Talk:Anderson Silva

Firstly, please don't violate TOS on here. I already had to change the Picture section because of this. Secondly try to keep your posts here in the relevant sections, there are plenty of them already! If you need to revise the title of a section, but please don't make sections called "change" or "expansion" (which i left for nostalgia's sake). Floodo1 (talk) 08:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Im not that huge of a Silva fan, but I am a fan of Chute Box, and he is a former Chute Box member. After tonight I think he deserves a better wikipedia article so Im gonna give him a mma record box and a picture. If you can make at least part of the names of that table links do so, if it is red and you cannot make it a link then either write and article or ill write one later, but I left certain things red, because although they do not have an article I know enough to write one about the things in red -IvanSanchez716

I would love to see some basic info about Silva's life included in the biography, the article should at least include the city he was born in if someone can find it. There's nothing about Silva's early years besides his MMA training in the article whatsoever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.116.119.191 (talk) 20:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

• EDIT- this was formerly listed under "MMA Record", now cleaned up-

Someone delted the mma record table I set, that is completely absurd, that record could be verified by UFC.com and Sherdog.com as well as prides website. It was completely accurate and took a lot of time to make. I consider this vandalism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by IvanSanchez716 (talk • contribs) .

In this case, I think it was accidental, but whether it was or not, feel free to revert when something like that happens. Also, in the future sign your messages on talk pages by putting four tildes (~) at the end of it. SubSeven 02:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

• END EDIT Floodo1 (talk) 08:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

No, is not redundant because facilitate to read wins and losses by type and show total of matches. Please do not remove until to have a better way to show these infos. Carlosguitar 16:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Please do not add it unless there is a need for it. Win-loss is already listed in the infobox in a tabular format and this solution to a nonexistant problem is a clunky eyesore. If you want to add how many matches they have total, then put it on a single line along with the win-loss summary on top of the records table. hateless 17:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Losses is not listed by type, wins do not cite by decision in infobox. The table is more clean and easy than a single line — like ?? Wins (?? (T)KO, ?? Decision ?? Submission) ?? Losses (?? (T)KO, ?? Decision ?? Submission) ? Draw ? No Content — is used in record table.

It is not a solution of a problem but a clean up that facilitate to read the current information. Carlosguitar 17:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

And in the meantime there's a giant block of whitespace to the right which serves no purpose other than to accomodate a square little table, a table that doesn't even list totals wins or losses. Have you considered that your table isn't very good in the first place? Here's a thought: why not propose to alter the infobox to suit your purposes instead of creating a second new table with incrementally more information? Or better yet, why not question the need to present extra information in the first place? Have you heard of information pollution? This table is an example of something that adds more information without adding more comprehension-a badly designed table that does not really show any real relationships between wins and losses (is wins from knockouts connected with losses from knockouts? if not, why are they placed next to each other?) and presents information in a not-easily digestable way (why is 1/2 the table on the left side totally blank save for a total count?). There's already plenty of bad graphic design on WP, I'm not one to let more slip by on my watch. I don't believe you really didn't think this through – you really shouldn't expect you can unilaterally change the format of the MMA bios in WP and not expect resistance. And please don't revert changes while they're in discussion. hateless 18:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

This edit warring should stop, now. You both appear to have good intentions, and should think about that in relation to each other - hateless, ever heard of assume good faith? Carlosguitar's box adds useful information to the article, although it should be better - the total wins and losses are an example. As for how good the tables look, to me Carlos' is better, since the original has huge areas of grey space to the right when the notes are not used, and the smaller format in Carlos' edit makes both tables more aesthetically pleasing. Ideally, all this info would be merged into the same table, but if that is too difficult, Carlos' revision should stand and be built on to include information that he misses out. Both of you are in danger of 3RR, work together to make this infobox and article better. Chrisfow 19:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

If you notice, Chris, I did not attack Carlos personally and I never questioned his intention of improving the encyclopedia. However, his edits are open to criticism, just like anyone elses. I know WP:3RR, I know WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL and I never had any intention of crossing the lines. But a bedrock principle of WP is consensus-forming, and when Carlosguitar decides to alter several pages using a format I feel is a detriment to the quality of the articles, I believe I have a right to protest. As for his changes to the records table, I have no problem with it, my issue is the box. As for consensus, I posed several questions to Carlos, if he would like to answer them then that may be the first steps toward it. As for the idea that more information is always better, I challenge that, and will do it vigorously. hateless 20:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

I did notice that hateless, it was your tone about his edits rather than any personal attacks which did not sound like they were made in good faith. I also disagree strongly with reverting or major edits during discussion, and have made that clear to Carlos. However, I would say that what he is aiming to do is of use. Descibing how the wins/draws/losses came about is a legitimate thing for this article and others like it to be doing. It is not information overload, if such a thing can exist on Wikipedia (see Jimbo's comments about "the sum of all human knowledge" etc. etc. etc.), but interesting information which rightly belongs in a martial arts article. I urge Carlos to put his case forward if he still feels the same, else we can forget this before it becomes WP:HORSEMEAT. Chrisfow

• why not propose to alter the infobox to suit your purposes instead of creating a second new table with incrementally more information?

I did. Why you did not it instead of reverting my good faith edit? Improve my edits do not revert! You did a bad thing reverting my whole edit.

• Or better yet, why not question the need to present extra information in the first place? Have you heard of information pollution?

You contradict yourself. You readded same info that are complaint now.[1] Instead of erasing it. It is show that these info are useful, but you just disagree with table aesthetically.

• This table is an example of something that adds more information without adding more comprehension-a badly designed table

Help to improve. Lot of things in wikipedia rise ugly, until get strong.

Is it better? If not, please improve it, this table is useful for Mirko Cro Cop and other fighters that cannot be mixed matches from others tournaments on infobox. Another thing Hateless, readd my edits in the MMA record table that you removed and agree that there is no problem on that. Carlosguitar 03:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Again, like I said, the table is itself the problem. These are my issues with it:

• Adds unnecessary white space, which also gives it undue emphasis. (Adding color doesn't help at all, it adds even more emphasis)
• Emphasizes information that does not accurately convey the quality of a fighter (Win-loss is ok in parentheses after a fighter's name in prose because of limited space, in the context of a fighting record it should get second billing)
• Implies relationships which may or may not be real (ie, wins by submissions next to losses by submission)
• Creates more elaborate markup (newbie-unfriendly wikitable code) when not necessary: a simple line of text conveys the same information with more efficient use of space.

On top of that, I doubt the necessity of including constantly changing statistics in Wikipedia in general, so while I'm resistant to the idea, I'm a bit more open to adding more info but only if it is justified. The edit you were talking about was a revert to an older version, which I did because there was no consensus to remove that data in the first place. You see, consensus is an important thing here, its useful to get discussion on a change, especially one that can potentially change a hundred or so pages. hateless 21:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

So, what will you do to improve the table your disagreement? I already said why this table is necessary to articles like Mirko Cro Cop.

which I did because there was no consensus to remove that data in the first place.

I never removed any data, I did a clean up. Why are you not understand it?

No, you have no right to revert whole edit of someone because of a minor thing that you disliked, except in vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our neutral point of view. You did a mistake. Carlosguitar 01:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

I see the following in the opening paragraph "He is also the current Cage Rage World Middleweight champion, the longest-reigning champion in that promotion."

Anderson hasn't fought in Cage Rage in a year and is under contract to the UFC. How can he be the Cage Rage World Middleweight champion? Bbagot 07:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

ANSWER: he never lost the belt, he never lost his Shooto belt either. <-- originally unsigned

A rock-solid source needs to be found for this; Sherdog and PRIDE list him at 5'11", FCFighter at 6', and UFC at 6'2". east.718 03:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

On his official site (not sure if it is updated) shows 5'11.[2] I'm going to post it up as that. *the same with his weight. --ShadowSlave 04:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Guess I found a more frequently updated source, UFC (should have went here earlier -.-). Link is here: http://www.ufc.com/index.cfm?fa=fighter.detail&pid=440 -- --ShadowSlave 12:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

"Frequently updated?" It's his height, it should never be changing. east.718 at 07:46, August 14, 2007

His height is without a doubt 6'2 <-- originally unsigned

Yes, UFC 82 and 90 both cite 6'2, and he visually looks the size :) Floodo1 (talk) 20:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

I thought I remember hearing on Countdown to UFC 77 that Anderson has a black belt in Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu, Muay Thai, and Tae Kwon Do, but only the former is mentioned in this article. Anyone know if he really does have these other two black belts? – kentyman 21:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

To my knowledge, there are no black belts in Muay Thai. east.718 at 22:38, 10/18/2007

Come to think of it, I think you're right. What about his Tae Kwon Do history? – kentyman 19:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

I also came here just to see if he really had a black belt in Tae Kwon Do. -CKL121.131.213.155 (talk) 14:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

     Im new to editing, but i noticed that under black belts it said "He also has a black belt in fried chicken." I assumed that was not the case and deleted it. Xtraudinair (talk) 17:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

I don't think there's real concrete evidence that he has a black belt in Tae Kwon Do, or Judo because it's not mentioned by commentators, followers of the sport, the UFC website, Anderson Silva's website, or by people within the company. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.254.123.127 (talk) 14:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

The sources are in the article. So you "don't think" and go deleting everything without any knowledge? This is wrong. He has 4 black belts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodriguerus (talk • contribs) 20:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Silva has been doing tae kwon do since he was 14, im pretty sure he has a black belt... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.79.200.71 (talk) 01:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

In the summary as well as the win/loss column it says that Anderson won the "PRIDE FC" MW championship after beating Dan Henderson. I don't see how this is possible as PRIDE FC is long defunct, if anything he may have won a PRIDE World Wide (Zuffa) championsip, but that seems unlikely as well. I believe the event was only marketed as champion vs champion, Anderson didn't ACTUALLY win -any- PRIDE title, only another UFC title. Correct me if I'm wrong here. MMAnzi (talk) 03:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Might need re-phrasing, UFC newsletter & site says he unified the titles --Nate1481(^t/_c) 10:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

he unified the titles. therefore he is the unified MW champ of the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.169.34.7 (talk) 20:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

All PRIDE belts, except Heavyweight, have now been unified with the UFC belts for corresponding weight classes. Floodo1 (talk) 10:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

I don't agree with J18lee's edits, the argument that "You cannot take a fighter's personal account over an impartial respected source - boxrec" is undermined when the bout is listed as unverified and the site has a disclaimer that reads, "this data may be incomplete and/or inaccurate". Still, I don't know where the controversy is exactly... I've seen this Sherdog thread and there is some reasonable doubt suggested in the thread over boxrec's records. Where does Silva dispute his boxing record on boxrec? hateless 21:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

This isn't really an issue of agreeing or not agreeing. His boxing record is properly and reliably sourced to boxrec.com, which shows 2 fights (including him being knocked out in his debut in 1998). There is no reliable source (or any source at all) suggesting anything to the contrary. Reliably sourced >>>> speculation and conjecture, so J18lee's edits should be reverted immediately. Gromlakh (talk) 23:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

My faith in the reliability of databases like boxrec (and that includes Sherdog as well) is obviously nowhere as strong as yours. Still, it does appear boxrec is the strongest source available now, and the article should mention the 1996 fight, but I don't think boxrec is the final word on the matter. hateless 03:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I don't know that I would say that I have faith in them, it's just that they're generally reliable sources. In this particular case, it's a generally reliable source versus...well, nothing really. Mainly a bunch of anonymous IP editors who say (with no support of any kind) that the '98 fight isn't really him. If there was at least something else reliable out there that called into question the boxrec.com stats, I could at least understand that. If we had that, we could edit the page to reflect the fact that there's a dispute over his boxing record and neutrally show both sides. But when the page is being changed to say that he debuted in '05, sourced to a page that says he debuted in '98...clearly there's a problem. The page should reflect the information gleaned from the available reliable sources, and if more reliable sources emerge the page could be edited to reflect the new information. Gromlakh (talk) 03:11, 18 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

That is exactly what I'm saying (boxrec is better than nothing at all). It's the most reliable information we have. We should not choose no source over a less reliable source.J18lee (talk) 23:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Whoops! Sorry, I thought you were the one that kept removing the earlier fight. I stand corrected and have struck out that part of my earlier comment. I support your edits. Gromlakh (talk) 00:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

boxrec recently added the bout and it is a mistake. there must be some anderson silva haters editing these posts and claiming "he got knocked out in his pro debut" even if boxrec is accurate it is labeled a TKO. seems like there's been a surge of people trying to promote this loss ever since anderson called out roy jones even though anderson's pro boxing record is 1-0.

this pic was posted on boxrec and labeled "MMA Star Anderson Silva's Pro Boxing Debut" year listed as 2005.
http://www.boxrec.com/media/images/3/34/92650119720058815825_anderson.jpg <--bad link ... new link --> http://www.boxrec.com/media/index.php/Human:325793. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.168.34.7 (talk) 02:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Can someone please confirm and possibly add Silva's reach to this page, as I believe it is a very vital bit of information that is missing. If I recall correctly from his last fight it is 76". Just a small part of his success in the UFC. 68.143.90.26 (talk) 11:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

UFC 90 lists him as 6'2" 77.5" reach. I thought I may have seen him listed as 78" on another fight, but 77.5" for sure. Floodo1 (talk) 10:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Apparently UFC 82 lists him as 77.5" reach as well, at least according to Bad Intentionz (talk) and his edit of the main page to include a ref on the reach stat. Floodo1 (talk) 20:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Some users have complained that the picture is a bit too humorous for the article (though they did it in a horrible way that violates ToS) Floodo1 (talk) 18:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

The fight details in this article appear to be somewhat inaccurate. First of all, Griffin never lost consciousness. In fact, some have debated whether or not the KO was legitimate based on the fact that it came from what seemed like a fall away jab. Once Griffin was hit, he fell to the ground and almost seemed to tap out while covering his face. Many felt this was strange coming from Griffin who before this fight, had a reputation as one of the toughest fighters in the UFC with regard to taking punishment. The conspiracy theorists claim that because this fight came so soon after Dana White failed to sign Fedor Emelianenko, he wanted to ensure that Anderson Silva (being arguably the UFC's main attraction) maintained his mystique. “I love Forrest Griffin but this is one of the most embarrassing knockouts we’ve ever seen,” said analyst Joe Rogan. The KO punch has been taken down from most sites but can still be seen in this grainy video taken from a cell phone camera viewing the replay on TV (strong language in backround): ^[1] Socalyard (talk) 02:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Rich Franklin recently lost to Dan Henderson, just adjusted the Silva and Machida being the only to beat him —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.29.12.66 (talk) 17:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Stuff like that needs constant updating and is something we should avoid IMO, so I removed it. --aktsu ^(t / c) 12:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

• EDIT- this used to be under a heading 'outcome of lutter fight', now cleaned

According to the Nevada State Athletic Commission the fight was ruled a submission due to a triangle choke. Also, according to Travis Lutter in an interview conducted with NBC sports he tapped out due to the choke, not the elbows. You can read the NSAC results at http://boxing.nv.gov/2007%20Results/02-03-07%20MMA.pdf and the interview at http://www.nbcsports.com/ufc/1010414/detail.html

• END EDIT Floodo1 (talk) 08:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

No problem with that, though there's nothing wrong with mentioning the elbows as well. --aktsu ^(t / c) 12:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

I just watched Pride Fighting "Decade" show (which I believe was made by Jerry Millen after Pride was sold to the UFC (believe he said this in one of the Fedor/M-1 Global shows made before the Fedor v Arlovski fight)) and in it they chronicle the fight between Anderson and Ryo Chonan. Here is a transcription that I made of Matt Hume & Josh Barnett commenting on the fight:

"The greatest underdog victory in pride, that sticks to my mind right off the bat, is . Anderson silva was the middleweight Shooto champion before moving into pride, he had a really strong record in pride, and now he is a champion in the cage. He was peppering and tearing Chonan apart, I mean he wasn't brutalizing him but there was no way Chonan was ever in that fight at any point in time."

--Matt Hume - Pride Rules Director and Judge (official title within the video)

"He was falling behind, he was gettin tagged, his was, his offense was pretty much, it was null, it didnt really ccount for hardly anything....out of no where the guy goes and throws a flying leg scissor into a heel-hook... And if I hadn't of seen it myself, i mean im sitting there ringside and I'm watching him go for it and im thinking 'nah that'll...' and i just sat there stunned....and i just flew up out of my seat and went crazy...i lost my mind, just out of nowhere he pulls off some move that i mean I could probably count on one hand the number of times I've ever seen it really work, or you know, utilized effectectively in mma, and he goes and takes out a guy like anderson silva with it, instantly. What a come from behind!"

--Josh Barnett

I'm not quite sure what policy is, but both of these guys where first hand "expert" witnesses. It seems that their account and characterizations of the fight should be included, as the primary reference, as opposed to the completely different account in the article now. The article now doesn't really cover the "underdog" or "come from behind" nature of Chonan's victory. Floodo1 (talk) 05:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

In his interview with Brazilian TV he said something to the effect that his time was past. However his manager has clarified that he will fight at least until the end of his contract, which had 6 fights left on it prior to the Cote fight (references are cited in the article itself). In order to retire in 2009 he would have to fight 5 times during that year. Typically UFC champions fight 3 times per year (unrefernced Dana White quote), which would mean that he would fight into 2010 (3 fights in 2009 would leave 2 fights for 2010). Floodo1 (talk) 08:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Someone has asked that this section be cleaned up. I have gone back and began making style changes to make the section uniform and to clarify things. Some details are still missing, like at what time during each round that he won, or wiki-linking to relevant articles. If there is any discussion of the changes please do so in this section. Floodo1 (talk) 08:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

The fights against Irvin and Griffin are listed under "Defending the Belt". Since these were light-heavyweight fights he obviously wasn't defending his middleweight belt. Perhaps a new section should be created for his "Light-Heavyweight Bouts"? Hellpimp (talk) 18:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Nate1481 12:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

This section needs references. Personally I feel it's accurate but being un-sourced is a big problem. Floodo1 (talk) 18:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Im willing to help make the fighting style section. Portillo (talk) 03:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

I edited the article to change the name used in the lead sentence from "Anderson Da Silva" to "Anderson Silva", assuming that the name "Anderson Da Silva" was a typo. Then I did some internet research, and it seems that, according to some sources, his birth name is "Anderson da Silva":

However, his official website doesn't have any mention of the name "Anderson da Silva" in the Profile section:

Can anyone find a good reference for his birth name? If it turns out to be "Anderson da Silva", then I think the article should have a note indicating that he's known under two names.

WatchAndObserve (talk) 23:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

His full name at birth is given as such according to brazilian brith records: Anderson De Souza Da Cunda Da Silva Dos Santos. In saying that it should be noted that traditionally , portuguesse names have 5 parts, your father, your town, your regions, your grandmother, and you. Anderson, which in portuguesse basically means son of Anders, which is a refrence to a missionary in lisbon (very common portuguesse/brazilian name) De souza, is of the Souzas, which basically means of brazil, not of castillian spain/portugal (representing his maternal heritage) da silva, basically of the silvinhos, which means mean of the work back in 16,17th century colonial brazil and latin south america, representing that his fathers patriarchy comes from europe, or the indes slave trade basically, da cunda, sometimes da cunha, is the region in brazil, i beilieve he was born in Curitiba. and dos santos basically denotes his mother/fathers/heritages faith, Dos santos means, of the son, or of the saints, basically stating that his relatives at some point became Christians or Catholics. Its funny to note other portuguesse brazilian names and monikers are usually far from the birth name given or a very simple romanized version of the full name, other notable Examples would be Cristiano Reagano Dos Santos Aviero Funchal, shortened to whom we know as Cristiano Ronaldo of real madrid, or perhaps Diego da souza lietes goncalvez, whom was renamed by his town, Renatinho, because there were already 4 diegos in his school class. Worth mentioning that your community has much a riot to dub thee as your parents do in brazil. another great example is Kaka, whom was born Ricardo Izecson dos Santos Leite, kaka is the brazilian equivalent to Dick, and he follows the likes of Ronaldinho, Ronaldo gordo, and Cousanni as brazilians whom pay taxes under these public monikers instead of their true legal names. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.151.25.19 (talk) 00:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Get some citations or take this sh*t down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.179.68.217 (talk) 21:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

The idiot at 65.32.47.129 is actually sending me abusive messages because I keep reverting his changes. What a douche. Jdsouza (talk) 21:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

I am going ahead and deleting this from the MMA record. Until there is an official announcement by the UFC and a date set up, it is just speculation. Physcher (talk) 12:06, 29 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

In early September 2009, it was reported that Anderson Silva would undergo elbow surgery and would not fight again until 2010.

Someone included this line into the biography, think it should stay? Seems like a case of WP:RECENT to me. Quick thoughts? Jonhan (talk) 04:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)Reply