This article must adhere to thebiographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced orpoorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentiallylibellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue tothis noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please seethis help page.
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited tojoin the project andcontribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to thedocumentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Boxing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofBoxing on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.BoxingWikipedia:WikiProject BoxingTemplate:WikiProject BoxingBoxing
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofJapan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like toparticipate, please visit theproject page, where you can join the project, participate inrelevant discussions, and seelists of open tasks.JapanWikipedia:WikiProject JapanTemplate:WikiProject JapanJapan-related
Thecontentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates toliving or recently deceased subjects of biographical content on Wikipedia articles, a contentious topic. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with thecontentious topics procedures before editing this page.
I have just modified 2 external links onNaoya Inoue. Please take a moment to reviewmy edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visitthis simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored byInternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other thanregular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editorshave permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see theRfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template{{source check}}(last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them withthis tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them withthis tool.
Alrighty, so it's back and forth between the Canadian IP and myself. Which of you prefersthis sloppily organised and poorly written chunk of text filled withcruft, an overuse of year ranges, ambiguously abbreviated sanctioning bodies, championship achievementsbehind stylistic superlatives, and a pointless double break.. overthis neatly organised, well-written, streamlined set of paragraphs which rightly places championship achievements before stylistic superlatives. Time forWP:EWN orWP:DRN?Mac Dreamstate (talk)00:31, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why doesn't the Canadian IP want to discuss this edit dispute? We're clearly at an impasse here, and I'm not budging until advised otherwise. As I've pointed out,your edition reads like a cumbersome wall of text,puffingly(?) has his nickname and KO achievements ahead of his myriad championships, doesn't use the note thingy to concisely lump together the undisputed titles, calls him "the former" which is flat-out poor writing, doesn't spell out the sanctioning bodies' names, includes way too many year ranges, and who cares about CBS Sports? Discuss or we'll keep going around in circles.Mac Dreamstate (talk)01:22, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is it inopportune to mention that he has a wife, whom he met in high school, and three children?https://pkshampoo.com/inoue-naoya/I was unable to post the Yandex autotranslation because it is blacklisted.
Pls see the initial discussion of violation ofWP:NPOV by userRonten 5 - here#|Naoya Inoue editsNaoya Inoue edits - seehist diff here.I don't mind discussing changes but i'm only trying to edit out pointless opinions. Just because some journalist thinks that Inoue "dominated" and has "perfect" punches doesn't make it a fact. Read an article about the fight if that is what you want, Wikipedia is meant to be a neutral POV.Deaxmann (talk)01:23, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
dude you can do want what you see fit. But some of things you are trying to move have stood still all this time and no one has tried to Remove it. You are the only one. But if you think it has no place to stay then give a good reason for it. And if you are dead set on removing it, then you have to do same with all the boxer's page like with Mayweather, Canelo, and Pacquiao.Ronten5 (talk)03:00, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just because no one has bothered to change it for years doesn't mean we should continue to leave it. I have given a good reason for all my edits after our first conversation, but you continue to ignore them. Okay, why don't we work together and edit all those pages as well?Deaxmann (talk)03:22, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ronten5: It would be better to address the editor by their user name instead of "Dude" and secondly, you CANT edit as you see fit. Info added/changed need to be adhered to Wikipedia guidelines. It does not matter how long the info or who edited the info, if it does not adhere to the Wikipedia guideliens, then we have to change/rewrite it. You have been informed, warned, aboutWP:NPOV guidelines and also told to have aWP:Civility discussion of the issues in the artilce talk page and not the editor talk page, I strongly suggest read the guidelines provided and adhere to it. Cassiopeiatalk03:29, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But your reasons make no sense. All you keep saying is, it's an opinion when it's a fact. Cause if "perfect" or "dominated" is an opinion. Then "straight right", "division's best" "winning" "win title in fewest fights" "broke Amazon viewership" and "toughest challenge" are all opinions as well. Basically the whole page is an opinion. In that case we are going to have to remove the whole page. That's why I said give good reason and remove things that don't have a source. Because opinions that are facts and have source shouldn't be removed. Opinion is when you don't have a source, that's why you are giving your opinion. But when there is a scoure than it's not an opinion, it's a fact.Ronten5 (talk)12:01, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You need to read and understand Wikipedia guidelines about NPOV - content should be written in factual and simple manner - this is not a newspaper, forum, opionion piece, books, magazine but Wikipedia is an enclyopedia. If you want to assert your view on how to write the content, I suggest you to set up a web page/blog or your own and write whatever you want but not here. Cassiopeiatalk19:32, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should google the difference between opinion and fact. I agree, "division's best" and "toughest challenge" are definitely opinions. We can edit that if you like. If you'd like to keep those in there, we can name specific people who called them the "division's best" or inoue's "toughest challenge" The other examples you gave are not opinions at all. A "straight right" is a legitimate punch, "winning title in fewest amount of fights for a Japanese fighter" is an actual accomplishment, not opinion. Inoue vs. Nery was reported to have broken a record for Amazon viewership, that makes it a fact. I'm not sure how else to explain this to you. Please review the Wikipedia guidelines. They can explain much better than me.Deaxmann (talk)19:39, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Genuinely curious, what does it take for someone to be blocked? They have insulted me and been warned about WP: NPOV guidelines multiple times.Deaxmann (talk)22:03, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify for anyone who stumbles upon this discussion after seeing twenty trillion revisions in the edit history: the culprit all along was the Canadian IP who added walls of copyrighted text lifted fromBoxingScene –[1]. Hopefully they readWP:COPYVIO andWP:PUFFERY before they resume editing.Mac Dreamstate (talk)18:57, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mac Dreamstate,Deaxmann, andRonten5: The article has been protected which IP can not edit. So pls help to fix NPOV, COPYViO, PUFFERY and remove unnecessary pay by pay content. User:Ronten 5, you have receive final warning on NPOV and PUFFERY and if you do it again, you will be blocked. Thank you. Cassiopeiatalk22:32, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fight with Goodman should probably be 24 January 2025
The last sentence in "Undisputed Super bantamweight champion" section (On 13 December 2024, it was reported that Goodman suffered a serious cut on his eyelid during sparring and the fight has been moved to 24 January 2024) should probably be 24 January 2025.2601:647:5D00:3690:9422:E2C1:163F:EAF4 (talk)11:59, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@GOAT Bones231012 andSongsten: It is extremely likely that you would both have been blocked for a significant period by most administrators if they had seen the protection request to stop the current edit war. If either of youedit war in the foreseeable future, blocks will follow. I changed the semiprotection to full. When the dispute is resolved on this talk page, please ping me or any other admin to restore the previous semiprotection. The last comment before mine was in May. You bothmust engage on the article talk page when disagreements occur.Johnuniq (talk)09:45, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But it's not me who is in edit war. That other person is literally removing edit about Inoue when boxing publications recognizes Inoue's achievements. That guy is literally turning Wikipedia into his own personal opinion space. And he has done this multiple times especially with me.Songsten (talk)11:23, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is literally impossible for one person to edit war. It takes at least two. Please at least read some ofWP:EW so you can avoid getting blocked. The other person might be wrong (they would presumably think the same in reverse). That doesn't matter. Do you imagine that a disagreement can be resolved by seeing who is prepared to hit undo one more time than the opponent? One of you needs to start a new section on article talk and focus on the edit in question. Do not mention other editors, just article content and the reliable sources that verify the content.Johnuniq (talk)11:44, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is clear that two of his title fights during his streak were when he was secondary champion. As such, he did not tie the record withJoe Louis. Very simple. See the following link from BoxRec. Under championship record, it specifically states "secondary championships excluded".https://boxrec.com/wiki/index.php/Naoya_Inoue
Being belligerent when in the heat of battle might be normal but it is a good idea to at least pretend to be collaborative a day or so later. I have restored the previous semiprotection on the understanding thatedit warring is not permitted.Johnuniq (talk)03:44, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dude there is no mistake, I understand what your saying about secondary lineage. But what your not understanding is that only reason it's recognized as title fight by major boxing publications is because the fight took against reigning champion champion Ring no 1 ranked fighter.Songsten (talk)16:30, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree withSongsten it's because of those reason it's recognized as title fight. Look at every major sport and boxing publications they all say Inoue has 26 title fights. Jimmy Lennon also announces that Inoue has 26 title fight.Ronten5 (talk)16:47, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do. I was not on Wikipedia at the time. It's recognized as title fight by boxing publications. Wikipedia is not personal opinion space.Songsten (talk)16:29, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Listen I don’t know if that is your brother or just a sock puppet account of yours (as I’ve seen him commenting on edits of yours in the past), but BoxRec themselves who we use for Fighter Records on all boxer pages, exclude it. I’ve even added a link to Inoue's page above showing this. Furthermore, you can even visitList of WBA world champions#Bantamweight and clearly see he was on the secondary champion list at the time of two specific fights. There was a primary champion, which wasn’t Inoue.GOAT Bones231012 (talk)17:25, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're talking about ronten5 that's my just friend who helped me learn how to edit on Wikipedia. And I get what your saying about secondary belt cause that's what McDonnell had but the reason it's recognized as title fight by boxrec and major boxing publications is because the fight against McDonnell who was a real reigning champion amd was Ring no 1 ranked fighter. And on BoxRec the belt is listed as secondary. But boxrec recognized the fight it self as title fight cause of the fight being against McDonnell and they were the one who gave that information to lenno Jr.Songsten (talk)17:31, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not denying that it was a title fight. It was, but for the WBA "Regular" bantamweight title. The primary WBA bantamweight champion at the time wasRyan Burnett. And you keep saying BoxRec, but I’ve literally sent a link here to Inoue's BoxRec page, where it literally states "secondary championships excluded" under championship record.GOAT Bones231012 (talk)17:42, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agin your not understanding it the title is recognized as secondary cause it was wba regular. But boxrec recognizes the fight itself not the title but the fight as title fight because it was against McDonnell was a real reigning champion and no 1 rated boxrec and Ring rated fighter over wba super champion Ryan Burnett. Which is also the reason Ring magazine and all other major publications recognizes it as title fight. I couldn't have made it more clearer than this.
Ryan Burnett was the primary reigning champion. McDonnell held the WBA "regular" title. Both statements are true. Again, I am not saying it wasn’t a title fight, like I’ve been saying, McDonnell held the WBA "Regular" title, but he wasn’t the "real reigning champion" (to quote you) of the division. Yes, of course boxing publications are going to mention the belt in the title fight, but it was the secondary championship at the end of the day. We are not going to let’s say for example start counting an Interim world title or say the IBO world title in such a streak now, would we? This opens up a can of worms. It could not be clearer than this, which I’ve already written to you on my talk page.GOAT Bones231012 (talk)18:21, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's you who's not understanding it. The belt is not recognized as championship cause it was wba regular we made that clear. Do you have a problem comprehending things or what. It's the fight that's recognized as title fight since it was against McDonnell. That's why I said once major publications stop recognizing it we can change it here on Wikipedia.Songsten (talk)18:36, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ESPN themselves called McDonnell a "secondary bantamweight titlist" and BoxingScene even stated "While some credited Inoue for winning a title in his third weight class, it’s important to note he really didn’t. The WBA belt he won is their sub-title. Ryan Burnett is the higher WBA champion at 118 and will be a part of the WBSS." What are you even talking about?? See below links:
My lord that's why I said it was the fight it self that was recognized as title fight since the fight was against McDonnell who was real reigning champion and recognized as no 1 fighter in division ahead of Ryan Burnett. Basically Inoue fought a fight against a real champion that's why it's recognized it as one. You listen to it yourself from Jimmy Lennon Jr announce Inoue's title fights.https://x.com/trboxing/status/1967185112409284762
I'm not citing twitter lol. I'm showing you Jimmy Lennon Jr announce it or will youtube link be better. Twitter has nothing to do with it. It's boxrec's graph. And what does Ryan Burnett have to do with this. I'm saying it was the fight it self that was recognized as title fight. Just as Manny's fight against Barrera was recognized as title fight even though wbc belt was with morales but Barrera was the real champion.Songsten (talk)19:09, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I’ve just listened to the introduction you sent and it proved absolutely nothing. I’m not even exactly sure why you sent it. @Johnuniq At this point, I feel like this conversation is dragging out and starting to go back in circles. I request/invite you or anybody else with sufficient boxing knowledge to review the facts of this matter and come to a decision accordingly. I am done arguing with this user as he is starting to repeat the same things over and over again.GOAT Bones231012 (talk)19:17, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A fighter fighting for an Interim, Silver, or Regular belt can be announced for the fight as a world title fight, but when we’re talking a record likeJoe Louis's, Inoue didn’t break it as two of the 26 fights were while he was secondary champion. Joe Louis was the primary undisputed champion throughout his reign.GOAT Bones231012 (talk)19:30, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But when has fighter fighting for Interim, Silver, or Regular belt has been announced for the fight as a world title fight. They are specifically announced as wba regular title or ibo or interim title fight. Only reason Inoue's fight is announced as title fight is because it was against McDonnell who was a real champion and the No 1 ranked fighter.Songsten (talk)19:37, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here then against McDonnell, It was in 2018, announced as wba world (sekai) title match. It was announced by Japanese announcer as they didn't have English announcer. And Japanese announcer also announce wba regular as regular but here it was announced as wba sekai.
I don’t speak Japanese, but it sounds like you just admitted he announced it as "Regular"… but then again maybe I don’t understand what you meant. In any case, it’s proven the McDonnell fight was for the "Regular" title, not the primary.GOAT Bones231012 (talk)20:21, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When did admit it was announced as regular I said when its regular they announced as such. But here against McDonnell they announced it as world title fight. Can you not comprehend or what. And what does speaking Japanese has to do with anything, when they announced it as sekai title match meaning world title match. And I'm saying it was recognized as title fight because the fight was against McDonnell.Songsten (talk)20:49, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bro this is English Wikipedia. Use English references, you are starting to confuse me. The bottom line is McDonnell was the secondary champion at the time of the fight whileRyan Burnett was the primary WBA bantamweight champion. This fight and the next should not be counting the same for a streak similar toJoe Louis's.GOAT Bones231012 (talk)20:55, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So what reference is reference. All is saying is its recognized as title fight because the opponent was McDonnell who was a real reigning champion. Which you don't seem to be getting it.Songsten (talk)21:06, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
McDonnell was secondary champion, yes understood. Inoue became secondary champion after defeating him, yes understood. Inoue defended the secondary (Regular) championship title against Payano, yes understood. Inoue finally became a primary champion once again after defeatingEmmanuel Rodríguez, yes understood.GOAT Bones231012 (talk)21:20, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It has noting to do with primary champion. It's that the fight it self was recognized as title fight by boxing publications because the opponent was McDonnell.Songsten (talk)21:41, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No the fight itself was recognized as title fight. And like i said inoue will be always be announced as guy with 26 title fight and 27 for his upcoming fight. At this point Wikipedia no longer reflects the real world.Songsten (talk)00:28, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I know nothing about this topic but the standard procedure to resolve a disagreement is atdispute resolution. First, a new section should be added to this talk page with a proposal to add information (there is too much waffle above—no one wants or needs to read that). The proposal should not mention other editors. It should be simple, if possible "change x to y" or "update fight results" or whatever this is about. The critical point is thatreliable sources need to be produced to support the proposal. Don't pad it out with observations about Wikipedia—focus on the proposed change and what justifies it. Bear in mind that listening to someone say something would probably not be a good source because people say all sorts of things in the heat of the moment and might have a different view if asked about whatever specific text is wanted in this article. Put a neutral statement at the talk page of the wikiproject mentioned in the header of this page asking for opinions with a link to the proposal here (people should comment here, not at the wikiproject). After all that, allow a few days before assessing the next step. If there is aconsensus, the proposal could be implemented. But if it is reverted by an editor in good standing,WP:DR would need to be followed. That means starting anWP:RFC. Before doing that, post a draft of a question to be settled by the RfC to get the wording right.Johnuniq (talk)02:24, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have again protected the article to prevent continuation of the edit war. Please remind me, or any other admin, in around three days so the protection can be restored to the semi-protection that previously existed. Anyone wanting to add material to the article should start a new section on this talk page. Describe what you think should be added, with a reliable source and a brief explanation. Repeating a contested edit without first gaining a clear consensus will result in a block.Johnuniq (talk)03:55, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Edit requests have to specify exactly what text should be changed to what. At any rate, this isnot a news service and there is no need to update the article for current events. Instead, please make suggestions regarding what should happen to resolve the edit war referred to in the section just above this.Johnuniq (talk)10:00, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. However, in general, a source can be reliable for some claims and not reliable for others. That means the question cannot be resolved without specifying what assertion the source would be verifying.Johnuniq (talk)03:57, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello everyone, we are currently having a dispute overNaoya Inoue supposedly tying or breaking two ofJoe Louis's records. The first mentioning that Inoue tiedFloyd Mayweather Jr. andJoe Louis's record of 26 consecutive consecutive wins in world title fights after his recent victory overMurodjon Akhmadaliev, and the second mentioning that Inoue broke Louis's record of 22 KO's in world title fights. My contention with these additions is the fact that during Inoue's supposed streak of 26 consecutive world title victories, there are two fights in question with the WBA "Regular" Bantamweight title on the line, which is considered a secondary title. These two fights I am talking about are Inoue's fights withJamie McDonnell andJuan Carlos Payano. At the time of the McDonnell fight, McDonnell was the WBA "Regular" Bantamweight champion. Inoue then took that title after defeating him.ESPN even states the following after the win, "Inoue more than lived up to his nickname of "Monster" as he destroyed secondary bantamweight titlist Jamie McDonnell…". BoxingScene further states "While some credited Inoue for winning a title in his third weight class, it’s important to note he really didn’t. The WBA belt he won is their sub-title. Ryan Burnett is the higher WBA champion at 118 and will be a part of the WBSS.". The same could be said for his very next fight against Juan Carlos Payano, asRyan Burnett was still considered the primary champion by the WBA at the time (seeList of WBA world champions#Bantamweight). It wasn’t until he defeatedEmmanuel Rodríguez that he became a primary world titlist again. Additionally, on Inoue's ownBoxRec page under "Championship Record", it shows a record of 24–0 (21 KO's) and states the following, "(secondary championships excluded)". What's interesting is the fact that the World Boxing News actually wrote about Inoue's supposed achievement themselves in detail questioning the validity of it, given the "Regular" belt was on the line during the streak (see here). It's important to note that during Mayweather Jr. and Louis's world title win streaks, they were fighting for the primary world title throughout. I am not denying that the two fights in question for Inoue during his streak are world title fights, but then again isn’t theIBO title a world title? Are we going to start counting that? Are we going to start countingWBC Silver world title fights? Interim world title fights? Where do we draw the line of including secondary or minor world title fights in records? There is one true world champion in each division for each organization. The man to beat. The man whose title everyone in the division is hunting and wanting, and that is the primary title. As such, I am of the opinion that Naoya Inoue didNOT tie or break either record.
I see the Japanese article being cited, but since it’s not in English it’s difficult for most editors here to independently verify what it says, and I’m not sure it qualifies as a reliable source for English Wikipedia. PerWP:RS andWP:DUE, exceptional claims like breaking aJoe Louis record usually need to be supported by multiple high-quality, independent sources. So far, I haven’t seen major outlets such asESPN orThe Ring make that claim.GOAT Bones231012 (talk)12:49, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Foreign-language articles can be cited as reliable sources on en.wiki. SeeWP:NONENG.
Also, to answer your question earlier, the fact that Inoue's ownBoxRec page, a site that we reference for all boxers' professional records and for a lot of data in their infobox, which I’ve cited above in my first message, specifically excludes secondary championships from his overall championship record.GOAT Bones231012 (talk)16:18, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have a question. If Inoue wins his next fight, which would break Joe Louis' record, even without the two controversial fights, would you allow that article to be inserted?122.32.181.37 (talk)03:52, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What conclusion do you think is not in the sources? Rold in the BoxingScene article states that he didn't win a world title in 2018. The World Boxing News article says that some don't agree that Inoue has tied the record.--Jahalive (talk)18:31, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned in the previous discussion, I'm not saying Inoue is the true champion, but that the regular champion is also officially recognized as the champion. BBC, Ring Mazine, and Boxing Scene have mentioned it as a title match.
Even Boxing News, which directly mentioned the comparison between Inoue and Joe Louis, expressed doubts but did not completely deny it, and since many media outlets mentioned that it was a title match, there was no reason to delete the article about Inoue breaking Joe Louis' title match record.
It’s genuinely ridiculous that this is even a point of discussion. If you are not the primary champion of the sanctioning body, you are not a champion in the same sense Joe Louis was. Seriously, if some articles report on a fighter winning the most title fights because they won 50 WBF title fights, do we have to recognize it as genuine?
I have no idea about this topic but people wanting to add information to aWP:BLP article need to make sure it is properly sourced. A claim above is that "exceptional claims like breaking a Joe Louis record usually need to be supported by multiple high-quality, independent sources". Would breaking the record in question be an exceptional claim? Does anyone have a reason thatWP:EXCEPTIONAL would not apply in this case?Johnuniq (talk)06:29, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for participating in the discussion.
I think this is not exceptional. this debate isn't political or social; it's clearly a debate about numbers. and the WBA, which is the subject of the discussion, has officially stated that this is a title match, I think this match will be considered a title match unless the WBA officially declares that this match is not a title match.
And if multiple sources are needed, I'm ready. Many Japanese sports media acknowledge the record, but I'll address These source after determining whether this debate requires WP:EXCEPTIONAL ones.Rocco30 (talk)10:56, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The WBA regular is pretty much a glorified interim title. There was a super champion at the time Naoya Inoue became the WBA (Regular) champion. after beating Nonito Donaire he became the true WBA World champion.
Its widely disputed by journalists and fans as a real word title only the WBA formally reconizes it.
so it isnt reconized by the WBC WBO, IBF fans and media. and he wasnt the only champion at the time, he was the second champion making him by multiple defenition not the world champion. Only if the Super is vacant the regular is reconized as world champion.
There is no need for it. Some sections seem long because there are no sub headers on this article. There is nothing on this article that is excessive or incorrect and I only add information with correct sources. I edit this article how I edit other boxing articles. Just because you don't like something or how something is done, doesn't mean it's wrong.Mahussain06 (talk)09:25, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't post meaningless assurances about ownership and nothing being wrong. If you are commenting about a change in article content, briefly outline what it is, engage with any previous discussions, and give a brief reason based on reliable sources for your change.Johnuniq (talk)22:47, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Already done The article has been updated to reflect this.Day Creature (talk)16:43, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
