is being said, the material must be removed. I'm not going to edit war with you over this. Please take some time to find the citations that actually assert these various events are "chokes". Eventually, I will remove the material again, per WP:V. There is also the matter that this article should not be a dumping ground of every time even a reliable source claimed a particular event was a choke. This article is about choking. It is not a list of all chokes that ever happened. Examples are appropriate. Right now, with your re-additions, we have about 3 dozen examples. This is hardly appropriate. If you want to start an article titled List of chokes in sports, be my guest. Here, it isn't appropriate. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:00, 20 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you for not again removing these examples. I have added further references, where other sports writers (or the sportspeople themselves) have observed the instances as a 'choke', but it should not be for the writers to cite references every time they say the sky is blue.

As for whether the term choke should be necessary, it should be noted that it is an informal term to describe losing due to nervousness: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/choke, https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/choke

By allowing for other terms (i.e. 'bottle' 'panic', we reduce the chance for nationcentricism, and can include a wider array of examples. I do not believe the article requires an independent list, although I am open to persuasion on that, given there is such a wealth of journalism devoted to the subject. Please don't do another massacre though before such a list has been established and accepted.

Please rest assured - as long as I am around there will be no chance of the article becoming a dumping ground as it had done before. Likewise though I am also guarding it against arbitrary 'cleanups'. AbrahamCat (talk) 11:36, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Let's be clear here; we work in a collaborative environment. Describing my edits as "immense vandalism" and "massacre" (above) is hardly appropriate. Please stop using such terminology. Thank you.
 * Second, whether you are around or not is immaterial. Since we are a collaborative editing environment, nobody becomes an assigned steward for an article.
 * Third, I'm perfectly fine with acknowledging there are other terms that are equivalent to "choke" if such can be sustained with sources.
 * Fourth, I'm not suggesting that secondary source writers need to have citations themselves. Rather, we have to use citations to support that someone said it was a choke.
 * Fifth, the article clearly is a dumping ground NOW. There are ~3 DOZEN examples. This article is not a list of choking events. We don't need to represent every sport on every continent in order to provide an example basis under which a person can reasonably understand what "choke" means. The examples section outweighs the rest of the prose of the article 2:1. This is an extreme...and I do mean extreme...overload of examples. It must be trimmed.
 * Sixth, there are still a number of examples that do not have any citations to support them.
 * Seventh, you are still using citations that support original research, rather than using citations that support an event being a choke. Let me give you an example. In your baseball section, you cite that Mississippi choked because they "had gone 0–6 in NCAA Super Regional games, at home, after winning the first game in their three most-recent best-of-three series" and use this as a citation to support that statement. Yes, the statement itself is supported. But, its presence here in the Choke article is asserting it as an example of choking. The citation does not support. You are concluding that it is a choke, not the cite. You can't do that. That's WP:OR. The policy says "This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources". Your citation does not support the conclusion that this is a choke. You then go on later to use this as a reference to support "rival fanbases coined OMAHA". First, this violates WP:UGC as a reference. Internet forums are not reliable sources. Second, it is _one_ person, not 'rival fanbases'.
 * The entire rest of the paragraph there about Mississippi is all unsupported by any citations as being a choke, and the last citation to support the last sentence is a dead link. This is all original research. NONE of it is a choke as supported by reliable, secondary sources. This is just one example. There are others throughout your prose. We may disagree on this. But understand that policy is not on your side on this. WP:UNSOURCED is very clear about this; the burden is on you to show reliable sourcing to support statements. Even if you can find reliable sources to support these dozens of examples, you're going to need to get consensus to include so many examples, per WP:ONUS. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:22, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

AbrahamCat (talk) 04:27, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi again.
 * Firstly, I retain the right to describe your edits as I see fit.
 * Secondly, if I am not around I trust you or others, as responsible wikipedians, will not arbitarily remove content without either moving the content first to an appropriate place, or making a sincere attempt at finding an appropriate reference yourself, if you deem the links you check to be unsatisfactory. That is how we should all 'steward' articles in a respectful and decent manner.
 * Thirdly seems to have been reluctantly acknowledged. Were it not, it would be as if only American sportspeople were prone to this trait. If a tree falls in the forest and it's not American, does it really fall? Believe it or not, it does.
 * Fourthly, I have added many further citations, and this is an ongoing project.
 * Fifthly, there's no 'must be trimmed' about it. Plenty of articles have long lists of examples, and it stands as a useful resource for journalists and those interested in the subject. By all means move it to a list if you must, but please do not remove content you know to be factually correct and citable without making any effort in tracing a link.
 * Sixthly, see fourthly.
 * Seventhly, the example stated is not my work. See sixthly and fourthly.
 * Eightly, while your reliance on references is admirable, all articles begin somewhere, and to remove notable, factually correct instances without attempting to find a reference first is in my view 'immense vandalism'. My plea 'Can editors please show some care not to simply remove examples they don't like, and try to find a reference on Google before deleting kilobytes worth of well-written entries,' was simply ignored. Given more people have added examples than removed them before you arrived, the consensus is very much with me already.
 * I think you should carefully read and understand WP:5P4. This is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia. Continuing to describe my good faith efforts to improve the encyclopedia as "vandalism" and "massacre" is hardly in keeping with that fundamental principle. I can't tell you what to do. I can't threaten you. All I can tell you is that there are consequences on this project for people who refuse to abide by that principle.
 * I've never arbitrarily removed anything from the project. I never will. I have and will remove content as necessary to improve the project under our policies and guidelines, as I've tried patiently to describe to you.
 * There's nothing "reluctantly acknowledged". This was an issue you raised that I never disagreed with. All I have asked is for you to find references that support your conclusion of other words having the same meaning as "choke".
 * I agree all articles start somewhere. However, retaining content that is in dispute is against our policies, which I have laid out for you. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed. Knowingly adding material that is lacking in references, most especially when there are plenty of other examples WITH references, is not helpful. The onus here is not on me, but on you. You've demonstrated a high level of intelligence. I'm confident you can understand the problems the project would engender if we allowed any material anyone would like to add without asking them to provide references. Nevertheless, perhaps I am wrong and the project would benefit from such a change. If you disagree with this policy, I heartily encourage you to seek consensus at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability.
 * There appears to be no common ground on which we can agree. You believe having 3+ dozen examples with prose outweighing topical content 2:1 is somehow appropriate. I don't. You believe adding unreferenced material, given the presence of such an enormous quantity of other examples (some of which do have appropriate references) is appropriate. I don't. You believe conducting original research to draw conclusions about events is appropriate. I don't. If there's some common ground anywhere between our positions that I am missing, please let me know. I'm not seeing it.
 * With that in mind, I will wait a couple of weeks for you to find references to support each and every example in the article, and also to find references that support a particular example being a choke, rather than original research. I know you believe your references are sufficient, but quite a number are not. I've highlighted an example, and encourage you to correct them. if you need further clarification on what is an insufficient reference or would like to ask if one is sufficient, certainly let me know. Once those two weeks are over, I will remove the unreferenced and inappropriately referenced examples. I know, I know, you disagree with this, and I'm sorry that you do. However, it is inline with policy. So, we will move forward inline with policy. We can then revisit this discussion about how many examples are left and whether that is an appropriate amount of examples. Hopefully this is a middle ground we can agree on. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 13:02, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

I waited more than two months without response. I've removed the most egregious cases again. The article is still overwhelmed with examples, as the examples constitute 64% of the prose of the article now, but that's at least better than the 73% that it was. The earlier 30% figure I noted was the entirety of everything on the article, which was misleading (in favor of examples, not my position) on my part. I'll restate here again, this is not a list of every choke that ever happened in sport. The subject here is choking, and a few examples to highlight cases where it has happened is appropriate. If you want to have every choke that ever happened, then start a list article. It's not appropriate here. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 14:18, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

And five years later, you're still at it. Nowhere in the cite provided does it say anything about a choke. Please do not add any more examples unless you have a reliable, secondary source that specifically describes a particular game situation as a choke. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:08, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

So rather than re-engage in discussion here after I pinged you here, you feel the best plan of action is just to revert war to your preferred version and refuse to engage in discussion? Seriously? --Hammersoft (talk) 17:14, 25 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes, seriously. Your attitude on this stinks. The fact that the term 'choke' is an American slang with many synonyms in other nations has been well established, and your removal of all examples where the linked articles do not have that exact term is lazy and Americacentric. The term and its synonyms were agreed upon back in 2018, and there is no further discussion to be had. If you had been editing in good faith you would have spent the five minutes I had done to find one of multiple examples where the article does have the word 'choke', and added that, (even though this is completely unnecessary). Instead you spent maybe half an hour ranting on here and in the administrators' noticeboard trying to get other good faith editors into trouble. Shame on you. AbrahamCat (talk) 19:23, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * You said "The term and its synonyms were agreed upon back in 2018". Can you provide a link to the discussion where this agreement was reached?  City o f  Silver  20:38, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The trouble is that lazy journalists are too ready to dub any collapse a choke. Also there are a number of synonyms. In particular the term bottling it is used in the UK more often than choke. (And it doesn't need a cite - just read a decent dictionary of English.) However there are far too many examples. We don't need an example from every sport. Examples should illuminate the article. They should help a reader understand what the article is about. They are not there to say, "Look! This team choked." Maybe an example that shows a team to be a serial choker - such as Collingwood getting the Collywobbles is useful - but all the rest are just a useless list. Maybe we should delete the lot and start again with constructive examples. OrewaTel (talk) 19:01, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes it does need a citation. I'm not finding any synonym list for the word "choke" as to refer to sports that includes "bottling it". When I try to find references to "bottling it" on .uk sites, I get reference to "chicken out" rather than "choke". As to the number of examples; I agree. We're currently at what, 23 examples? Back in 2018, we had ~45 examples. I don't think it's necessary to have 23 examples for a reader to understand what a "choke" is in sport. A handful of noted, well cited examples yes. 23? Nobody needs that many. But, we're at least trimmed down to 23 that have citations noting them as chokes, not many dozens of "examples" of teams performing badly. I'd rather see a stand alone list if people want to list every choke that ever happened, rather than let this article be the residing place for so many. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Collapses
I definitely should have inquired about this sooner, but I'm still curious I would like to know something. Earlier this month, I added a section about chokes in baseball consisting of two paragraphs; the second paragraph mentioned how chokes in baseball are more commonly called collapses, and listed 13 examples of late season collapses along with three sources. Then removed this paragraph, saying that collapses would be better off having their own article and not in the Choke article.

I'm genuinely confused by this; chokes and collapses mean the exact same thing in sports, so to give MLB collapses their own article, in my view, would be redundant. What exactly was being suggested? Songwaters (talk) 02:34, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * citation needed, to address the first problem. There have been claims before that various terms mean the same thing as choke, but to date no one has provided any citations to support them. We also have the issue that this article has been absolutely overwhelmed with examples, and is still overburdened with them now. Fully one third of the article is still devoted to a listing of examples. I've said before that it might be appropriate to have a separate article that lists well cited examples of chokes (as in, the secondary sources are asserting they are chokes, not editors opinions). We don't need more and more and more and more examples to bring home to the reader of this article just what, exactly, is a choke. We already have one example of a choke in baseball. We don't need more. Consider starting an article List of chokes in sports. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:21, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Whilst I am sympathetic to the idea that 'collapses' may be chokes, there is a question that must be asked. "In what way does a list of collapses or even a list of chokes enhance this article." If an example doesn't enhance readers' understanding of what constitutes a 'choke' then it may have a hundred citations but it doesn't belong here. The converse is true. An example of a collapse that is not a 'choke' would be useful to clarify the definition. But good luck finding a cited example. OrewaTel (talk) 00:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Adult Development Fall 2023
— Assignment last updated by Simreestolk0 (talk) 21:57, 6 November 2023 (UTC)