New low for online journalism?
New low for online journalism?
Possibly the worst article I've ever read. Who the fornicate is Scott Gilfoid? (edit: Twitter profile of @ScottGilfoid reads: If you like boxing, you will love following me. My opinions are fair, balanced and I am not afraid to upset with home truths).
http://www.boxingnews24.com/2016/04/cha ... didnt-see/
"Where things get kind of dicey is with Martin getting back up to beat the count, and the referee stopping it anyway. I had Martin beating the count with ease, but referee halted it anyway. I’m not sure how fast he was counting, but I had Martin getting up at the count of seven".
"All I can think of is that maybe Martin’s right hand was held a tad bit too high, and that may have obscured his own vision. I mean, how can he not have seen that right hand from Joshua. It was like he was punching inside of a pool. Joshua wound up to throw it, and you could see it from a mile away. Even if Martin didn’t see the punch, he should have seen Joshua wind up his body to throw it".
"Martin is an incredible talent. He just needs to fine tune his defense a tad bit, and he needs to focus on throwing a few more punches".
"If it were me in the ring last Saturday night, they would have had to pull me off of Joshua because I would have been fighting tooth and nail. There would have been no hesitation on my part to take Joshua out".
http://www.boxingnews24.com/2016/04/cha ... didnt-see/
"Where things get kind of dicey is with Martin getting back up to beat the count, and the referee stopping it anyway. I had Martin beating the count with ease, but referee halted it anyway. I’m not sure how fast he was counting, but I had Martin getting up at the count of seven".
"All I can think of is that maybe Martin’s right hand was held a tad bit too high, and that may have obscured his own vision. I mean, how can he not have seen that right hand from Joshua. It was like he was punching inside of a pool. Joshua wound up to throw it, and you could see it from a mile away. Even if Martin didn’t see the punch, he should have seen Joshua wind up his body to throw it".
"Martin is an incredible talent. He just needs to fine tune his defense a tad bit, and he needs to focus on throwing a few more punches".
"If it were me in the ring last Saturday night, they would have had to pull me off of Joshua because I would have been fighting tooth and nail. There would have been no hesitation on my part to take Joshua out".
-
handsofstone
- Cruiserweight
- Posts: 23228
- Joined: 11 Jan 2011, 17:28
Re: New low for online journalism?
Nothing wrong with the count at all and Martin knew exactly what number the ref was on,im working so i'll read the article in full later
I wouldnt want to mess with who wrote this piece though,he sounds hard as nails
I wouldnt want to mess with who wrote this piece though,he sounds hard as nails
-
Boxing Prospect
- Light Heavyweight
- Posts: 6592
- Joined: 25 Jun 2012, 14:35
Re: New low for online journalism?
People still.give Gilfoid attention? Seriously, stop. Its the "don't feed the troll" thing
Re: New low for online journalism?
Sorry, I don't usually read anything on BN and hadn't heard of that clown previously, just happened to stumble upon that article and wasn't sure whether it was supposed to be a parody or what.Boxing Prospect wrote:People still.give Gilfoid attention? Seriously, stop. Its the "don't feed the troll" thing
Re: New low for online journalism?
Scott Gilfoid is not a real person. The guy who owns BoxingNews24 writes 90% of the articles using different aliases. Each alias is meant to antagonise a different group. Gilfoid is anti-British, there's another who is anti-Mexican etc etc
The idea is to generate traffic by creating controversy and annoying people. He's managed to keep it going for years so it obviously works.
The idea is to generate traffic by creating controversy and annoying people. He's managed to keep it going for years so it obviously works.
Re: New low for online journalism?
The site is a joke. There only a handful of decent writers on it and most of the people that post are a waste of oxygen. I very seldom go on it anymore but when I do it's just the same old reggurgitated nonsense with the names changed. You've read one of that halfwits 'articles' you've read them all.
I think it's the same guy that writes under a few different names depending on who they are writing about. The bullshit they spew and writing style is suspiciously similar.
I think it's the same guy that writes under a few different names depending on who they are writing about. The bullshit they spew and writing style is suspiciously similar.
-
Boxerbeetle
- Light Heavyweight
- Posts: 32967
- Joined: 19 Sep 2011, 10:59
Re: New low for online journalism?
If the author's maths is anything like his writing, I'm not at all surprised he only managed to get to seven by the time Martin was counted out.johnswan1 wrote: "Where things get kind of dicey is with Martin getting back up to beat the count, and the referee stopping it anyway. I had Martin beating the count with ease, but referee halted it anyway. I’m not sure how fast he was counting, but I had Martin getting up at the count of seven".
Re: New low for online journalism?
Nobody is as stupid as the knob shaft! I think he just intentionally writes provocative nonsense for a reaction.Boxerbeetle wrote:If the author's maths is anything like his writing, I'm not at all surprised he only managed to get to seven by the time Martin was counted out.johnswan1 wrote: "Where things get kind of dicey is with Martin getting back up to beat the count, and the referee stopping it anyway. I had Martin beating the count with ease, but referee halted it anyway. I’m not sure how fast he was counting, but I had Martin getting up at the count of seven".
Re: New low for online journalism?
I'm embarrassed for starting this topic now, having realised this is exactly the reason why the author writes such articles.
-
freddydoesdallas
- Cruiserweight
- Posts: 9436
- Joined: 02 Sep 2010, 13:48
Re: New low for online journalism?
We've all been there buddy.johnswan1 wrote:I'm embarrassed for starting this topic now, having realised this is exactly the reason why the author writes such articles.
-
Counter-puncher
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 39141
- Joined: 20 May 2008, 11:41
Re: New low for online journalism?
johnswan1 wrote:
"If it were me in the ring last Saturday night, they would have had to pull me off of Joshua because I would have been fighting tooth and nail. There would have been no hesitation on my part to take Joshua out".
Re: New low for online journalism?
handsofstone wrote:Nothing wrong with the count at all and Martin knew exactly what number the ref was on,im working so i'll read the article in full later![]()
I wouldnt want to mess with who wrote this piece though,he sounds hard as nails
-
Bard of Boxrec
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 13114
- Joined: 22 Feb 2002, 20:00
Re: New low for online journalism?
The guy writing these pieces must be pissing himself laughing all day long. And then people take it seriously in the comments section. A riot of a job!
Re: New low for online journalism?
The people who post are dafter than the moron writing it.Riddick Blowe wrote:The guy writing these pieces must be pissing himself laughing all day long. And then people take it seriously in the comments section. A riot of a job!
Re: New low for online journalism?
Scott Gilfoid is why, everything he writes is awful. The man is an idiot.