Talk:Dong Hyun Kim

Bias
Whoever wrote this must work for or is a massive Dong-Hyun fan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.20.136.114 (talk) 01:13, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Record
http://www.sherdog.com/fighter/dong-hyun-kim-16374

Loss Young Choi Decision (Unanimous) Spirit MC - Interleague 1 2/7/2004 2 5:00

http://www.spiritmc.org/eng/main.asp?mcat=fighters&scat=fighter_detail&num=74

SPIRIT MC INTERLEAGUE 1 - Lose Kim Dong Hyun_A VS Choi Young - Decision

Dong Hyun "Stun Gun" Kim is 1 loss. not 0 loss. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.72.113.142 (talk • contribs) 23:49, July 16, 2009
 * See more discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mixed_martial_arts. -- aktsu  (t / c) 00:22, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

- SPIRIT MC INTERLEAGUE 1 Result -

http://www.spiritmc.org/eng/main.asp?mcat=events&scat=result&schedule=8 http://www.sherdog.com/events/Spirit-MC-Interleague-1-6543

Denis Kang, Jae Young Kim, Young Choi(japanese nickname is RYO), UFC Stun Gun. This event is not amateur. SPIRIT MC INTERLEAGUE 1 is professional.

ex) SPIRIT MC INTERLEAGUE 5 Result

http://www.spiritmc.org/eng/main.asp?mcat=events&scat=result&schedule=20 http://www.sherdog.com/events/Spirit-MC-Interleague-5-4977

[Denis Kang vs Jung Gyu Choi] is SPIRIT MC +80kg(heavyweight) title match.

http://www.spiritmc.org/ver3/files/game_result/smci5_16m_L1759_resize.jpg

Denis Kang worn SPIRIT MC heavyweight champion belt after INTERLEAGUE 5`s winning.

Amateur event don`t play host to title match. SPIRIT MC INTERLEAGUE is professional event. 100%. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.72.113.124 (talk) 07:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

SPIRIT MC INTERLEAGUE 1 prize money

http://www.spiritmc.org/ver3/main.asp?mcat=news&scat=notice_view&num=93

+80kg tournament winner : \3,000,000 = $2401.92 -80kg tournament winner : \2,000,000 = $1601.28

Amateur tournament? SPIRIT MC INTERLEAGUE 1 -80kg & +80kg tournament is professional tournament. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.72.113.9 (talk) 06:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Twice, in your source, they announce that that Interleague event for amateurs. Nowhere does it say that it's exclusively for pros or amateurs.


 * Many sporting events allow amateurs to compete with pros and allow them to keep their amateur status, as long as they follow their policies regarding qualifications, what they can accept as prizes, etc. US Open (golf) is one prime example.  UFC has allowed Tito Ortiz to compete as an amateur.


 * Can you provide a source on the fighters' purse for Spirit MC Interleague 1, and that Dong Hyun Kim was paid as a professional for his fight in that event? Kangaroo001 (talk) 18:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kangaroo001 (talk • contribs) 18:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Young Choi is -80kg tournament winner. He get \2,000,000. Why is [Young Choi vs Donghyun Kim] considered as an amatuer match? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.72.113.165 (talk) 05:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Listing Kim's amateur fight with Choi
I believe that any MMA-fights, amateur or pro as long as it's verifiable, should be added to an article about a mixed martial arts fighter. Since some people are disagreeing, we should probably get a consensus one way or another. See the thread about determining if the fight was pro or amateur at WT:MMA for context. So, what do we think? -- aktsu (t / c) 19:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * A number of other MMA Fighters have their amateur records on their page, for example see Jens Pulver and Kimbo Slice. Therefore, Keep.(Justinsane15 (talk) 19:39, 1 August 2009 (UTC))
 * Pulver's was just now removed by as it's unsourced, and Slice's is not amateur but an exhibition fight. -- aktsu  (t / c) 19:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep: Agree with Justinsane15. In addition I would like to say that these are encyclopedia articles. Just because being a professional fighter is what makes a person notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia doesn't mean that is the only allowed subject matter in their article. Early childhood, political activities, charity work, legal troubles, and yes even amateur records are all things that could and should be included in articles provided there are reliable sources for the information included.  --Drr-darkomen (talk) 23:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Request for comment
Should (1) relevant information about amateur fights be included in an article about at professional mixed martial arts fighter (or is all such information irrelevant after the fighter turns pro), and (2) should it - as the pro record is - be presented in table-format? -- aktsu (t / c) 19:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Also see above and the article history. -- aktsu (t / c) 19:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: the above was changed twice to clarify the issue. -- aktsu (t / c) 22:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Depends & STRONG NO  Sorry, I don't see this as a hard and fast line- sometimes it could be relevent, Like on the Ultimate Figher or at a Ring Rulers-type amatuer show, but by and large I would ignore it and I do NOT think that the W/L should EVER be included- but mentioning that a fighter went 13-1-1 before turning pro would be relevant information. Not to pull everything back to WP:Athlete, but a QB throwing for 187,000 yards at his High School seems to get put in thier "professional" page David.snipes (talk) 21:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes and yes. Information about amateur fights doesn't suddenly become irrelevant the moment someone turns pro (which seems to be the arguments of people deleting the section so far, which is why I asked it above.). As for tables: this isn't boxing where we're talking 60+ amateur fights, this is MMA where fighters rarely even have amateur records (it's simply not used much; some US states doesn't even have rules for it) so a table is IMO completely appropriate -- especially here when we're talking about one fight, not 90 as in Floyd Mayweather Jr.'s case. So, generally I think yes and in this specific case (one fight, only loss ever) - definitely. -- aktsu (t / c) 21:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The above was edited. -- aktsu (t / c) 22:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes and yes. As long as the record is verifiable then it should be allowed. Any verifiable information which is non-trivial should be allowed since the articles are about the whole person's life, not just their professional career. Win/Loss should also be included because it is relevant to the RECORD. Without the win-loss it isn't really a record at all, just a list. --Drr-darkomen (talk) 21:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes and No Preference. 1) As long as amatuer records are verifed, I see no reason not to list them, as long as they are truthful and not in a biased/smearing manner.  As already said, many professional athletes have their amateur accomplishments listed on their wiki pages.  2)  Tables are cool and makes it easier to quickly glance over the records.  But I really have no preference.  Thanks. Kangaroo001 (talk) 16:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes and no. If it is verifiable, the amateur (MMA & other combat sports) record should be included but the big table is unnecessary in most cases esp when even if the overall record is sourceable the full details are far more likely to be sketchy.--Nate1481 12:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Amateur vs. Professional and Exhibition vs. Contest
I think it's important to cite a difference between a contest and an exhibition. Fights which take place either in amateur or professional status can be either an exhibition or a contest. An exhibition match does not carry a win-lost record with it. A case of this is on The Ultimate Fighter. These are Professional Mixed Martial Artists, but the bouts are exhibitions. They shouldn't be added to either the Amateur or Professional records of the athletes. --Drr-darkomen (talk) 20:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, but I don't see a problem with a separate section for exhibition-bouts specifically if someone wants to go ahead and create it. It's just an easier way to get an overview of the fights. (Mentioning this because Hanlee888 uses them not being listed as an argument for not listing amateur fights.) Also, BTW, I'm not actually sure if the people removing the amateur-section would also oppose a prose-section regarding it. I've assumed they do, because as it stands removing the record removed any mention of the fight whatsoever. If they are specifically opposed to a table of it - not prose - the issue becomes a little different but I'm still for an actual record. -- aktsu (t / c) 20:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. An exhibition bout section is fine with me as well.  I only brought it up because of Hanlee888's argument, which is of course a bit of a non-argument.  I'm in support of an Amateur Record Box as well.  --Drr-darkomen (talk) 20:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)