Talk:Fedor Emelianenko/Archive 3

Boxing as a fighting style
Fedor never trained formally in boxing. On the other hand he has trained multiple times in Muay Thai in Holland. Please someone change it. Multiple sources can verify it inculding his official russian website which has videos of him training muay thai in holland with ernesto hoost and others. Sambo and judo are ok.

Extra details regarding the Kohsaka loss should be removed
The only reason all that extra detail was added in the first place was because Fedor fans felt the need to proclaim that he was "undefeated". Well he isn't anymore. For example this:

'''Until tapping out to Fabricio Werdum on June 26, 2010, Emelianenko had one official loss on his record (to Tsuyoshi Kohsaka), it came under highly irregular circumstances. The fight, a tournament bout, was stopped after approximately 15 seconds when Emelianenko received a significant cut from an illegal elbow from Kohsaka. Normally, a stoppage caused by an illegal strike would result in a no contest or a DQ victory for the recipient. However, because this was a tournament, in order to have a fighter available for the next round, Kohsaka was advanced and Emelianenko was considered "eliminated". Because of this, many consided Emelianenko to be undefeated until his loss to Werdum.'''

That entire paragraph is unnecessary. Who cares!? He has a legitimate loss on his record now. No point in stating in detail how he's really undefeated anymore.76.14.67.159 (talk) 08:30, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

You mad? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.88.215.49 (talk) 09:24, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the details of the Kohsaka incident should be summarized or removed, but notes should be added regarding his unprecedented (and as of yet, unrepeated) seven-plus year undefeated streak (outside of that "loss") and that he has the record as the fighter who's been ranked #1 in his weight class for the longest period of time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.181.205.89 (talk) 01:38, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Now that Fedor has been defeated for a third time overall in his career, I think the section should be replaced with his unprecedented and as of yet unrepeated winning streak. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.57.127.233 (talk) 05:40, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Why would it be replaced? It is STILL Factual information. The facts didn't change when he got a loss, they are the same.

The job of this page is NOT to explain away a "loss" or to preserve reputation. The point of this page is to offer factual information and the information we are talking about, is STILL FACT. It didn't become untrue when he lost, it's still a fact. Not to mentioned that that nearly the same thing just happened to him with Dan Henderson(Fight stopped due to illegal blows to the back of the head, but was issued a loss even though he was the victim of the violation.).

Well then a citation would be needed to confirm the rules of RINGS, because from what research I have found unless there where several fouls present & the doctor was called in its a cut loss everytime.

Cite it or get rid of it, because it appears it wasnt factual at any point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The New Fox (talk • contribs) 11:58, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Lindland's weight vs. Fedor
Lindland weighed 212.5 lbs and Fedor weighed 230 lbs for their fight in Bodog. I changed it and even added a citation showing that. Yet someone keeps changing and putting down that Lindland weighed 218 lbs. Even Lindland's wiki page states that he weighed 212.5 lbs. What's going on!? Here's the citation link: http://www.mmaweekly.com/absolutenm/templates/dailynews.asp?articleid=3775&zoneid=1376.14.67.159 (talk) 20:14, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

wedding
Article on this MMA Champion claims that he divorced his wife Oksana and married his girlfriend "Marina" and had a second daughter by her.fador rocks lesnor sucks. This information is FALSE!!! and has spread like all bad rumors to several sites.

The rumor mistakenly came from a horrible translation from an interview with Fedor. The translator botched the names and events. The fact is that Fedor has never divorced his wife, never had a girlfriend, and has both daughters from his only wife. This is especially important because Fedor is a staunch Christian and takes his faith, his family and his reputation seriously. Fedor often talks about his faith and makes it quite visible on the crosses he wears on his neck and on his jacket. The rumor makes Fedor out to be a hypocrite.

I ask the author of this article to see http://www.sherdog.net/forums/f61/sensible-transliteration-fedor-interview-712169/ and to correct this horrible mistake. Fedor recently renewed his wedding vows with his present and ONLY wife Oksana (quite possible to dismiss this horrible rumor). Renewing the vows is a russian orthodox tradition that many married couples do in church to celebrate their wedding anniversary). You can see Fedor Emeliankos official site where he shows pictures of his wife Oksana.  You can compare these with the pictures of his recent wedding vow renewal at http://fedor.bel.ru/index_eng.shtml?id=80.  You will see that his wife Oksana is one and the same.  Sadly this site hosting the pictures mistakenly propogates the mistake and thinks that this is his "new" wife.  Arggghhhh. Aikatir (talk) 14:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

regarding the * for the loss
people just wont let this go. how about we leave the stupid star out and just write in the notes column. not only is that what the notes column is used for but a * is also used to indicate notes. so why have a * when it can just be put in the notes? someone should add it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.86.187.95 (talk) 06:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

btw someone vandalized the date column in the win/loss table —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.86.187.95 (talk) 06:50, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

There shouldn't * for the loss, but there should be a note that says it was a doctor fador rocks!!!!stoppage due to an illegal elbow cut. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.107.14.46 (talk) 23:27, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

1 NC?
(sorry I suck at editing wiki-pages so please have oversight :)) Anyways, isnt Fedor supposed to have 1 NC? If so why isnt it shown in his breakdown-table? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.182.22.134 (talk) 02:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ - Some vandal removed it along with parts of the record table. -- aktsu (t / c) 02:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

2008 worlds in st petersburgh
he came in second http://www.mmafighting.com/news/2008/11/16/fedor-emelianenko-loses-decision-semifinals —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.171.216.77 (talk) 04:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

The video on youtube of him against Ivanov shows that he won by a score of 5-1. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.35.84.36 (talk) 17:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

question
Why is there an asterisk on Fedor´s lost? --Vik.sanchez (talk) 14:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * People have been trying to turn that loss into an NC for some time. My guess someone went the subtle route and threw in the asterisk, and it's gone unnoticed.  IMHO it should go.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * haha thanks --Vik.sanchez (talk) 13:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * its safe to say that fedor is virtually undefeated. he really didnt lose that fight but because of the tournament format, he technically lost. i agree that the asterisk should go. anyone who reads the article understands why its a loss.-ski

How on earth can you say "he technically lost." it's the exact opposite of that. Technically he didn't lose. How many times does it need to be laid out for people like you? It was an illegal elbow under the rules. So if it was an illegal elbow and not let's say a perfectly legal punch then yes he would have technically lost BUT that is not the case. The illegal elbow should be treated no different than let's say and illegal head butt. In Fedor's fight with Antonio it was ruled a no contest because of a cut caused by a head butt. How is that any different? I just don't get it. Someone tried to say that it wasn't an illegal elbow because it was an accident but hey I got news for you. The head butt that ended the Antonio fight was also an accident. So there you have it. The exact same set of circumstances yet two different outcomes. Makes absolutely no sense what so ever to me. You cannot win a fight VIA an illegal strike and you cannot lose a fight VIA an illegal strike. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.132.0.255 (talk) 04:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

It's a loss. Deal with it. If the tournament rules count it as a loss its a loss. The strike was caused by Fedor's actions so because he can't continue he loses. There is nothing in this entire article about how Fedor hasn't fought a number one contender in 10 years. Nothing whatsoever to suggest the fact that all the "former Champions" he fought were in fact many losses removed from their championships. This article is seriously one-sided and is not the prevlant feeling between all publications. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.103.75.30 (talk) 17:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Well IMHO the asterisk should be there. You said youself 'if you read the article.' According to the article it should not count as a loss, the only reason it's a loss in the first place is because it was a tournament and in a tournament there has to be a winner, hence the asterisk. How about you make the article say "tournament loss / no contest under MMA rules" or something like that. That way all the people who claim it is still technically loss are still technically right and all the people who know it is technically a No Contest won't have to be etarnally ostracized by a flagrantly illconcieved wikipedia entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.132.0.255 (talk) 22:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

i meant to take out technical before loss but oh well. the difference between the nog and kohsaka fight is the kohsaka fight was a tornament format so a winner was needed. yes it was an accidental and illegal elbow, and yes kohsaka won. so YES you can win a fight with an illegal strike.

You do realize that is an oxymoron. "here is you winner via illegal strike" yeah that makes allot of sense. That is a tournament win, there is a difference. Different rules.68.188.201.146 (talk) 20:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)ski

I think that at the very least it should be included in the notes for the fight that under RINGS rules elbows without elbow pads are not allowed so if it weren't for the tournament format it would go down in the record books as either a no contest or a DQ.

Personally,I think that saying "Fedor hasn't fought a number one contender in 10 years" is stating that only UFC champions count as champions. There are many other promotions, not sure why any one is given legitimacy over the other. 72.219.54.154 (talk) 01:53, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Amateur record and Lazarev-fight
When I checked the reference for his amateur record (http://www.kickboxing.com/Media/Fedor-Emelianenko.html), it seemed very similar to the WP article around February 2006 (for example http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fedor_Emelianenko&oldid=41053638). Do we have any other source for his amateur fights? I removed mention of it for now. Also, Lordvader2009 removed the Lazarev fight from the fight record. I know the fight is on YouTube etc., but do we have a reliable source recognizing it as a professional fight? -- aktsu (t / c) 19:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

NickName "The Baddest Man on the Planet"
"Fedor: The Baddest Man on the Planet" was a documentary on Fedor, and I do not believe it's a common nickname for him so I removed 2008Olympian addition of it. Any disagreements? -- aktsu (t / c) 04:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I disagree. You removed it once because there was no source, so I provided one.  Now, although I have a reliable, verifiable source, you remove it based on your opinion that it is not a common nickname.  Jay Glazer and Frank Trigg called him by this nickname on almost every PRIDE highlight show in addition to the show I cited.-- 2008 Olym pian chit chat 05:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Saw no mention of it being a nickname of his on that source, only that it was part of the name of a documentary on him. They say "The Last Emperor" when announcing him, so I'd guess that's his "official" nickname notwithstanding what fans and Trigg/Glazer might sometimes refer to him by.-- aktsu (t / c) 05:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Just do a Google search for "Fedor baddest man on the planet nickname -documentary" to see how often it is used without mentioning the documentary, which was named such because it is his nickname: .-- 2008 Olym pian chit chat 06:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Look, I've provided a reference for it from a reliable source. And look at Dan Henderson's article.  He has more than one nickname listed.  And I am now the second editor to have added that nickname, whereas you are the only one to have removed it, so it should stay until there is consensus to remove it.-- 2008 Olym pian chit chat 06:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Uhm, so because some people think he's the baddest man on the planet (not that I don't agree, but hey) and find it funny to add it to his article - that makes it so? Should we list "The Running Joke" to nicknames of Kalib Starnes as well because that's what some "fans" call him? Didn't see much more than lots of talking about whether he's the baddest man on the planet or not with that search. Do you have a RS for it being one of the nicknames he goes by? No? OK, then shouldn't it be case closed unless something turns up? When it comes to Hendo, yeah he's got more than one nickname, and there's reliable sources for them being nicknames he goes by, so why would I have a problem with that? (Sidenote, someone apparently added "Decision" as in "Decision Dan" - not one of his adopted nicknames so I'll go ahead and remove that now). -- aktsu (t / c) 06:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't get it. There is a reference cited in the article for an entire hour-long documentary that calls him that nickname.  He was referred to by that nickname, and it was used in graphics for him, on the PRIDE highlight shows.  If I could also get a source for those broadcasts, I would, but they don't play anymore.  It was not just "some" fans, but the official media outlet for the PRIDE organization.-- 2008 Olym pian chit chat 06:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Meh, you know, when I think about it; never mind me... It might as well stay. If I'm not mistaken, the documentary is "official" in that it's produced by M-1 Global (who's representing Fedor). I was probably just unnecessarily anal about it since I'm tired, but I've honestly never heard him referred to by that before the documentary. So; I agree, the fact that there's a documentary with that name should show it's a proper nickname used about him. -- aktsu (t / c) 07:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * he has also been called the russian experiment and even cyborg(yes i know 2 other fighters also share the name cyborg). you can find it all over google and i've heard the announcer Mauro call him fedor 'the russian experiment' emelianenko on one of his early pride fights. i know these nicknames are rarely used anymore but does anyone think its worth noting? if you want sources and can dig them up sometime soon. 68.188.201.146 (talk) 20:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)sk!
 * found a source on fedors myspace about the other nicknames. http://www.myspace.com/czarfedor "Fedor Emelianenko should need no introduction. He's the last emperor, the Russian experiment, the cyborg, and the baddest man on the planet." if anyone thinks its worth mentioning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.86.187.95 (talk) 06:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello guys. I never touched Fedor's page before but something in me just snapped. I'm sick of seeing stupid, cringe worthy nicknames being shoved up on people's wikis. I've argued about this for footballers (such as Andrei Arshavin), so I think I have a clear understanding. The Baddest Man on the Planet is NOT a NICKNAME. Do you understand English? It is the title for a 1-hour special filmed a week before the Arlovski fight. It is an abortion of a documentary. It was hashed together to attain two goals 1) Get views from the fight hype. 2) Make more hype to increase fight PPV sales

It's a marketing strategy. It is common in the industry. What isn't common is taking a stupidly titled creation and taking the things the narrator says word for word. What is Fedor's nickname? It was originally Mr Pride. That was his first Japanese nickname and definitely the most genuine. For some reason it didn't catch on elsewhere.. good luck finding a source on that one (you probably need to read Japanese). But guess what, Pride couldn't introduce nor discuss the fighter as "Mr. Pride" as it would convey EXTREME favoritism. It's like if we called Golf the Tiger Woods Championship. Not very sporting. That is why they created the generic "Last Emperor" alias for him. FINE. It's not the greatest, but he doesn't seem to care, it's not like nicknames are something you choose yourself. But, no one, absolutely NO ONE, not an announcer, not a commentator, not an editor (who knows SOMETHING about MMA), nor any of this friends or fellow fighters, would call him The Baddest Man on the Planet. It doesn't matter if he is or isn't, that simply is NOT a nickname. Look in the dictionary if you need help comprehending basic logic. It's fine to have the Fox Sports production mentioned in the text, but quite another to have it represent his identity. -Thanks for understanding, and sorry if I sound like a jerk. If you dis-agree please discuss.--Nothingnowhere (talk) 08:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely right, Baddest Man blblah has NEVER been his nickname. He was sometimes introduced as "The Russian Military Experiment" however, because he never shows feelings or so... The "baddest man"-BS ist just to promote him in the States, because for some reason they think ppl react on that. The "Mr. Pride" thing is also right, but I never saw it written in English btw, only in Japanese —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.82.71.144 (talk) 08:52, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

-i think it was just 'the russian experiment' as i recall mauro ranallo saying it or whatever that awesome announcer's name is. i also never seen mr pride in english. best wishes 68.188.203.217 (talk) 20:59, 1 July 2010 (UTC)-ski

I aslo agree it not a nickname no matter how many reliable source you have of people using that name it not a a nickname. The Baddest Man is not something that is use to indentify him. A nickname is went you use a word or a series of word that will identify him. And altought it was used by somme commentator... it was not used inuff to be called a nickname.

--Kind of moot now, isn't it? By my sense of what "baddest" means in this context, it has to be Werdum or someone else... doesn't it? Thedoorhinge (talk) 06:33, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Record is 30-1
Q: Fedor, some websites say that in 2001 you fought with Martin Lazarev in an MMA match at the RINGS Russia vs. Bulgaria II show. More established sited do not have that fight. Did it really happen? A: I did "fight" with Martin Lazarev, but that was in 2000. I won via a choke.

I will change his record soon if nobody does it. Rings is not amateur.Randy Couture and Overeem and others fought in Rings.

http://www.411mania.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=5724255&Main=5724211

братух я сам с старого болею за тебя крепча —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.179.60.158 (talk) 01:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

✅I added the fight with Martin Lazarov Here is video of the fight - http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xhobr_rare-video-fedor-vs-martin-lazarov_extreme

Peer review results
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question. ✅ - Most of the length is caused by the MMA record box, I think.-- 2008 Olym pian chit chat 08:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC) ✅ They are only in quotes.-- 2008 Olym pian chit chat 08:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC) You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, 2008 Olym pian chit chat 08:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, then an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.[?]
 * The script has spotted the following contractions: don't, didn't, wasn't, couldn't, wouldn't, don't, wasn't, wasn't, wasn't, won't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.

locked again?
why is this page locked AGAIN? everything was fine then someone locked it. i complained and finally someone unlocked it, and now its locked again. wtf?68.188.201.146 (talk) 20:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)ski
 * Because people kept vandalizing it. It'll be unlocked in two days, but I wouldn't count on it staying unprotected long. You're welcome to create and account so that you're not affected by the semi-protection. -- aktsu (t / c) 20:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

--No kidding, how hard is it to create an account?-- 2008 Olym pian chit chat 04:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

understandable, i guess since fedor is more known now in the states, vandalism will rise. thanks. 2008olympion, how hard is it to 'be polite, assume good faith, and be welcoming'? sure is easier than creating an account. 68.188.201.146 (talk) 20:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)sk!

How was I impolite? And I know that I didn't assume bad faith by anyone; we're not even talking about any edits. And every welcome template suggests to open an account. I simply fail to understand why anyone would express frustration with being blocked when to become unblocked all one has to do is open an account.-- 2008 Olym pian chit chat 04:12, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Seriously. In the time spent coming up with rebuttals, he could have registered and account and be done with his issue.--Lvivske (talk) 04:22, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

because it did not seem polite or very welcoming to say 'no kidding how hard is it to create an account'. not only that but i thought your comment was unnecessary since the previous poster already stated to create an account. and (s)he stated it in a much more polite and welcoming way. also i already have had an account for some time now so their was not even an issue with that. i did not know that having an account would get around semi protection. thank you anyway though and i apologize if i seemed confrontational and for being inexperienced user in the wikipedia community. best wishes 68.188.201.146 (talk) 23:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)ski

fujita fight still incorrect
the fujita fight is still incorrect. "Emelianenko was expected to make quick work of Fujita, but was caught by a wild right hook that stunned him—Emelianenko has claimed this is the only time he has ever been knocked down." i dont know if this was maybe a mistranslation or what but the punch did NOT knock fedor down, it only stunned him. AFTER the punch fujita was able to secure a takedown. wouldnt it be more proper to say that fedor was taken down? cause the punch didnt knock him down.68.188.201.146 (talk) 20:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)ski
 * I just read the source for the claim (here), and the confusion seem to stem from the fact that Fedor refers to "almost being knocked out" as a knockdown in the interview. Something was probably lost in translation. I have in any case removed the claim as it's not actually clear he's talking about the Fujita-fight, only that it happened "once". -- aktsu (t / c) 20:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Pictures/ Dead links
There were lots of deadlinks that had to be erased within the article, so i did it myself. The article could also use more pictures of some of fedor's fights. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.176.148.19 (talk) 23:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I reverted :\ The dead links needs to be replaced not deleted and by removing them it's harder to know what's unsourced. Also, the videos of the fights on Youtube are violating Zuffa's copyright so we can't link to them (see WP:LINKVIO) and a mention of "notable wins" in the lead was decided against on WT:MMA.
 * Adding some pictures would be a good idea though, we can probably away with a few fair-use images of his fights. Any suggestions? -- aktsu (t / c) 00:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

fedor never lost
People, write about it in "Notes". That was illegal elbow and this was ref's mistake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.140.191.1 (talk) 14:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Write this in note of that fight against Kohsaka. Or make link to there. "Via doctor stoppage due to a cut 17 seconds into the fight.[31] Footage shows that the cut was caused by a missed looping punch where Kohsaka's elbow struck Emelianenko's head. Elbow strikes were illegal under RINGS rules unless the striker is wearing elbow pads, which Kohsaka was not." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.237.189.48 (talk) 13:16, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

the cut by which the fight was ended, was made due to an elbow, which was illegal in the competition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.212.98.190 (talk) 10:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

fedor is virtually undefeated but when they announce him before his fights they count it as a loss. we all know it isnt really fair for fedor and probably should have been ruled a no contest since it was accidental. but the media seems to just stand by rings ruling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.86.187.95 (talk) 06:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Well it actually was fair Fedor had a huge gash on his forehead and more then likly shouldent of even been aloud to enter that fight but he did and he couldent continue and the japanese fighter involved didnt actually aim to do that (it was a missed punch which do happen in all forms of striking) and never recieved any previous warning for misconduct so what are you proposing giving fedor a win when the other person involved didnt actually do anything wrong either? Rings called it and recorded it and more intresting is that fedors fans he has aquired over the years are kicking up a stink about a long time after the fact when Fedor never even contested it when it was current.

Fedor lost and he took it like a man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.223.197.111 (talk) 18:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry you don't have your facts straight. The stoppage was caused by an Illegal elbow strike early in the first round. Whether it was intentional or not does not matter as it was an Illegal strike. Under normal rules the fight would be ruled a NO Contest but because it was under tournament rules the person who threw the Illegal strike advanced because Fedor could not continue because of the injury he sustained from an Illegal strike. Did I mention that the strike was against the rules? Anyway, Fedor easily dispatched the no name opponent in a later fight. Please do some research before you start spouting off nonsense. Thanks. 173.73.6.197 (talk) 02:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

My facts actually are straight look at the fight (its on youtube) the swing was for a hook fedor bobbed and got hit by an elbow opening the existing injury. It actually does matter if the blow was unintentional you cannot DQ a person for one accidental blow that is even more unfair then you going up in arms about his loss.

It wouldent of been ruled as such even in a normal fight riding the tournament bandwagon is not going to help you as I already mentuioned in the same tournament fedor ALREADY had a gash above his fore head only the elbow opened it up & there is a really big chance it would of been opened by anything more then being breathed on. IN a normal fight he wouldent of been medically cleared to fight in the first place! This initial injury was caused in a fully legit fight too btw.

Ok research So my refering with ISKA & shooto as well as actually watcching the fight in queastion is not research enough? ok then how about my father being involved in rings australia (re working with Chris Hasman the man who established sanctioning under the rulebody that fight was conducted under?)

Might I add there was no complaint from either camp after the fight only complaints have been from people who usually act condescending (sound familar?) when soemone doesnt give the same answer they did......

Preahps you should follow your own advice before actually going off on a tangent? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.40.18 (talk) 16:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * i never proposed anything. i just think think rings should have ruled it a no contest. no one including me really cares though, any fedor fan knows the situation and that he is virtually undefeated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.86.187.95 (talk) 14:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

We don't want the result changed, we just want an Asterisks next to it to guide people towards a paragraph detailing the circumstances of the result. The Muss (talk) 14:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

^^^^^ could some body please do that. The asteriks should be there, It should be a link that takes you up to the paragraph in the article. It's not hard to do that. Oh, and it's not "handing fedor a win" it's just pointing out the circumstances of the situation more clearly. Illegal strikes are illegal weather they are done on purpose or not. Saying "he didn't try to do that" does not make it legal. It will still be listed as a loss. It won't be changed to a No Contest or a Win it will just have a link next to it so you can read why it says what it says. What on earth would be so horrible about that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.132.0.255 (talk) 10:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Change made. Apostrophe added. If unclear, change it so the whole word "Loss" is linked. 82.2.21.177 (talk) 09:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * An asterisk is, at best, innacurate and at worst revisionist. I reverted it and will continue to do so until I see some precedent for its use. The official result of the fight is "Loss" not "Loss*". The circumstances of the fight and its result are detailed in the article for anyone to read. Linking from or referencing to the result would probably be appropriate within the record table. BenTrotsky (talk) 06:24, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Question for Ben Trotsky or other moderators: OK so no * I get that. But what if you made the word "loss" link to the paragraph in the article. No * just make the word "loss" clickable. Would that be OK. Or would that be inappropriate as well? I'm just asking.

Huge thank you to who ever dug up that Kohsaka quote. We did it! .....who deleted the Kohsaka quote?

Hey WTF!! Who deleted the quote from Tsuyoshi Kohsaka? You jerk, put it back. WTF!!

Why on earth was the Tsuyoshi Kohsaka quote deleted from the page? Why hasn't it been put back? What's the story here? This is ridiculous.

Ok people whats the deal!? who's always returning it back to LOSS!?!?!? I mean we all concluded and even global MMA rules have proved that such match cannot be a loss and that it is proclaimed NO CONTEST, but someone is still returning it back to LOSS!? Is there really so much haters of Fedor here on wiki?! I mean seriously, please someone take care of this vandalism.--VEGETA_DTX (talk) 19:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The bottom line is his official record includes 1 loss. This is verified by relaible sources.  On his record he has to be shown with that official record.  It's also true that the loss is very controversial.  Therefore within the text of the article includes an explanation of what happened within that fight.  Setting his record to the official number is not vandalism, but making sure the article meets policy.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Who took out the Tsuyoshi Kohsaka quote? How is that not vandalism.?

Can't we have a mention of legality of the elbow in the notes for the fight? If no then why the 'F' not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.132.0.255 (talk) 17:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Who knows what's going on here. Obviously some one on here hates Fedor and they keep vandalizing this thing to make it look like his loss was legit when it was an illegal strike.

Man vs. Beast
That latest 'victory' where it has Fedor beating a brown bear into submission is highly questionable. I went looking all over the Internet trying to find evidence that this took place. I did not find it. Certainly it would be newsworthy. If it's valid, it needs a reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wordsworm (talk • contribs) 18:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

i'd just delete it next time if you havent already.


 * Are you dumb or wat it a joke it like saying that his that good but he would never be able to beat a brown bear, brown bear weight 3 times his weight and have hugh claws... —Preceding unsigned comment added by GSP-Rush (talk • contribs) 20:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

^ I wouldn't call anybody dumb if I were you... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.34.204.220 (talk) 00:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

"Russian heavyweight mixed martial arts fighter"
I was just wondering if the quoted sentence is the correct way to identify Emelianenko, as its a little ambiguous. Would "Russian heavyweight mixed martial arts fighter" mean that he is a heavyweight MMA fighter in a Russian division, or that he himself is a Russian MMA fighter (which would be incorrect considering him being born in the Ukraine)? Also later on there is another statement that should be made clearer; the article states that "Fedor had the honour of being one of 80 Russian sporting champions..." but it doesn't really make clear if it means him being an ethnically Russian sporting champion or someone who competes in Russian sporting events. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.236.233.126 (talk) 18:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That would not be incorrect or ambiguous at all. "Russian heavyweight mixed martial arts fighter" would mean he is both in a Russian division (obviously) AND himself is a Russian MMA fighter. Consider the English word Russian. It's definition: a national of the country, anything pertaining to Russia, or an ethnic group. Fedor lives in Russia, hold's Russian citizenship, and eagerly represents Russia in sporting events, making him about as Russian as you can get. Regardless of what his ethnicity may or may not be, he considers himself Russian and that's what this biography correctly identifies him as. Ethnicity is never stressed on Wikipedia because it breeds exactly what I see here, nationalism. We don't emphasize Fedor's (or usually anyone's) ethnic background in biographies as per WP:BIO, and further, we'd have no way to cite it. For the record, my understanding is that he has a Ukrainian father and a Russian mother. --Eightofnine (talk) 17:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Mistype of the name Finkelstein
Name of Finkelstein is mistyped ones as Finklestein. Please correct.

Askender (talk) 09:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- aktsu (t / c) 15:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

fix the affliction section
^^^ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.222.91.253 (talk) 19:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * On it. -- aktsu (t / c) 20:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Fedor signs with UFC
The LA Times is reporting that Fedor will sign with the UFC on Friday. Should we edit the article now, or wait for official confirmation? Icestryke (talk) 12:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Other outlets are reporting the signing is not finalized (see "M-1 disputes LA Times report", "Conflicting reports on UFC-Fedor negotiations" and Fedor join the UFC? Who knows"), so we should definitely hold on until there's an official confirmation. -- aktsu (t / c) 12:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi guys.

Fedor's management has specifically said they are not signing with the UFC. No announcement was ever made on Dana's twitter or anywhere. You guys have a factually incorrect article here. A quick Google search will do, seriously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.199.148.204 (talk) 05:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Are there any sources for the information that is already posted regarding the Fedor-UFC deal?

This should probably be deleted. As of early August, Fedor has signed a 3 fight deal with Strikeforce (to be co-promoted with M-1 Global). He is fighting Brett Rogers this fall in his first fight for Strikeforce. the link to the article is listed below:

http://mmaweekly.com/absolutenm/templates/dailynews.asp?articleid=9277&zoneid=4

Fedor Refuses to Sign with UFC
According to the UFC and Yahoo! Sports, Fedor was offered: - $30 million for 6 fights - Immediate title shot - freedom to Sambo as often as he wants

The sticking point was that his management wants a 50-50 Pay-Per-View split and to be co-promoters. Neither party will budge on that point, so there's no deal. Links:

- http://sports.yahoo.com/mma/blog/cagewriter/post/UFC-presser-White-explodes-over-Fedor-negotiati?urn=mma,180154

- http://uk.ufc.com/index.cfm?fa=VideoPlayer.home&gid=21535 (Dana White press conference)

Someone should update the article explaining why he's not signed with UFC from a NPOV. Ikilled007 (talk) 17:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Bear in mind that M1 disputes the proposal: "It is M-1's preference not to negotiate in public and we are unsure why people claim that Fedor and M-1 turned down a six-fight, (US)$30-million contract to fight in the UFC when no such offer was ever made." --Львівське (talk) 18:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The new picture sucks
On the old one you could identify him better plus he's looking into the camera plus he looks way more likeable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.70.25.112 (talk) 10:34, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Personal Life section
It states that "Fedor has a 6 year old daughter, Lexi, the mother of whom is Fedor's current wife. He lives with them both at his home in Stary Oskol." I assume that it just hasn't been updated to reflect the end of Fedor's relationship with Oksana which ended in 2006 and the beginning of his current marriage to Marina which began in 2009? --Phospheros (talk) 00:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and he has two daughters - Maria (eight years old) and Vasilisa (she will turn 2 years of age in December). His second wife's name is Marina.

Please change odd wording
Under the subsection "Strikeforce," there is a sentence which reads, "... confirmed that Emelianenko's debut took place on November 7, broadcast nationally on CBS." Logic-wise, this is strange. It needs to read "... confirmed that Emelianenko's debut would take place on November 7, broadcast nationally on CBS." Someone who has the authority, please change this. 97.125.48.202 (talk) 07:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅--Phospheros (talk) 08:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Kohsaka's name misspelled
On fedor's MMA record at the bottom, where he lost to Kohsaka, someone spelled it "Kosaka"
 * Fixed --Phospheros (talk) 12:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

WAMMA Title Defense vs. Rogers
The chart indicates that the match vs. Rogers was for the WAMMA belt, but at no time during the fight was this stated. It was not a 5-round fight and it was not promoted as a championship fight. The Mousasi fight was declared as a non-title bout, but Fedor/Rogers was not discussed in a title context at all. Is this an error in the chart or is there something about the WAMMA title that I don't understand??? Jackbox1971 (talk) 20:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * According to the WAMMA website [], the match was a championship match.  But it really wasn't promoted as such... weird. Jackbox1971 (talk) 20:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

It was for the title. http://mmamania.com/2009/11/07/wamma-sanctions-fedor-vs-rogers-strikeforce-fight-will-unveil-new-championship-belt-and-logo/  They decided it very last minute, and I didn't hear them mention it at all at the fight. Senor Vergara (talk) 23:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

When he fought Rogers it was a 3 round fight. Both his previous WAMMA title fights were scheduled for 5 rounds. Here is a Sherdog article saying that it was not for the WAMMA title. http://sherdogblog.craveonline.com/blog/2009-11-05#20746. It was sanctioned by WAMMA but he did not defend the title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BenLardo (talk • contribs) 07:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Odd. Completely conflicting statements, both dated 11/5. However, this is 11/7 http://www.411mania.com/MMA/columns/121419/Cardio-Freak-MMA-News-Report-11.09.09:-Live-at-Strikeforce-on-CBS.htm And the WAMMA home page confirms it: http://www.gowamma.com/ Fight WAS for the title. Senor Vergara (talk) 02:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that the WAMMA belt was NOT on the line. This wasn't a championship fight. It was set for 3, 5 minute Rounds. At the introduction they did recognize Fedor as the reigning WAMMA HW champion but I don't think he was defending the actual belt. It was just for show. Correct me if I am wrong. Please provide a source. AncientObserver (talk) 20:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I would assume the title was on the line because of this quote: wamma.com "Putting a title on the line just provides the fighters with more incentive to perform at their best," said Scott Coker, CEO of STRIKEFORCE. (pinchet (talk) 20:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC))


 * Thanks for the source. I find it very change that this was a 3 Round fight if a belt was on the line. I remember them recognizing Fedor as the WAMMA champion at his introduction but don't recall them saying he was defending it. AncientObserver (talk) 23:50, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

This shows that Fedor's most recent bout was for the WAMMA heavyweight title. I'm not sure how copyright works on talk pages, this is not to be used in any article, just for verification purposes. I hope this settles the debate for the people that are too lazy to actually research this on their own. Thank you.



BrendanFrye (talk) 17:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, this too: "Fedor’s manager and M-1 Global President Vadim Finkelchtein said "Recognizing Fedor as the undisputed WAMMA heavyweight champion means that Fedor is the world champion wherever and whenever he fights."

"Putting a title on the line just provides the fighters with more incentive to perform at their best," said Scott Coker, CEO of STRIKEFORCE." From Here: http://www.gowamma.com/news-and-events-detail/125/

BrendanFrye (talk) 21:58, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The reason the bout was for three rounds was because it was a last second decision to put the title on the line. They kept the bout as a 3 round fight due to the time schedule they needed to follow for CBS. And someone had just edited out that it was for the WAMMA title belt a few minutes ago, they also edited it out in the Arlovski fight. I just edited it back in... just a heads up. Delinquent1904 (talk) 21:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.8.110.72 (talk)

So let me get this straight, whenever fedor wins a fight apparently he defended the "WAMMA" belt. but when he gets his ass kicked of course that fight wasn't for the belt? its pointless to even mention MAMMA because its a complete joke. not once in any of those fights did anyone say that the so called "WAMMA Championship" was on the line. Its just an excuse for fedor fans to say hes better than he actually is. 143.43.197.51 (talk) 19:23, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

and of course Finkelchtein is going to say that fedor is the "undisputed WAMMA heavyweight champion and that Fedor is the world champion wherever and whenever he fights" because he's and idiot that gets paid to make fedor look good. and if that statement is true then why was the dumbass WAMMA belt apparently not on the line when he lost???? 143.43.197.51 (talk) 19:28, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry but what User talk:143.43.197.51 said is it's true. I can't help it but the WAMMA belt is a joke! If it wasn't then why wasn't it line when he lost twice already? Ok I understand that the last one was during the tournament, but his lost to Fabricio Werdum was a real fight. Yet it seem to only be "on the line" when he wins. Plus if Fedor felt that it was a real championship, then why dosent he ever wear it to the so call Brett Rogers title defense? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.6.84.111 (talk) 17:15, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Mihail Apostolov
He fought another one. Please somebody to fix the link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.180.154.57 (talk) 01:35, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅--Phospheros (talk) 01:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Bobby Hoffman
Shouldnt this victory be on Fedor's record, he never actually fought him due to Hoffman being injured but Fedor was still declared the winner. Also it was this win that won him the RINGS open weight title. ClaudioProductions (talk) 15:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree, Fedor should have a win over Bobby Hoffman in his record. The match was very similar to Royce Gracie vs Harold Howard (which counted to their records), in that both fights never started due to an injury from a previous match, and both fights required for a fighter to advance since they were in tournament formats. The referee declared a win for Fedor: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jY2OT2O5Nco Shiriu (talk) 21:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter that they declared him the winner. The fight never started. Name one reputable website that counts this win. Sherdog doesn't. Strikeforce's official website doesn't. www.mixedmartialarts.com doesn't. ESPN doesn't. This needs to be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.177.119.50 (talk) 03:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

It was an official win for Fedor, it doesn't matter. There were no NO CONTESTS in the RINGS. Fedor also has 1 loss because of RINGS' attitudes. Fedor should've gotten a no contest or a DQ win against Kohsaka, but one fighter must win in order to complete the tournament, and since Fedor couldn't continue he lost. And Sherdog isn't the authority in MMA records, they have made many mistakes in fighters' records, not including Fedor vs Hoffman is another of their mistakes. Shiriu (talk) 18:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

After some digging I found out that the Bobby Hoffman fight was for the Heavyweight "World Class Tournament" title (not the King of Kings Tournament title). So it was necessary to have a winner between Fedor and Hoffman, and since Hoffman couldn't continue Fedor was declared the winner, just as it is shown in the video I linked above. Shiriu (talk) 01:58, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

This fight should not be counted. As mentioned, sherdog does not count it. sherdog is the biggest reference for mma records. Even more evidence that the fight should not be counted is the fact that even M1 Globals offical website does not count this fight- http://www.m-1global.com/fedor-emelianenko/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.59.53 (talk) 22:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if M-1 counts it or not. Rings counted it, the organization he won in, so it counts. Pretty simple. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.23.62.243 (talk) 06:27, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

1997 Russian Judo Championship
Fedor did NOT win the 1997 Russian National Judo Championship. No credible judo database credits him with this win, and the source cited in this article is a PRIDE promotional write-up that refers to him winning the "1997 Russian Judo/Sambo Championship," an event that is definitely not the Russian judo national championship (it is not at all clear what that event is). The actual results of the 1997 Russian National Judo Championship can be found here: http://www.judoinside.com/uk/?factfile/tournament/5920/russian_championships_moscow —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.177.152.203 (talk) 14:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Mixed Martial Arts Record
editsemiprotected Could you please change "'losses=2' to 'losses=1'"under Mixed Martial Arts Record. Also, please change the latest fight result directly below his MMA Record from 'align="center" Loss' to 'align="center" Win' and from 'align='center'|31-2 (1)' to 'align='center'|31-1 (1)'. This can be verified by checking the Strikeforce link in the first row and/or counting the wins. Thanks for your help. Madsk1llz (talk) 11:58, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect Fight Record
Fedor Emelianenko's fight record shows his last fight as a "Loss". It took place on November 7 against Brett Rogers at Strikeforce M-1 Global where as a heavyweight he defended his WAMMA World Heavyweight Championship at the Sears Center in Hoffman Estates, Illinois, USA. This should be corrected as he won by a TKO. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3IEbtazrWOw —Preceding unsigned comment added by NytRydr (talk • contribs)


 * I reverted this to the older correct version original. --Natet/c 13:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

BALDEST MAN ON THE PLANET???
The current wiki says "Baldest Man On The Planet". Can someone fix that? I'm fairly certain that there is someone out there that is more bald than Fedor. If he is in fact the Baldest man on the planet, some sources and citations would seem appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Conan thanoz (talk • contribs) 01:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

33 professional fights, NOT 32
In the opening description, it says, "Having won 31 of his professional 32 fights", when he has actually fought in 33 professional fights. He has 31 wins, 1 loss, and 1 No Contest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.90.177.131 (talk) 04:38, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

This is an example of why records, rankings, and other frequently changing information should usually be avoided, if possible, in the main body (not the Box or Record Table, obviously). Senor Vergara (talk) 02:01, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Fedor and Politics
With the rise of the far right wing in Russia especially the Russian National Unity movement which is an ultra racist organisation seeking to expel migrants from the Caucasus and far east regions of the former Soviet Union it would be interesting to know what Fedor's views are on such movements. Fedor is a national icon and an international sporting figure it would be good to hear his opinion especially seeing he has forged close ties with many people and organisations from around the world regardless of race, creed or color. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.221.140.173 (talk) 12:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

WTF Bobby Hoffman?
The Bobby Hoffman shit is not real. It is messing up his record and the record table. I've taken it off three times now and it keeps appearing. Can someone get rid of it please and somehow prevent it from coming back. Thank you.

The fight happened. Rather, it was supposed to happen but Hoffman pulled out and the RINGS organisation gave the WIN to Fedor. The match was also a title fight for the heavyweight world class championship. There weren't "No Contests" or "Draws" in RINGS, and Bobby Hoffman didn't have a replacement that night. Shiriu (talk) 05:16, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I have found the records of RINGS fights: http://www.prowrestlinghistory.com/shoot/rings/ringsindex.html It shows that Fedor beat Bobby Hoffman via forfeit, since Bobby Hoffman refused to fight Fedor. Now please stop deleting the record. Shiriu (talk) 17:02, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Here is another article that proves that Fedor did win against Bobby: http://www.fcfighter.com/news0108.htm Shiriu (talk) 17:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

No OFFICIAL MMA publication or website has recorded it as a legitimate win. So although it may exist, it is not OFFICIAL.

It's not the publications that make it OFFICIAL, it's the ruling of the organization. So Fedor OFFICIALLY won that fight, just like he OFFICIALLY lost to Kohsake. It's because of the tournament rules that RINGS employed that both of those fights had to be declared a win or a loss. So yeah, I am pretty sure it is OFFICIAL. BrendanFrye (talk) 04:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

None of the organizations (Pride, Affliction, Bodog, Strikeforce, etc.) recognize it as an official victory either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.90.177.131 (talk) 07:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, when Fedor was going to fight Tim Sylvia, they listed Fedor's record as 27-1. Affliction did not include atleast 1 of fedor's wins. It is up to regular people like us to find the records of MMA fighters because many of the fighters have they records inaccurately reported by sites like Sherdog, TV shows like Inside MMA, and events organizations like Affliction. As for the official RINGS ruling on Fedor vs Hoffman, the article I posted above did supposedly write the OFFICIAL RESULTS. Here they are: http://www.fcfighter.com/news0108.htm

Official RINGS Results

Fighting Network RINGS 10th Anniversary

World Title Series

August 11, 2001

Ariake Colosseum

9. Heavyweight Tournament (Final)

Emelianenko Fedor def. Bobby Hoffman

injury default

EMELIANENKO FEDOR is a Heavyweight Champion of RINGS

Is that not official enough? Shiriu (talk) 12:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Shiriu. it makes sense especially considering how gracie vs howard was recorded. otherwise why dont they remove the gracie howard on their wikis? and yes the rings loss is also a good point which was unfortunately an official loss. it could even be noted that some organizations dont count it as a win to make those happy that disagree. anyways, i think this should be added. official or not, it still did happen. 71.87.70.108 (talk) 10:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC)ski

m1globals OFFICAL site does not even include this win, neither should wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.250.107 (talk) 15:54, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

http://www.m-1global.com/fedor-emelianenko/ -if m1 global doesn't even recognise it then it shouldn't be on wikipedia. Fedor's official representation don't feel the need to include it so why should wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.250.107 (talk) 15:58, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

That is irrelevant. Strikeforce itself recognizes Fedor's win over Bobby Hoffman, as well as many mma websites do too.Shiriu (talk) 03:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

http://www.strikeforce.com/fighters/fedor/ -i think you'll find strikeforce does not recognise it. How is m1global irrelevant, they are fedor's offical representation, they are more relevant than "many mma websites". also, i can find many mma websites which do not count it. simply saying "many mma websites" is not good enough to justify counting bobby hoffman. websites such as sherdog, mma-core and mmazone to name a few all have fedor as 31-1. these are top mma sites that appear on in the top results when you type mma into google. your arguement is weak and hollow. bobby hoffman can be mentioned in the notes section of fedor's record. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.211.112 (talk) 18:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

yeah fedors record is wrong its 31 wins hoffman doesnt count!!! even ask fedor —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.7.172 (talk) 12:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

VICTORY-Hoffman is gone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.100.87.238 (talk) 19:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

It's BS to remove this win. Personal opinions do not matter, RINGS awarded him the win, he has the win. You can't just ignore the decision of a professional MMA organization because you do not like it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.23.62.243 (talk) 03:36, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Semi-Protect
Could we get the page semiprotected? There are a lot of unhelpful IP edits hitting the page right now. Can any admin do that? Thanks! BrendanFrye (talk) 18:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

making an account will get you around semi-protection. at least that is what i was told but in a very dickish way by some angry unforgiving confrontational wikinazis who probably can't make any friends. hope this helps, 68.188.203.217 (talk) 21:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)sk!

"Who?" Citation
What's with the "Who?" citations at the end of the opening description? I clicked on it and it goes to a "Avoid Weasel Words" page. But if you scroll down to "Exceptions" on the "Avoid Weasel Words" page it says, "When the holders of the opinion are too diverse or numerous to qualify". Wouldn't the statement made fall under that category? I'm just asking because, IMO, the citation is distracting and pointless(unless you want someone to list all the fans, MMA anylists, and fighters that hold that opinion). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevanchez (talk • contribs) 23:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Why no notable list?
I've seen a "notable wins" list in the opening description sometimes, but it keeps get taken off over and over again. Why? I've seen other fighters with them. Is there something wrong with him having one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevanchez (talk • contribs) 02:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

i agree, notable wins is nice to have. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.87.70.108 (talk) 10:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

As I've already told you, there's no point having a list of notable wins if it accounts to almost half his bloody total! There's no notability then. A list of 3 or 4 will suffice. Kohsaka, Schilt etc aren't even THAT notable. Who says they're notable? Why are they notable? That info is best left in the main section of the article, not the intro. Paralympiakos (talk) 16:05, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, no need to have a list 15 fighters long. Might be easier just to remove it, as I see you've done. BrendanFrye (talk) 16:48, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Have you seen other fighters' lists? Noguiera has like 15 and Silva has like 10. Those fighters have a similar amount of fights or less then Fedor. So, why is Fedor only allowed "3 or 4"? Also, all the fighters listed are champions or renowned legends in the sport(except for Rogers who is currently a top fighter).

I'd also like to point out the definition of notable:

Notable = a prominent, distinguished, or important person. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/notable)

So notable has no numerical value or determinant. And as I mentioned above, all that were listed are prominent figures in the sport of MMA and therefore fit the definition of notable. Also you are the only two that seem to have a problem with the list(since you are the only people trying to change it) and if you can't provide a better arguement then, "I think there are too many", I will continue to put the list up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevanchez (talk • contribs) 04:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

So why not list every single person he has every fought? Seriously, why not? Para is asking for some sort of limiting criteria, until you find it within yourself to compromise, I'll have to be for exclusion. BrendanFrye (talk) 17:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Heath Herring and Matt Lindland are champions/renowned legends? BrendanFrye (talk) 17:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm with Brendan on this one. I compromised in leaving about 8 or 9 names. Even that seems slightly excessive. I'd prefer "has defeated notable opponents such as Nogueira, Cro Cop and Arlovski" as that's a far shorter list. We don't need to have about half of his opponents. Another name to the list....Kohsaka? How in the hell is he notable apart from his "win" over Fedor? The guy is pretty much a .500 fighter and has lost to every credible name in MMA. Paralympiakos (talk) 18:21, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

How about just champions:

Nogueira:

RINGS 2000 King of Kings Champion, 2x Pride Heavyweight Champion, and UFC Heavyweight champion

Schilt:

K-1 GP Champion, 2x K-1 Super Heavyweight Champion, 4x K-1 World Champion, and Pancrase Champion

Cro Cop:

IKBF World Heavyweight Champion and Pride 2006 GP Champion

Sylvia:

2x UFC Heavyweight Champion

Arlovski:

UFC Heavyweight Champion

Choi:

K-1 GP Champion

Babalu:

IFC and Strikeforce Light Heavyweight Champion

Goodridge:

3x K-1 GP Champion

Randleman:

UFC Heavyweight Champion

Coleman:

UFC 10 Tournament Champion, UFC 11 Tournament Champion, Pride 2000 GP Champion, and UFC Heavyweight Champion

Hunt:

3x K-1 GP Champion and K-1 World GP Champion

Or are World Champions not distiguished enough? If not, what is this criteria you want? Demigods? Mythical creatures? Jesus?

Please give me YOUR criteria that I must cater to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevanchez (talk • contribs) 19:14, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Let's keep the attitude to a minimum please. I don't want a notable list, but since that's not compromise, just keep it to 3/4 names that are the most notable (see my last reply). Nogueira and Cro Cop are the obvious first two. Pick the next top two after that. Paralympiakos (talk) 19:29, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

You're not compromising, you're forcing the rules on me with your Brendan/Para tag team. And if you haven't notices, there are about 3 or 4 other people who keep putting up a large notable list(there's one up right now that has about 10 that I had nothing to do with), so clearly you two are not the majority. Yet you feel you should be able to make the rules, which is total BS. Especially when you consider that neither of you are making a valid arguement as to why the list should be shortened. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevanchez (talk • contribs) 19:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

K-1 is not mma. Why are you listing K-1 champions? Gary Goodridge? Really, Gary Goodridge is a notable win? Also, could you tone it down and stop being a dick? BrendanFrye (talk) 19:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Dick? Nice. Just trying to find the criteria you guys want because apparently your definition of compromise is whatever you guys say. If you noticed, I didn't have Goodridge on my original list, I'm just trying to fulfill your needs.

Ok, so only MMA Champions. That still leaves about 10 of the people I listed. So find something wrong with; Nog, Schilt, Cro Cop, Coleman, Arlovski, Sylvia, Babalu, Arona, TK, and Randleman. I'm sure you will and I'll wait. I'm finding it funny that while you two are argueing with me, other people are putting up their own notable lists that slightly resembles mine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevanchez (talk • contribs) 20:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * When was Schlit an MMA champion? When was Babulu a heavyweight champion in any mma organization? Who is TK? BrendanFrye (talk) 20:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Schilts was Pancrase (that's MMA) Champions for nearly 2 years and TK is Tsuyoshi Kohsaka's nickname and he was also Pancrase Champion.

Why does weight class matter? Is GSP's victory over Penn not noteworthy because Penn is a lightweight? Or is Rampage's (who has a 12 person notable list) win over Sakuraba not noteworthy because Sakuraba is a middleweight? Babalu was an MMA champion in two different orgs and therefore a notable win.


 * Make it clear it was notable in the main text then... Paralympiakos (talk) 20:43, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Pancrase has a wildly varying ruleset when compared to modern mma. No close fisted strikes to the face for example. As for weight classes they do matter. Babalu has never won a championship in the heavyweight division. He is not a notable heavyweight win. Cut out Schilts, TK, Arona (middleweight) and Babalu and I would be ok with the list. BrendanFrye (talk) 20:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

So notable wins criteria is: 1)Must be a champion from either UFC, Strikeforce, or Pride 2)Must have been champion in same weight class

Ok, I've got a lot of notable lists to change. So it might take me while before I can contribute to one for Fedor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevanchez (talk • contribs) 21:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Losing my ability to assume good faith. BrendanFrye (talk) 21:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, you are now a vandal in my book. I've tried to work with you, you are a single use account that comes here to troll. BrendanFrye (talk) 21:16, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

You aren't "working" with me. You're forcing your "criteria" on me. I didn't vandalize anything. I changed something based on what we discussed. If that's vandalism, then Para is also a vandal for removing all of Nogueira's notable wins for the same exact reason.

It isn't really "criteria" if it only pertains to one person or scenario. So if this is the "criteria" for one fighter, then it must be the "criteria" for all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevanchez (talk • contribs) 21:32, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Trying to work with you. That's the key word. Trying. You obviously won't compromise and it's either your way or the highway. Other articles are just that, other articles. It does not matter what they list. I have no good faith left for you because you obviously do not want to contribute to this article, or wikipedia, in a constructive manner. What is there left to discuss if all that you do is bitch and moan. BrendanFrye (talk) 23:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

How haven't I compromised? I took my original list of 15 and reduced it to 10(essentially compromising 1/3 of my opinion for you) and you are making me reduce it down to 6 or 7 so that it can fit YOUR criteria. So how am I the one that's not compromising? Also I'm not the one that has reduced his arguement to childish name calling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevanchez (talk • contribs) 03:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Why include WAMMA?
What is the point of including any mention of WAMMA? No one recognizes it. It's website hasn't even been updated since November of 2009 and is still advertising Fedor vs. Rogers. It's a complete sham. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pull lead (talk • contribs) 01:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, both DREAM and Strikeforce recognize WAMMA. The only major organization that has outright refused to except it is the UFC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevanchez (talk • contribs) 05:48, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

So let me get this straight, whenever fedor wins a fight apparently he defended the "WAMMA" belt. but when he gets his ass kicked of course that fight wasn't for the belt? its pointless to even mention MAMMA because its a complete joke. not once in any of those fights did anyone say that the so called "WAMMA Championship" was on the line. Its just an excuse for fedor fans to say hes better than he actually is. 143.43.197.51 (talk) 19:24, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

incorrect! the wamma belt does exist and is for sure worth mentioning. its about as significant as the striekforce title. you say basically "when he gets his ass kicked it's not for the belt". that is incorrect. it is decided before the fight if it is for the belt or not, not afterward. kind of the same thing for overeem. the upcoming grand prix neither titles are on the line. your just making excuses to take credit away from the best p4p fighter! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.188.202.197 (talk) 21:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

HA! best p4p fighter my ass. looks like bigfoot just retired your "p4p fighter". and let me guess, that fight wasn't for the belt either... how convenient. 143.43.209.208 (talk) 16:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Stop being a pain. Why would a WAMMA belt be up for grabs in a Strikeforce event that has it's own belt... plus it's in a GP no less and no title is up for grabs in the GP except the title of GP champion. I fail to see how that is hard to understand... --Eidetic Man (talk) 20:55, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Fedor's broken nose
The article says that Mirko Crocop broke Fedor's nose. After the Brett Rogers fight it was also rumoured that Rogers broke Fedor's nose. Then in an after the fight interview Fedor said that Brett didn't break his nose, he also said that nobody ever broke his nose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.41.132.179 (talk) 02:11, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Pride 2004 Heavyweight Grand Prix Final
The original notes section listed "Defended Pride HW title; Won Grand Prix". That makes no sense at all. Fedor was HW champ going in to the Pride 2004 Grand Prix but Big Nog was the Pride Interim HW Champ going into the same tournament (a title created out of necessity since Pride wasn't pleased with Fedor fighting for a rival promotion on the same night as a Pride event). They each fought and won 3 times before facing each other in the final (which ended in a NC; rematch was held 4 months later). NONE of those fights are listed as title defenses for either fighter and rightfully so: The tournament was FOR the unified Pride HW title. If either Big Nog or Fedor would've lost, the unified title would have went to someone else. So NONE of the fights in that tourney (including the final) should be listed as a "Title Defense". When the title is up for grabs, that means even the current champ(s) are fighting for them. Not defending them. Wanderlei Silva was MW champ going into the Pride 2003 Middleweight Grand Prix. He won, and that tourney win is NOT listed as a "Title Defense".

I'm guessing some Fedor fan decided to add that in. It's BS though. 76.14.68.250 (talk) 07:06, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

No. The Grand Prix Final ended in a NC. So, to declare a winner, PRIDE made an immediate rematch and decided to use the fight as a title unification bout as well. So the fight was for both the Grand Prix Championship and the Unified PRIDE Heavyweight Championship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevanchez (talk • contribs) 07:26, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Not sure why you're saying "No" because the edit you made actually re-enforces what I said. It wasn't a title defense. lol. 76.14.68.250 (talk) 11:20, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah you're right, it wasn't a title defense. I was just saying that it was a title fight. Just instead of a defense, it was a unification bout. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevanchez (talk • contribs) 17:29, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Cool. Good edit. 76.14.68.250 (talk) 22:33, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Opinion
This is my first "edit"/interaction with Wikipedia, so I apologize if I do this completely wrong. I find it interesting that opinion has made its way into Fedor's Wiki page. I'm assuming things are supposed to be as factual as possible. I'm referring to the "scared to fight in the UFC" statement. Hey maybe its true, maybe not. Is this a fact? Maybe its just my idealistic nature kicking in. Keep Wikipedia as factual as possible and leave your opinions on Facebook ya f-ing douche! 174.56.32.225 (talk) 18:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Heavy Vandalism
There is a lot of vandalism that has snuck through I would recommend reverting the page to one before the vandalism started. Drewerd (talk) 04:31, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with that idea. Also, can someone correct the armbar portion of the Werdum fight. It wasn't an arm triangle. It was a leg triangle with an armbar. Also I don't know who edited the Submission part to "Armbar inside of a Triangle Choke" because the announcer clearly said Triangle Choke with Armbar. Please correct me if I'm wrong there. --71.62.62.5 (talk) 04:39, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

i agree. in the past i was against locking the page but things are getting out of hand now. i also agree with 71.62.62.5 68.188.203.217 (talk) 21:13, 1 July 2010 (UTC)ski

No knockdown in Werdum fight
There was no knockdown in the fight. He went to his back after being off balance from Fedor's advance. There was no punch that sent him down. Werdum often goes to his back to draw in his opponent. See his fight with Vera. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.224.8.120 (talk) 06:55, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, you obviously dont know what a knockDOWN is or you just have not seen the fight. Let me explain it for you. A knockdown is when a fighter strikes an opponent so hard or technical that the opponent loses his balans and falls. You could see in the fight that Werdums knees were bent before fedor knocked him down with punches to the head, which is one of the most usual reasons to being knocked down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.248.110.140 (talk) 12:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok smartass. But he went down because he tripped going backwards to evade the flurry. No punch sent him down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.224.8.120 (talk) 08:56, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

you are correct 68.224.8.120 here is a source http://www.sherdog.com/videos/recent/Film-Room-How-Werdum-Submitted-Fedor-2530 68.188.203.217 (talk) 20:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)sk!

Is the third paragraph necessary anymore?
It's all about how Fedor is virtually undefeated, but now that he has a legitimate loss to Werdum, it just seems unnecessary. The "loss" to Kohsaka is already explained at a different point in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.165.55.79 (talk) 08:22, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that the third paragraph should be taken out, but that the RINGS section should be changed to the title "RINGS and controversial loss". Fedor has finally been legitimately defeated, but his undefeated streak against that level of competition is something that no other top MMA fighter has been able to match. Thus, the one loss he suffered in his career until Werdum should remain properly explained in the RINGS section. I agree that the third paragraph is unnecessary at this point, though. Cinderkun (talk) 21:52, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 66.190.138.172, 27 June 2010
Please edit the section describing Fedor's latest fight against Werdum. Delete the phrase "go in for the kill." You can use any other description but "go in for the kill" because it is lame.

66.190.138.172 (talk) 08:45, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ Algebraist 16:17, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Dannys559, 28 June 2010
lostWAMMA World Heavyweight Championship

Dannys559 (talk) 00:08, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The fight against Werdum was not for the WAMMA championship. The bout was merely to determine the number one contender for Strikeforce's heavyweight championship. Jfgslo (talk) 03:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Spigot Map  17:35, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

We need to edit some of the one-sided information.
Sorry for bad posting, but in the section external links the second link is going to hacked side: http://efedor.ru/index_eng.shtml

BG Sophiston —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sophiston (talk • contribs) 22:58, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

This particular passage comes off as quite biased without any counterpoint: Many analysts, as well as former and current fighters, consider Emelianenko to be the greatest mixed martial artist of all time. While this may be true, it is a bit too generous. The accompany citation is a video from Inside MMA. An appropriate edit would include the fact that Fedor, while having beaten the top competition during his stint in Pride, is often criticized for having had substandard opponents for the last few years. Just as many question how well he would measure up against today's top heavyweights, which are largely regarded as being a step above those from PRIDE's heydey. Kevin Iole's recent column is a possible source: http://sports.yahoo.com/mma/news;_ylt=AgjEFPP4oaTkRwOrqwT1pik9Eo14?slug=ki-fedor062310

Ijosef (talk) 04:28, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * If you feel that such a text must be changed, you must first provide abundant references from serious writers. A quick Google search of "Fedor heavyweight best" will provide several reliable links backing up the current written text, such as this by Josh Gross: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/josh_gross/11/08/strikeforce/index.html


 * this by Mike Chiappetta: http://www.mmafighting.com/2010/06/27/despite-loss-fedor-emelianenko-still-greatest-mma-heavyweight-e/


 * this by Jeff Cain: http://www.mmaweekly.com/absolutenm/templates/dailynews.asp?articleid=6736&zoneid=4


 * or this by Kenny Florian: http://www.mixedmartialarts.com/news/246728/Florian-Fedor-still-the-top-heavyweight-fighter/


 * or this by Brian Fontez; "the greatest, most ferocious fighter to ever compete in the sport of MMA". http://www.blitzcorner.com/in/11/46767 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malau (talk • contribs) 05:57, 30 June 2012 (UTC)


 * It's far more easier to back up the current text with several references than to find references with serious criticism to edit it.


 * It's a valid point, though. But before considering adding it to the article, you must provide more references from reliable sources and reach a consensus here, because this is the biography of a living person and it must fulfill a neutral point of view (NPOV), verifiability (V) and no original research (NOR). We need more references to verify the criticism. It can't be done with only one reference. Provide more links where the point you want to make is mentioned and reach a consensus here. Do not expect to have the text edited with only one reference. Jfgslo (talk) 18:38, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The lead paragraph about him being considered "undefeated until tapping out to Werdum" is rather long. I think this held much more significance before he lost to Werdum. Now that he has a clear-cut loss on his record, I think it would be best to shorten this paragraph somewhat and make it less prominent. Just my suggestion for the clean-up process. -- James26 (talk) 17:24, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Josh Gross is a Fedor Fanboy through and through. But the line "Many analysts..." is ok. We should maybe add this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3GaVW5pyWQ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Niten Doraku (talk • contribs) 16:17, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Saying that Fedor was considered undefeated before his loss to Werdum is pretty strange. Brock was considered undefeated until his loss to Mir. I'm not saying you should remove the tidbit about what a lame call it was but saying he was considered undefeated before he lost seems pretty redundant since he actually HAS lost. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.96.196.80 (talk) 16:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

You are talking technicalities. Being disqualified is not losing, it is a DQ. Even losing via DQ is not a loss in most people's eyes, the only way to beat someone is to KO or submit them - without the referee's premature intervention ala Henderson (in the case of the former). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malau (talk • contribs) 05:55, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request from 71.79.248.104, 5 January 2011
Please change the page for Fedor Emelianenko from saying that Strikeforce is reviewing his list of future opponents to "As of January 4th, 2011, Fedor has entered the Strikeforce Elite Heavyweight Tournament, and will fight Antonio "Bigfoot" Silva on February 12th in the first quarterfinal match.", pursuant to http://strikeforce.com/news/2011/01/m-1-global%E2%80%99s-fedor-emelianenko-joins-elite-heavyweights-for-eight-man-single-elimination-tournament/

71.79.248.104 (talk) 07:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Done More or less. BrendanFrye (talk) 07:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

fedor team?
Fedor changed team long ago. go here on m1 russian site and see that he is in "imperial team" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.86.194.254 (talk) 00:15, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 207.32.56.132, 13 February 2011
There is a sentence that says in this article: 'In January 2011, it was announced that Fedor had agreed to enter the Strikeforce Heavyweight Grand Prix, and will face Antonio "Bigfoot" Silva on February 12th in the first quarterfinal match.' I think it should say, 'In January 2011, it was announced that Fedor had agreed to enter the Strikeforce Heavyweight Grand Prix, and would face Antonio "Bigfoot" Silva on February 12th in the first quarterfinal match.'  I feel this is more grmatically correct as it is an event in the past now.

207.32.56.132 (talk) 07:08, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Done You are correct, thanks. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:24, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Adding "non-title fight" when Wamma title wasn't on the line
The second sentence in the article beginns with "He is the current World Alliance of Mixed Martial Arts (WAMMA) Heavyweight Champion". It should be mentionend in his fight record when his title is not on the line, so it is clear why the 2nd sentence of the article is true, althought he lost his last 2 fights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loxoman (talk • contribs) 12:44, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think there needs to be a mention of not being title fight because WAMMA was defunct at the time. Besides having "non-title fight" is quite redundant in general, because if it is a title fight it will be mentioned, thus it's obvious it's a non-title fight if no title is mentioned. --Tuoppi gm (talk) 00:53, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The article needs to mention when a title is up for contention and when it is not. This is especially true with regards to fighters who hold multiple titles.  Overeem currently holds two "world" titles in major promotions, therefore a reader would need to know which titles are on the line, or, in the case of the SF tourney,  when it's not.  Also, it is not "self-evident" because this is wikipedia and errors and omissions occur.   Finally, for consistency sake I think the title contention status should be included.  When Overeem fights Werdum in April it would be unhelpful not to mention that the bout is non-title because it is not self-evident.  It will save the wikipedia  Talk page inundated with questions. A for the WAMMA title, there is nothing that I have read anywhere to suggest that the organization is defunct. It maybe be on life-support but the WAMMA article is still using the present tense.  Jackbox1971 (talk) 02:33, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I removed that non title fight bit because it is clearly unnecessary. When a title is up for grabs it is mentioned, if it is not pending then there is absolutely no point in specifying it. Why would a WAMMA belt be on the line in a GP tournament bout when the only prize for fighting in the GP is the title of 2011 GP champion. Plus the Strikeforce HW belt isn't on the line for Overeem so why on Earth would Fedor's belt be on the line in a quarterfinal matchup no less. WAMMA is a different organization and they didn't sanction this tournament and are therefore out of the picture when it comes to the 2011 GP. Just like Overeem's Dream HW belt isn't on the line. If we were to go through and specify what isn't on the line for every fighter in every fight that competes across different promotions, we'd have paragraphs in the comment section. --Eidetic Man (talk) 21:47, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I believe fights a sanctioned by athletic comissions not by promotions(?). Fedors fight against Werdum and against Bigfoot have been on a co promoted M1/Strikeforce card, just as the Rogers fight wich was a title defense. There is absolutely no logical reason why the title couldn't be on the line. And the article should clear that up. You brought up Overeem: On Overeems wikisite "Overeem vs Werdum" in his mma record has non-title fight in the notes.

I put non-title fight back in there. You didn't argue against writing it in for the werdum fight, right? (That was not a gp bout) --Loxoman (talk) 00:12, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The Werdum fight was under different circumstances, it was stated by Coker that the fight "may" be for HW title contender status, that is why WAMMA didn't sponsor it. And yes i used the word "sanction" in an awkward context, my apologies it didn't occur to me at the time but i'm 100% sure that you understood exactly what i was saying. The logical reasoning behind it is that it was NEVER stated that the title would be on the line, this means that there is no point in highlighting it in the table. I don't see the need in putting it there because he is fighting in Strikeforce and not a WAMMA "sponsored" event, so unless WAMMA explicitly state it then there really isn't any need for it. --Eidetic Man (talk) 00:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * About that santioned thing. I didn't mean to be a dick about it, i just wasn't sure what you meant (thats why i put a questionmark in there/english is not my first language (or second, or third). Looking into who wamma is, is very confusing to me. You are right about the Werdum fight it was for number one contender status for the sf title. But it was more a Scott Coker statement(as you said). M1 never agreed to let Fedor fight Overeem for the sf gold(?). Here is an odd pic: http://www.mmaconvert.com/wp-content/uploads/post-images/werdum_wamma-610x406.jpg ; Looks like the title was in the mix at some point. bleacherreport said one day prior to the bout it would be for the wamma title. My point is: There was a lot of confusion before and after the fight whether the bout was for the wamma title. We should just clear that up by writing non-title fight in the notes. I myself searched for a while to find out what happend to the wamma title. --Loxoman (talk) 14:31, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * There seem to be many angles to this as we have both pointed out, but i think it is better to leave it there for the single reason that common fans may not know all the arguments hence might be confused, and having "non title fight" there will make it clearer for them.--Eidetic Man (talk) 22:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The WAMMA belt could probably overlooked at this point as it seems to be a moribund title. However, the  broader discussion about title defenses is worth forwarding.  Unlike the UFC,  other organizations co-promote and a title in, say DREAM, may be contested at a Strikeforce event.  While the promoters will make the co-promotional nature of the event clear in the marketing materials,  the wikipedia articles on title-holders/events/matches, should make the referencing easy.  In other words, wikipedia should be a "one-stop" research tool for the causal researcher.  For example, if Overeem is fighting in a mixed SF/DREAM event, it would be important to know which title is on the line (if any.)  In the case of the GP, it is not necessarily a logical assumption on behalf of the causal reader to conclude  that Overeem's SF belt won't be contested when he meets Werdum.  Therefore, it would be helpful to note that the match was a non-title bout.  To my mind, if a reader walks away from the article asking questions, the article is missing information.  Sure, he/she could go and root around on Sherdog or Bloody Elbow,  but then what is the point of this site if not to be complete?  Jackbox1971 (talk) 03:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Records should always be as formal as possible and contain only the information that is most relevant to the bout in question. Having "non-title fight" on some bouts and not on others can leave the reader questioning if the other fights are title fights by default. Also there isn't (and there can't be) a clear guideline when "non-title fight" should be added to notes and when it shouldn't be added, everyone has their own opinion about that. Simply omitting that information when a title is not on the line is the most unambiguous way of having it. Because the record table is an formal collection of data the reader is expected to know how to read it. The main text of the article is the place where more details and non-obvious data should be about the bouts.


 * By the way there is an ongoing discussion about the record tables in WT:MMA so if anyone wants to bring this up in there, I think now would be a good time for it. --Tuoppi gm (talk) 20:57, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Fedor's next fight
Fedor said he plans his next fight in summer http://twitter.com/fedoroskol that's his official twitter btw —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.92.199.244 (talk) 21:34, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't believe Twitter is a notable source when referencing material to be added to an article. However, it has been reported by MMA Junkie (which is a notable source), that Fedor is supposed to return in July to fight and is already training for a fight then, but no opponent named.  I don't currently have access to that story at the moment, but maybe someone who can look up the article on MMA Junkie would be so kind as to update this page with that information?   Dachknanddarice  ( T ‖ C ) 21:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

fedor's next fight
thats fedor's twitter account. that is FEDOR himself tweeting... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.92.199.244 (talk) 03:48, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

official twitter
Might be nice to add his official twitter account, http://twitter.com/fedoroskol, to the article.

He confirmed it was his in an interview with Ariel Helwani, before his match with Big Foot Silva. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.145.253.120 (talk) 11:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from HatchetFox, 19 June 2011
So I can fix the club affiliation part because there is a ton of unecessary space between the title and the paragraph

HatchetFox (talk) 08:01, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. &mdash; Abhishek Talk to me 16:44, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Fedor's third daughter
She's born July, 22. Her name Lisa. http://efedor.ru/news/689.html (official site in Russian) 109.184.251.133 (talk) 16:41, 22 July 2011 (UTC)AE

Pls can someone update his birth country to USSR. Ukrainian SSR isn't a country, it was a part of USSR. For every person a state is normally stated as a birth place, not a region. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepdish7 (talk • contribs) 19:42, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 75.164.34.3, 1 August 2011
75.164.34.3 (talk) 23:03, 1 August 2011 (UTC)fedor vs henerson ended in a contraversial stoppage where henderson caught fedor with an uppercut, then fell to the mat face first, and ate two shots to the back of the head while he was on all fours... the stoppage is controversial because after two taking two shots to the back of the head dean did not reach hendo yet, and only when fedor finally blocked the last two punches while henderson was in dominate position postured up in half guard fedor still was blocking punches at that point...
 * Besides your opinion, can you provide reliable sources saying that the stoppage was controversial? --TreyGeek (talk) 01:26, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Marking this as answered--until a reliable source is provided, there's nothing to change in the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:50, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Sources: Fayerman (talk) 14:18, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) http://www.mmamania.com/2011/8/1/2309767/strikeforce-results-herb-dean-responds-to-controversial-stoppage-says
 * 2) http://www.bloodyelbow.com/2011/8/1/2310580/strikeforce-results-herb-dean-controversial-fedor-emelianenko-vs-dan-henderson-stoppage-mma-news

'''This template may only be used when followed by a specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".'''


 *  Chzz  ► 19:46, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Fedor vs. Dan Henderson
The section that describes Fedor's fight with Dan Henderson is so biased it's not even funny.

"Emelianenko rolled to his back to recover guard, causing a debate between some fans as to whether the stoppage was premature or not."

Interesting. So Fedor was trying to "recover guard" by slowly rolling to his back, taking unanswered punches from Henderson who was in side control, and never raising his legs up (you know, what you have to do to actually get someone into your guard)? The reality is, Fedor never attempted to "recover guard". You can see the proof in this GIF: http://i.minus.com/il04CG.gif that Fedor was so hurt he couldn't even control his legs. He never once raises them up (again, what you would have to do to get someone into your guard). All he does is flail around. Not sure how anyone could see that and pretend that he was trying to "recover guard"!? [Here of course I fail to recognize that the referee was hovering over waving off the fight when Fedor looked up, which probably caused him to stop whatever defense he was attempting to set up. I also neglect to mention anywhere that the punches landed after the uppercut were straight to the back of the head. Finally, I admit to being severely buttsore that fans continue to stand by a fantastic fighter who is now arguably out of his prime. I will apply a cream to relieve the soreness.]

And in this GIF: http://i248.photobucket.com/albums/gg176/daveshaps/fedor464633.gif?t=1312232796 you can see how hurt and out of it Fedor was when he gets up after the fight and can barely stay standing. He's so wobbly that Herb Dean had to grab him to prevent him from falling back into the cage.

Even the announcers watching the fight said how wobbly Fedor was after the fight.

And as far as that whole "causing a debate between some fans as to whether the stoppage was premature or not" the only debate going on about the outcome of this fight is between people who live in reality and all the Fedor nuthuggers living in denial who can't accept the fact that their idol lost for the 3rd time in a row and got TKO'ed by a 40 year old, natural Middleweight.

That whole paragraph should read like this instead:

"Emelianenko faced Dan Henderson on July 30, 2011 at Strikeforce: Fedor vs. Henderson.[106][107] After a fast paced start that saw both fighters land significant strikes, Fedor knocked Henderson down with a combination of strikes. Fedor followed Henderson to the mat to follow up with GnP but Henderson was able to sweep and reverse the position before delivering a punch underneath Emelianenko's armpit which landed on Emelianenko's chin and knocked him face first into the mat. Referee Herb Dean immediately jumped in to stop the fight." 76.14.67.159 (talk) 23:53, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Even your version has much to be desired:


 * "After a fast paced start" says who? or is this unsourced commentary?
 * "follow up with GnP" improper use of an abbreviation when it should be spelt out.
 * I agree the text regarding the match has some issues and has had issues since about 5 minutes after the fight ended. Much of the current text I think is okay, but statements about a controversial should be cited or removed and whether Fedor recovering guard needs to be cited or removed.  --TreyGeek (talk) 01:17, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

"After an extremely fast-paced slugfest.."

"Emelianenko rushed forward from the opening bell, stalking his opponent in aggressive fashion. Henderson unleashed under fire, connected with a left hook and followed it with a right.."

"The men touch gloves and Fedor is swinging immediately."

How else would you describe a fight where both guys immediately started throwing punches as soon as the bell rang and they touched gloves!? Slow paced? Not even mention it?

And as far as GnP/Ground & Pound, I didn't say copy and paste what I wrote. I simply said the current paragraph should read like the one I wrote i.e. unbiased, factual and to the point as opposed to being full of fan speculation and conjecture. I didn't mean it should be exactly like the one I wrote, word for word. I didn't even add the current links to it, I just copied the current link number assigned to them. You know? 76.14.67.159 (talk) 05:17, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

The referee stopped the fight to save Henderson from future punishment. Fujita wobbled Fedor in a much bigger way than Henderson. If the ref hadn't been working for Henderson then Fedor would have been allowed to clear his head and then wipe the floor with the old man. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malau (talk • contribs) 05:49, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Fedor vs Jeff Monson 12 noviembre
http://solowrestling.com/noticia.php?10/10/10/0/20119711821/Fedor_Emelianenko_ya_tiene_rival_oficialmente — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juanxpwv (talk • contribs) 15:21, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

▶ Henderson Fight stopped from ILLEGAL BLOWS to the back of the head.
I just have to post up this small fact. Regardless what you think about the fight, it was,.. for a FACT,.. stopped from illegal blows to the back of the head.

At the least, Dan should have lost a point, at the most got a DQ.

The punches were DIRECTLY to the back of the head. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.160.197.103 (talk) 02:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

The whole thing was a complete fix. Fedor was in no worse 'trouble' than he was against Fujita (or whatever his name was). But the ref was determined to end the fight as quickly as possible to allow Henderson to 'win'. Ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malau (talk • contribs) 05:51, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 21 January 2012
Fedor should be 34-4. He has a win over Bobby Hoffman people keep taking off because other websites do not show it. Other websites showing it is not the standard, RINGS gave him the win, so he has it, period. Video proof: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jY2OT2O5Nco You can't just ignore reality because sherdog doesn't have it on there and you can't just disrespect RINGS' decision just because someone doesn't like it.

69.23.62.243 (talk) 06:33, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * ❌, youtube is not a reliable source-- Jac 16888 Talk 14:36, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Is this a joke? A video of him being declared the winner from RINGS isn't reliable? This site is the one that isn't reliable and is illogical. There is no better proof that he was declared the winner of this fight then the video of him being declared the winner of the fight. Who is running this page? a 2 year old? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.23.62.243 (talk) 03:03, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. That just seems bizarre. Is there some thought that the youtube footage is altered? The Hoffman victory was a technical victory just as Fedor loss to Kohsaka is a technical loss. And if you DON'T want to accept the Hoffman victory, then you should remove the Sobral victory, too, as it was during the same tournament. Jackbox1971 (talk) 03:04, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia policies are such that YouTube is not a reliable source. As it is, video of a fight result announcement is not always an accurate representation of the final result.  There have been a number of occasions where the ring announcer does not call the correct results or the results have changed afterwards by the governing body or promoter.  --TreyGeek (talk) 03:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Cite note #39
... is broken. ♪ anonim.one ♪ 08:39, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Why is it mentioned that Fujita is an IWGP Heavyweight champion? What do fake soap opera wrestling credentials have to do with MMA?

Kevin Randalman is not Japanese
He's from the USA. Can someone please fix that? --Ilias Of Nikos Iliadis (talk) 19:52, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 2 August 2012
The flag of Kevin Randalman must be changed from Japan to the USA.

Ilias Of Nikos Iliadis (talk) 22:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes check.svg Done RudolfRed (talk) 02:03, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

"Plans to begin a career in MMA in 2010"
a) 2010 is no longer in the future b) he's a retired fighter. Perhaps something more along the lines of "had an MMA career that began in 2010"(although, considering he was in Pride, that was around in 2006, which is something of an MMA promotion, this, too, is chronologically inaccurate). Perhaps what was meant was "a career in the UFC in 2010"? Can someone please fix this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.42.12.126 (talk) 16:56, 4 August 2012 (UTC)