Talk:Alexa Grasso

Adding a image

I’d like to make a suggestion that someone please add an image of Alexa Grasso to her Wikipedia page please. Xvidy (talk) 10:02, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Weight

She’s probably not 93kg 212.82.90.227 (talk) 05:28, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Defense, not Retention

I brought up evidence that this is a defense, not a retention. The UFC officially counts draws as defenses, NOT "retentions". The only way a title fight can end in a "retention" is a No Contest. Tyron Woodley explicitly has four title defenses. There is no debating this. See here. Tyron had six title fights. One was where he won the belt, one was where he lost it. The other four included a win against Wonderboy, a win against Till, a win against Maia, and a draw against Wonderboy. Where did the fourth title defense come from if not this draw with Wonderboy? Please stop reverting this. MisguidedInformer (talk) 21:39, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

I don't know why wiki precedent is being used here. Defense is objectively correct. Why is "retained" preferred? The mere fact that it has been used on the wiki in the past is not sufficient enough reason to use it over the UFC's own terminology, which is unambiguously "defense". MisguidedInformer (talk) 22:52, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

"Defended" is used when the champion wins. "Retained" is used when they keep the title without winning (draws/no contests). MOS:MMA states that the article should follow terminology and conventions used in reliable sources, which you can see here, ESPN says "retained" after her draw against Shevchenko. GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 19:02, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

• I agree with this. A defense is a win. A retention is just holding onto it. Nswix (talk) 19:58, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

In what way does ESPN's terminology override the UFC's own terminology? The UFC themselves use 'Defense' as is evident by them displaying 4 Defenses on Tyron Woodley's profile. There is no higher or 'more reliable' source than the UFC themselves, who say 'Defense'. It doesn't matter if every media outlet on Earth says 'Retention', if the UFC says 'Defense' that should be what's on the page. Here are some more sources for the UFC consistently using 'Defense' rather than 'Retention'.

• Official UFC description of Woodley vs. Thompson 1, a draw, which says "At the historic UFC 205 event in New York City, welterweight champion Tyron Woodley defended his freshly-earned title against devastating kickboxer Stephen “Wonderboy” Thompson."
• Here we have the UFC using 'Retain' to mean 'Defense', as Bisping finished Henderson and won the fight; there was no draw.
• And here we have something of a nail in the coffin. The UFC uses BOTH 'Retain' and 'Defend' in reference to Frankie Edgar's second fight with Gray Maynard, which ended in a draw. Complete umabiguous, the UFC considers draws as 'Defenses'.

The counterargument when provided with these sources may be that since the UFC does use retain as well as defend, using retain is fine. But defend is still preferrable because it allows us to count defenses within the record table. 'Retains' needlessly complicates the syntax and suggests that draws are not defenses, when every single official source says they are. The only way I can see this evidence being refuted is if you can find a source from the UFC themselves which directly says that draws are not defenses. Please provide that, or change the page back to the correct version. All of my sources are from the UFC themselves via UFC.com (or their YT channel), so please have any provided counter-sources likewise be from UFC.com or have some other way of verifying that they are indeed representative of the UFC's stance and not a random media outlet. MisguidedInformer (talk) 07:26, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Plus, the article itself already says it was a defense! CTRL+F for "defense" yields two results, one under the career tab and one under the accomplishments tab. So yes, it is a defense, by all the official UFC stances I've provided, as well as the article's own internal terminology, defense is the correct term. It's been over a month and no one has replied, so I am restoring this edit. Please respond to everything I have laid out here before reverting! MisguidedInformer (talk) 18:21, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

UFC is a primary source. Wikipedia relies on secondary sources. ESPN, BBC, and Yahoo Sports all says "retain". GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 20:59, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, but your stated rule is incorrect here. Per Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources: "Primary sources can be reliable, and they can be used. Sometimes, a primary source is even the best possible source, such as when you are supporting a direct quotation. In such cases, the original document is the best source because the original document will be free of any errors or misquotations introduced by subsequent sources." In this case, the UFC is deciding their own rules and statkeeping. It doesn't make any sense at all to take some random media outlets misused terminology over the UFC's own correct terminology about their own fights. MisguidedInformer (talk) 05:35, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

And for the record, Yahoo! Sports also says "defend". MisguidedInformer (talk) 05:42, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

The distinction exists for champions who keep the belt without a win. Wikipedia strongly prefers secondary sources for interpretation, wording, and terminology. Wikipedia style also follows common usage in independent reliable coverage, not what a governing body wants its terminology to be, hence the word "Retained", which is overwhelmingly dominant in such sources. GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 06:18, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

You've yet to address my mention of the page itself using "defend" multiple times. It says that Grasso has one successful title defense. The purpose of the record box is to provide readers with information about her career. It is nothing but confusing to say "retention" when the UFC itself does not use that terminology with precedence over "defence". A reader will see that she has one defense and look at the box and say "Where is this defense?" and could potentially be driven to remove the defense information, wrongfully thinking it is inaccurate. This is not a strawman, this is just a possibility. I'm not saying it is likely, I am saying it is possible, and we shouldn't be allowing this possibility at all.

And in response to the claim that the UFC's terminology about itself is somehow overridden by random media outlets: if ESPN and BBC both reported that Grasso had *lost* that fight, would we update the page to say she lost? No, obviously not, we would keep it as a draw, because the UFC's official stance is that it was a draw. There's no reason why match result should be treated as being decided by the UFC but not the terminology to describe that result. We see on Joe Son's page that "Submission (terror)" is the officially listed method of victory, and is thus what we use. It does not say that we use this listed method because some random media outlets, prominent or otherwise, used it in direct contradiction to what the official stance of the organization was, which is exactly what you are insisting we do for the UFC's official stance that draws are title defenses. MisguidedInformer (talk) 02:20, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

The hypothetical about readers becoming confused and removing information is speculative and Wikipedia's content decisions aren’t based on potential misuse by hypothetical editors. I also fail to see how the comparison to Joe Son applies here. Fight outcomes are factual rulings and is sourced on his page per Sherdog whereas descriptive terminology like "defense" vs "retention" is interpretive and contextual. GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 06:27, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

They're the same thing. The fact that Grasso defended her belt is just as factual in the ruling as the fact that the scorecards drew. Joe Son's loss to "terror" is unconventional terminology chosen by the promotion, but we still use it because it's the official ruling. It is just as official of a ruling that Grasso defended her belt. For another example, look at Marcus Silveira vs. Kazushi Sakuraba as it is covered on the wiki. The fight was stopped prematurely, so the UFC decided to make it a No Contest. Just the UFC, and we record that as a NC for that reason. The UFC likewise decides that draws in title fights are defenses, and we should record them as draws for that reason. I'm not saying this is a sweeping change needed to be applied to every title fight draw in MMA (and I'm not claiming you said that, just clarifying), this is just for UFC title fights because it is part of the official ruling and statkeeping of the promotion. Both precedent and common sense are on my side here. There is no reason to record these as "retentions" because it is needlessly confusing, bordering on outright inaccurate, and also contradicts the very presence of "One successful title defense" on the page which you are still yet to address despite me mentioning it several times now. MisguidedInformer (talk) 07:01, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

It’s not a contradiction though. As for the Sakuraba fight, it is again sourced as per Sherdog. Also, back then the sport was unregulated by state athletic commissions and the unified rules of MMA didn’t exist. GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 07:31, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

In what way is it not a contradiction to say her rematch with Shevchenko was a mere retention while otherwise stating it was a defense? MisguidedInformer (talk) 23:01, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

"Retained" has been used for draws for several years and there's no confusion related to that term. And the title defense count is correct with them: just check the List of UFC Champions page and all the fighters "Championships and accomplishments" section. If a fighter defends (via win) or retains (draw), they are all title defenses. If a fighter retains via NC, then it should not be counted towards the amount of title defenses as the bout did not have an official result (hence the bout is not even counted towards the whole record, but as an additional part instead). Gsfelipe94 (talk) 02:15, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

I agree with everything you said except that there is no confusion. If a retention by NC is not a title defense but a "retention by draw" is a title defense, we should just be listed draws as defenses to remove confusion. I can personally attest to being confused by the usage of the term as it is listed on Wikipedia, so the claim that there is no confusion is hyperbolic at best. There is absolutely zero benefit to using retain to refer to draws. Parity with random media outlets is not a benefit, as the UFC themselves, who are the official arbiters of the title defense count, count draws as defenses. Precedent alone is likewise not a valid reason to keep the current usage of "retain"; the term is used improperly and confusingly as-is, so changing the status quo to make it unambiguously better should always be the priority. MisguidedInformer (talk) 02:36, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

If you search "Grasso retained title", instead of defended, you'll get plenty of references sustaining the retainment wording. As mentioned, the term defense relates to victories, while other results have that retained usage. That has never created confusion related to the amount of title defenses. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 03:50, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

"the term defense relates to victories" According to who? Random media outlets? They do not take precedence over the UFC's own official statkeeping. If you can find me a single, official UFC source which says that the term defense refers exclusively to victories, I will drop this whole argument gladly. But no one has been able to provide such a statement. All that has been put forth are random media outlets using 'retain' (and even then I have provided instances of those same outlets using 'defense'). I have also already said that I was caused confusion by this strange use of terminology, and I'm sure I could find other instances of people misguidedly claiming that draws don't count as title defenses, so this claim that there is no confusion just has no basis. Maybe it didn't cause any confusion for you, but it has for others. Again, there is absolutely no benefit in listed draws as 'retentions' instead of 'defenses'. MisguidedInformer (talk) 16:11, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Oppose changing "Retained" to "Defended" in the record table for title-fight draws. This is a wording/convention issue, not a dispute about the factual result or whether the champion kept the belt. Across MMA coverage, "retained" is the standard phrasing for a champion keeping the title without a win (draw/NC), and this has been the consistent convention used on UFC champion bios and List of UFC Champions. The UFC’s own terminology is a primary source and not controlling for Wikipedia’s wording choices; WP:MMA style follows usage in independent reliable sources and established convention for consistency across articles. Unless there is clear consensus at WP:MMA (or an RfC) to change the convention project-wide, the status-quo should remain here.

And given the length of this thread (over a month!) and the minor nature of the change, I suggest we close this discussion and keep “Retained title (draw)” as currently shown. Nswix (talk) 18:27, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Agreed. It is clearly a one-person issue here. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 19:15, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

I will of course respect consensus but I must add that this isn't a major change across a bunch of pages, as this applies on to UFC title fights there would be only 5 edits that need to be made to correct the information, those being Alexa Grasso, Ken Shamrock, Frankie Edgar, Deiveson Figueiredo, and Tyron Woodley. The only argument provided has been that media outlets call them retentions, but I have demonstrated that they also call them defenses. It is misleading to have NCs and draws both be listed as retentions, because since NC retentions are not defenses, it makes it seem like draw retentions are the same thing. But they are not, as they do count as defenses. It doesn't help anything or anyone, would take all of one minute to resolve across the five affected pages, and wouldn't confuse anyone either, because it's displaying correct information. I cannot understand this decision to keep misleading information on the page that is contradicted by the UFC's statkeeping, coverage, and official website, but as I said, if consensus disagrees, I guess the pages will just have to remain inaccurate. MisguidedInformer (talk) 22:33, 27 January 2026 (UTC)