Talk:Boxing career of Muhammad Ali

Titles in boxing & accolades

DonFB, Mac Dreamstate, Lindenfall: Could you guys take a look at the "Titles in boxing" and "Accolades" section of this article. I tried to sort the various awards and accolades into subsections. I wanted to see if there was any error in my sort. The new subsections are based on Boxing career of Manny Pacquiao § Titles in boxing. Thanks. Mitchumch (talk) 01:37, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

It's a beautiful thing you've done here, @Mitchumch:. I detected no issues on those sections at first look, and just added a little to the Main Bout section. Well done! Lindenfall (talk) 17:21, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• 1970 Cassius Clay vs. Rocky Marciano Chicago-Tribune Poster.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:22, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Amateur boxing record

Perhaps his amateur boxing career should be included into the article as a subsection. His amateur record was 178-2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.174.71.134 (talk) 16:33, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Flagicons

Adding flagicons for all fighters besides one that has a dispute shows a complete lack of consistency within an article. Either all should have flagicons or none. Looks amateurish and unprofessional with no consistency.CaPslOcksBroKEn (talk) 22:37, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

This not only destroys all consistency within it's own record, but it also creates a complete lack of consistency for other articles with opponents on records of unknown origin or debated country of origin.CaPslOcksBroKEn (talk) 22:42, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

I completely disagree. Removing legitimate information from the article because it does not meet your sense of aesthetics is "amateurish and unprofessional". Are you doing the same thing to other articles? SaltySaltyTears (talk) 22:48, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

I suggest we do as is the practice in records books: when there is an unusual instance in the data, they put an asterisk next to it, and explain the situation at the bottom of the page. We can do the same thing, using a footnote. SaltySaltyTears (talk) 22:55, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Inclusion in Category:BBC Sports Personality World Sport Star of the Year winners

I am not sure this article should be included in Category:BBC Sports Personality World Sport Star of the Year winners. The main Muhammad Ali article is included in the category and all of the other entries in the category are articles about individual winners of the BBC Sports Personality World Sport Star of the Year - (formerly known as "BBC Sports Personality of the Year Overseas Personality") rather than articles about their careers. For instance the Roger Federer article is in the category, List of career achievements by Roger Federer is not despite mentioning his record four wins of the award. I would therefore suggest taking the article out of the category. Dunarc (talk) 23:43, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I have removed the article from the category now as I don't think it belongs in it for the reasons above. However if anyone objects I am happy to discuss it further. Dunarc (talk) 21:11, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Birth date/passing away date?

Just wondering why it's not listed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.111.96.140 (talk) 19:30, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Worldwide viewership

This fascination with worldwide viewership needs to be regulated. Worldwide TV numbers is a very big and also very difficult and complicated topic to just cite anything that's even remotely a thing. On List of most-watched television broadcasts a lot of the information was deleted because of how oftern sources cited were questionable to say nicely.

Sources that fall under these criteria should be fine:

• qualifies as a reliable source
• news, sports (boxing is not excluded), business or generalist-oriented

We can't just cite any book or news in a newspaper that was written or any website, even a highly popular one. Topsport is a very popular website in Bulgaria but hardly a nationally authoritative news source. Nevada Magazine is a small local newspaper. I'm not even going to talk about boxing and combat sports websites, they should be out of the equation unless it's on the level of Sky Sports or BT Sport. The source for Ali vs. Frazier II doesn't even say anything about 200 million viewers. Kacza195 (talk) 12:17, 10 September 2022 (UTC); updated 20:31, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

I should also add that "having an audience of" and "being watched by" are not the same thing. "Having an audience" can also mean the amount of viewers that are covered by the fight's broadcasters AKA the total amount of viewers that are able to watch the fight at home through a legal broadcaster, among many things. A source that mostly mentions "having an audience of" should be backed by a source that states "being watched by". Kacza195 (talk) 12:02, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

I see why you removed the DAZN reference, but Jet magazine and National Geographic are generally considered reliable. Did you have any specific concern about them?

I agree with your recent edits on the Klitschko articles. Despite the sources, those numbers seem dubious.--Jahalive (talk) 22:00, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Here is the thing: in my opinion, all those worldwide viewership numbers are extremely dubious. I actually believe Ali's TV numbers are by far more laughable than Klitschkos': the world's population at the time was around 4 billion people, and I don't believe one second that 25% (!!!) of the world watched 1 full minute of the fight, the world with much lower TV access at the time (especially in poor regions like Asia and Africa, the two continents far more populated than Europe and North America) and 24 time zones. No. FIFA World Cup and the Olympics are worldwide spectacles either a) with rich history b) covering the undisputed champion of sports in terms of popularity, and they couldn't reach those numbers. But, at the end of the day it's just my personal opinion, and removing all worldwide numbers just because I don't like it is not a proper way to edit Wikipedia articles. But at the very least we should narrow down sources to only those that are deemed reliable. No topsport.bg, no forgettable kickboxing magazines, no sources with a clear bias, no questionable sources created by God knows who. Unless you get a confirmation that the source is reliable. Regarding Jet - I don't know anything about it, don't know whether it can be deemed reliable. If it is, I'll reinstate it. National Geographic was removed by an accident, I'll reinstate it. Kacza195 (talk) 19:50, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

If an editor doesn't know much about a source it's a good idea to do some research before removing it due to it being unreliable.

Here is an article about the history of Jet magazine: News Moves So Quick: History of JET Magazine It's not the New York Times, but I think we can use it.

It does seem likely that the numbers for Ali's fights are inflated. Compared to the Klitschko's, it depends what you mean by laughable. Outside of Central and Eastern Europe I think the audience for Vitali vs. Chisora was tiny. Wlad's fight with Haye probably had a bit bigger audience worldwide, but nowhere near 500,000,000. The only country where Ali's big fights were on terrestrial TV that we have strong sources for the viewing numbers is the UK. Almost 50% of the population watched. If you extrapolate that you get huge numbers.--Jahalive (talk) 18:50, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

@Jahalive that's the thing though, you can't just assume viewership numbers based on two or three countries with a total population of 360 million (out of a 4 billion world). Different cultures, different time zones, different TV accessibility etc. Ali's fights were probably big in the Western World, but that doesn't have to say anything about the rest of the world. I agree that Vitali vs Chisora could not draw 500 million viewers worldwide. FIFA WC bigger quarterfinals drew those numbers (maybe not actually, FIFA likes to inflate its viewership numbers as well), and I don't believe this fight was nearly as big. Not even close. 100-200 million could be plausible (with cca 19-20 million total viewers in Germany, 15-20 million in Ukraine and cca 6-7 million in Poland I could see that happening; but again, that's just an assumption that doesn't have to correct at all. The fight may have drawn squat outside of those three countries), but that is still far below the magical 0.5 billion. I overall consider Klitschkos' numbers less laughable because that's still barely 7% of the entire world with a much higher TV accessibility, which seems to me more reasonable (but still clearly exaggerated) than every fourth existing person in the world in the 1970s. That being said, there are reliable sources that say otherwise, their information has a much bigger weight than my biases and beliefs, so maybe Ali's fights indeed reached 1 billion viewers.

As for Jet magazine, seems like a reliable source, I shouldn't have deleted it. I'll reinstate it. Kacza195 (talk) 15:36, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

No losses?

Why does it say that his boxing record is 61 wins and 0 losses? 24.206.160.54 (talk) 05:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Record incorrect

Ali lost to Frazier, Norton and Leon Spinks. Someone messed with this and made him undefeated, can we get this fixed? 142.56.49.165 (talk) 16:21, 17 December 2024 (UTC)