New low for online journalism?

Post Reply
johnswan1
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 3348
Joined: 27 Feb 2005, 18:03

New low for online journalism?

Post by johnswan1 »

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".
handsofstone
Cruiserweight
Posts: 23227
Joined: 11 Jan 2011, 17:28

Re: New low for online journalism?

Post by handsofstone »

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 :lol:

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?

Post by Boxing Prospect »

People still.give Gilfoid attention? Seriously, stop. Its the "don't feed the troll" thing
johnswan1
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 3348
Joined: 27 Feb 2005, 18:03

Re: New low for online journalism?

Post by johnswan1 »

Boxing Prospect wrote:People still.give Gilfoid attention? Seriously, stop. Its the "don't feed the troll" thing
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.
Junker
Super Middleweight
Posts: 83
Joined: 17 Jul 2013, 09:45

Re: New low for online journalism?

Post by Junker »

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.
Stuarty
Middleweight
Posts: 27293
Joined: 20 Aug 2014, 10:28

Re: New low for online journalism?

Post by Stuarty »

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.
Boxerbeetle
Light Heavyweight
Posts: 32967
Joined: 19 Sep 2011, 10:59

Re: New low for online journalism?

Post by Boxerbeetle »

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".
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.
Stuarty
Middleweight
Posts: 27293
Joined: 20 Aug 2014, 10:28

Re: New low for online journalism?

Post by Stuarty »

Boxerbeetle wrote:
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".
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.
Nobody is as stupid as the knob shaft! I think he just intentionally writes provocative nonsense for a reaction.
johnswan1
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 3348
Joined: 27 Feb 2005, 18:03

Re: New low for online journalism?

Post by johnswan1 »

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?

Post by freddydoesdallas »

johnswan1 wrote:I'm embarrassed for starting this topic now, having realised this is exactly the reason why the author writes such articles.
We've all been there buddy.
Counter-puncher
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 39141
Joined: 20 May 2008, 11:41

Re: New low for online journalism?

Post by Counter-puncher »

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".
:lol: :lol: :lol:
Dixonian
Cruiserweight
Posts: 1051
Joined: 08 Aug 2011, 06:37

Re: New low for online journalism?

Post by Dixonian »

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 :lol:

I wouldnt want to mess with who wrote this piece though,he sounds hard as nails :-?
:lol: He's a beast!!
Bard of Boxrec
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 13114
Joined: 22 Feb 2002, 20:00

Re: New low for online journalism?

Post by Bard of Boxrec »

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!
Stuarty
Middleweight
Posts: 27293
Joined: 20 Aug 2014, 10:28

Re: New low for online journalism?

Post by Stuarty »

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!
The people who post are dafter than the moron writing it.
BitPlayer
Welterweight
Posts: 3527
Joined: 29 Feb 2016, 05:14

Re: New low for online journalism?

Post by BitPlayer »

Scott Gilfoid is why, everything he writes is awful. The man is an idiot.
Post Reply