Talk:Kim Duk-koo

message: Boxers who died because of getting serious injuries in boxing are very common. They probably date as far back as the time of Jack Dempsey. I wonder what made the death of Duk Koo Kim such a big concern that governing bodies of boxing ultimately decide to change the rules? One notable change was reducing a title bout from 15 rounds to 12. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.9.126.41 (talk) 23:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kim's Death 

message: "Ironically, after the new rule, the WBC and WBA each stripped fighters of their championships for 15-round bouts when the new rules called for 12 rounds."
That is not ironic.  Countless Wikipedia articles claim things that aren't even remotely ironic as ironic.  I don't want to get yelled at for editing it so can someone else please do it?--68.193.135.2 20:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irony 

message: I still don't understand what makes the death of Duk Koo Kim such an impact to the sport of boxing. Why wasn't the same done to boxers who died of boxing injuries years before him? Could this be politics? -61.9.126.41-
Not politics. Logic finally prevailed. Also many boxing fatalities of the past just weren't televized bouts. Vlad Dracula (talk) 09:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unreasonable Changes 

message: The article currently begins:
:Kim, Duk-Koo (January 8, 1959 – November 17, 1982) was a South Korean boxer ...
I realize that Kim was his family name and Duk Koo is one transliteration used for his given name (the infobox in the article shows other transliterations). I also realize that in Korea, his family name would appear first followed by his given name. However, in the American media, he has been invariably referred to in the Western style of given name first, "Duk Koo Kim". I could understand having the lead of the article follow the Western style:
:Duk Koo Kim (January 8, 1959 ...
or the Korean style:
:Kim Duk-Koo (January 8, 1959 ...
But I don't understand using a style with surname first followed by a comma. Does anyone have advice as to which way we should phrase this? I couldn't find an appropriate guideline from the Wikipedia Manuals of Style. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've changed it to Duk Koo Kim - as that's the title of the article, that's what we should call him in the lead. 'Kim, Duk-Koo' would be appropriate for an index listing, but not in a sentence. Terraxos (talk) 00:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Formatting his name

message: It reads that "Mancini began to dominate the young challenger". Mancini was the younger one as he was born in 1961 while Duk Koo Kim was born in 1959. Shouldnt that be changed? Norum 20:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  the Mancini match 

message: NYT article on the 30th anniversary of the fight lists his birth date as completely different, with Kim being four years older.  Changed the article accordingly.  Someone else might want to follow up to make sure what the correct date is. Vidor (talk) 21:57, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birth date 

message: I removed the uncover passage claiming that the Mancini–Kim fight was what lead to the addition of a fourth rope on boxing rings. This is plainly false. As easily seen by looking at any footage of the fight, the ring used for the fight had four ropes already. Clearly it was an earlier change. Indeed, it was not Kim's death, but those of Benny Paret in 1962 and Davey Moore in 1963 that lead to the adoption of he four-rope ring, though it took a while for it to become universal, like a lot of things in sports. Either way, it was a plainly incorrect passage and had to be removed. oknazevad (talk) 04:15, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Four ropes