Talk:Tim Sylvia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Sports and games work group.


Image:UffiziFlorenceWrestlers small.jpg This article is part of WikiProject Mixed martial arts, an attempt to better organise and unify articles relating to mixed martial arts concepts, events, and biographies. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

What about Tim's charity work? like his appearance at Quad Cities Dancing with the Celebrities event 2007 fundraiser www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsup0TY50ZQ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbisram (talk • contribs) 23:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


Contents

[edit] Locked?

Anybody know why this article is "locked"? Because of guys like the user posting underneath?

[edit] UFC 68

He's probably gonna win against Couture, but CroCop is going to murder his boring decision victory ass. I hate Tim.

[edit] Height

6' 10" or 6' 8"??? UFC.tv says 6' 10" but many other sources say 6' 8". Jason Quinn 15:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Height

Tim is 6'8"

as per Sherdog and his own website.

The UFC has both his height AND professional record wrong. Wiki did too, but that has been amended Bold text


[edit] Steroids

Why isnt this in his article? why hasnt anyone mentioned it? I have my biases against Sylvia, I think he was a paper champion. But regardless of that bias, the fact that he tested positive for steroids should be mentioned in his wiki.

After his Win over Gan Mcgee, he tested positive for steroids and was stripped of his belt. His next fight, after a four month suspension, was the highlight producing loss to Frank Mir where Mir broke Sylvia's arm in the first round.

[edit] Commentary on fights

Since this is an encyclopedia, we shouldn't provide commentary on fights; we should only report outcomes or specific actions. For example, "Tim Sylvia was knocked down eight seconds into the first round", would be appropriate, but "Tim Sylvia was dominated" would not be. It should be left to the reader to come to their own interpretation of what the unanimous decision and the fact that a fighter lost all five rounds on the scorecard means. We don't need to say more than that. Sancho (talk) 16:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Agreed, unless we have a reliable source saying he was dominated, and cite it appropriately. VegaDark 21:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I have reverted the page back to some changes I made: I belive they are "encyclopedic", but will not take issue with, say, Sancho or VegaDark removing them. I do, however, request that the protection stay for the time being, at least until his next fight. Perhaps a "return to form" would silence his critics, although I can't help but think much of the recent vandalism debacle was from Tim's misfortune to be matched against one of the most-popular fighters in the UFC. It seems to me like people are so happy Randy won(and so disappointed with Tim's last few matches and some of his out of the ring behavior) that they're being, even for MMA fans with computers, exceptionally petty.DiScOrD tHe LuNaTiC 16:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I'll just give some specific examples of phrases that I think aren't appropriate without a reference: "Sylvia would go on to dominate Ricco Rodriguez", "another quick victory over", "In a fight that only lasted :47 seconds", "knocked to the ground by a heavy overhand right", "Knowing he had no way out of the hold and presumably not wanting a replay of his last UFC fight, Sylvia quickly tapped out, but was visibly angered afterwards" (emphasis added). The last sentence is completely speculative about the state of mind of Tim at the time of the tap-out. One other: "Sylvia fought cautiously, seemingly preferring to work towards a decision rather than risk being taken to the ground. The one time Sylvia was taken down and forced to fight from the guard for any amount of time he held Monson in his guard well" (emphasis added). I won't remove these without some discussion first. My mind can be changed. What do you think about these phrases? I think that these phrases subtlety change the tone of the article, injecting a point of view that is barely noticed, but may stick with a reader. Sancho (talk) 18:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Oh, and another editor removed the protection tag because the page wasn't actually protected. Adding the tag doesn't give protection; there's a page that you need to go to in order to request protection (Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection). I don't believe that an administrator will grant protection though for this page. I've requested protection for pages with much worse frequency of vandalism than this page suffers and didn't have it granted. One admin said that his threshold is about 15 vandalisms per hour... so we're a ways off :-) Sancho (talk) 18:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Hey, Sanch. I tend to agree with much of what you said. "Dominate" isn't neutral, nor was the "heavy overhand right...Knowing..." section. I have to remember to watch my adjectives. I admit that the whole "presumably" bit might have been a bit overdone(I'd just watched the Sylvia/Mir fight the day before, and I have to say that had I been the recipient of a broken bone, I'd make sure to tap out if caught in a situation like that again - but I digress and ramble, sorry) I did leave in the "visibly angered" bit, because it's clear from the footage that he was angry. I changed most of the Monson descrip, as well as some in the Arlovski section.DiScOrD tHe LuNaTiC 16:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Discord, I personally agree that your commentary is true, but that is not enough for inclusion- content that Sanchom mentions above is inappropriate unless we have a reliable source to cite which specifically uses those words to describe his performance (which I really don't think would be too hard to find, if someone wants to go looking). VegaDark 06:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
    • The changes that you did make were a nice improvement to the article. Thanks for re-wording things. Sancho (talk) 14:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sylvia Defecating Himself

Sylvia was ill with the flu and defecated himself during the Assuerio Silva fight which was visible when his trunks were partially pulled down. Since then, major organizations are moving towards explicitly disqualifing a fighter or ruling the fight a no contest if a fighter defecates or urinates himself during the match. Defecation or urination proposes an unfair advantage as the opponent, especially grapplers, would have to put up with foul and unsanitary conditions. Fans of the mma community refer to this as the "Tim Sylvia Rule." The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.151.73.171 (talk) 14:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC).

Do you have proof that that rule was instated due to Tim Sylvia's Performance against Silva??? Takedashingen620

I don't have a problem with this info's inclusion since we have a reliable source that supports it, at least for the defecating himself part. We will need another reliable source saying organizations are deciding this because of this fight, however, to include that part. VegaDark 20:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok I'm fine with that then, so we can add the defecating part but leave out that a rule was instated Supposedly due to this fight unless reliable resources are found. Takedashingen620
I agree with Takedashingen620 that this incident didn't affect the result of the fight, however, so I could see moving this piece of information to a different section of the page if you think that would be better. VegaDark 00:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Adding right in that paragraph is fine as it is an interesting piece of information to the fight. Not everyday that a fighter defecates himself, in fact he might be the first MMA fighter to do so. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.244.187.5 (talk • contribs).
Kevin Randleman was the true innovator. He did it first at UFC 35. --SubSeven 02:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Yea, but Randleman's was not visible to the audience, where as Sylvia's brown/orange/yellow spot was visible to both the live audience and millions on tv.
So why does the Assueria fight currently have a result of "NC" on Sylvia's wikipedia article? According to Sherdog and the UFC website it is still a win by decision for Sylvia. Vandalism? I'm changing it back unless someone provides a reference.Hexrei 19:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd worry less about humiliating him and try to expand on some of the other parts that are a bit thin. Thesaddestday 05:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Coming back October?

Just wanted to point out, there is no confirmation that Tim Sylvia is returning to MMA in October, he is simply hoping that we can fight in October. Please discuss and change accordingly (didn't want to change it right now). --ShadowSlave 01:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Autographs

Tim Sylvia *IS* selling autographs to fans for $20 on his website. I provided a link to his website, where this is clearly stated. How does this constitute vandalism and defamation? How can I DEFAME Tim Sylvia by linking to his website and stating a fact that is clearly supported there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.213.166.53 (talk) 05:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

You added the following:
Despite having been the UFC heavyweight champion and earning six-figures per fight, Tim Sylvia is always seeking new revenue sources, and charges fans $20 for autographs by mail at his personal website
The most neutral way to include this information would be to plainly state: "Tim Sylvia provides autographed photos for $20". However, this would be giving undue weight to a fact that isn't covered in any significance by any source at all other than the subject's own website. I don't think this should be added to the article. It isn't something that one would find in a featured article. (I moved your new comment to the bottom of the talk page... this is where new comments go. Also, sign your contributions to talk pages by using four tildes: ~~~~.) Sancho 05:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please discuss

I removed this information again. You re-instated it without discussing (in another form). My objection to it is that it is a minor detail that is being given undue weight by having any mention in this article. It is not something that an encyclopedia should include and it would not be something found in a featured article. Sancho 14:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)