Page 1 of 2

What about this for a charmless feckker?

Posted: 14 Jul 2009, 05:29
by DavidPayne
http://www.metro.us/us/article/2009/07/ ... /index.xml

I'm not sure whether to write to him or not.

Re: What about this for a charmless feckker?

Posted: 14 Jul 2009, 05:37
by Autobarn
thank you for showing me this contribution to the literature of boxing

Re: What about this for a charmless feckker?

Posted: 14 Jul 2009, 05:40
by Chambers2
DavidPayne wrote:http://www.metro.us/us/article/2009/07/ ... /index.xml

I'm not sure whether to write to him or not.
He somehow tries to prove boxings demise by the reaction of the media to Gattis death, basically the journo is a bell end

Re: What about this for a charmless feckker?

Posted: 14 Jul 2009, 05:42
by Adamj1987
If Mike Tyson’s not involved, boxing stories have no pulse — even when death is in the room. The biggest boxing story this year might just be Iron Mike’s cameo in “The Hangover.”
fool, its this kind of thing that makes people think "no-one cares about boxing then why should i"

Re: What about this for a charmless feckker?

Posted: 14 Jul 2009, 05:42
by DavidPayne
here we go.

can we have boxrec.com/qualifiers - where a panel of judges, in a Dragons Den format, can approve topic titles before they're posted.

The judges can select and appoint themselves as the protectors of the boxrec community at large.

Re: What about this for a charmless feckker?

Posted: 14 Jul 2009, 06:15
by Autobarn
"boxing has no pulse, even when there is death in the room"

where the eff did they get this buffoon?

Re: What about this for a charmless feckker?

Posted: 14 Jul 2009, 06:20
by Asterix
Chris Baldwin is obviously a bit stupid. Let's just leave him alone in the corner nibbling on Boxing Magazine.

Re: What about this for a charmless feckker?

Posted: 14 Jul 2009, 07:09
by Poncey
DavidPayne wrote:here we go.

can we have boxrec.com/qualifiers - where a panel of judges, in a Dragons Den format, can approve topic titles before they're posted.

The judges can select and appoint themselves as the protectors of the boxrec community at large.
I don't like it. I'm out.

Re: What about this for a charmless feckker?

Posted: 14 Jul 2009, 14:06
by Spud
What a stupid ****!!!

Re: What about this for a charmless feckker?

Posted: 14 Jul 2009, 17:36
by Punchy Joe
And that's journalism...............F*ck me

Re: What about this for a charmless feckker?

Posted: 14 Jul 2009, 18:01
by Finn
The guy who wrote that is an idiot. Gatti is legend to boxing fans, but not the the mass public thats why it didnt make big news. That fools trying to say boxing is nothing compared to golf because if tiger woods had been murdered it would have been front page news.

Re: What about this for a charmless feckker?

Posted: 15 Jul 2009, 02:39
by Spud
If nothing else the journalist should hang his head in shame to mock a sport on the back of someones death - it really is a disgusting report - and entices me to dislike journalists even more than usual!!!

Re: What about this for a charmless feckker?

Posted: 15 Jul 2009, 02:44
by banjo
He must have gone to the Kelvin Mckenzie school of journalism, chat a load of bollocks to get your name known.

Re: What about this for a charmless feckker?

Posted: 15 Jul 2009, 03:43
by bennie
Well, he's right in a horribly blunt way. Boxing is a minority sport and barely draws a line in the quality papers. Gatti's death, Arguello's death - not a line. Did Walter Dipley shoot Ketchel in the back? Oh yes.

Re: What about this for a charmless feckker?

Posted: 15 Jul 2009, 04:07
by McCannW14
DavidPayne wrote:http://www.metro.us/us/article/2009/07/ ... /index.xml

I'm not sure whether to write to him or not.
Why bother? He is the one who is irrelevant.

Re: What about this for a charmless feckker?

Posted: 15 Jul 2009, 04:13
by DavidPayne
bennie wrote:Well, he's right in a horribly blunt way. Boxing is a minority sport and barely draws a line in the quality papers. Gatti's death, Arguello's death - not a line. Did Walter Dipley shoot Ketchel in the back? Oh yes.
Didn't Arguello make the obituaries in broadsheets?

Re: What about this for a charmless feckker?

Posted: 15 Jul 2009, 04:21
by bennie
DavidPayne wrote:
bennie wrote:Well, he's right in a horribly blunt way. Boxing is a minority sport and barely draws a line in the quality papers. Gatti's death, Arguello's death - not a line. Did Walter Dipley shoot Ketchel in the back? Oh yes.
Didn't Arguello make the obituaries in broadsheets?
One sincerely hopes so, but Gatti is the one. Man, a famous fighter, one of the bravest, strongest, wildest, craziest, most exciting fighters the game has ever seen, strangled to death (allegedly) by his wife's bloody purse straps, a sexy former stripper! This is a big story (to the red top newspapers).
Instead, we hear about Flintoff's dicky knee.

Re: What about this for a charmless feckker?

Posted: 15 Jul 2009, 04:38
by oliverfennell
bennie wrote:
DavidPayne wrote:
bennie wrote:Well, he's right in a horribly blunt way. Boxing is a minority sport and barely draws a line in the quality papers. Gatti's death, Arguello's death - not a line. Did Walter Dipley shoot Ketchel in the back? Oh yes.
Didn't Arguello make the obituaries in broadsheets?
One sincerely hopes so, but Gatti is the one. Man, a famous fighter, one of the bravest, strongest, wildest, craziest, most exciting fighters the game has ever seen, strangled to death (allegedly) by his wife's bloody purse straps, a sexy former stripper! This is a big story (to the red top newspapers).
Instead, we hear about Flintoff's dicky knee.
Bennie, please. This is non-boxing. Since when has murder and strippers had a place on this forum?

Re: What about this for a charmless feckker?

Posted: 15 Jul 2009, 05:03
by bennie
I DID mention red tops, son. You a proofreader, an' all.

Re: What about this for a charmless feckker?

Posted: 15 Jul 2009, 05:13
by oliverfennell
Yes, but THIS is a boxing forum.

Re: What about this for a charmless feckker?

Posted: 16 Jul 2009, 06:32
by ERIC GUY
gatti was a boxer, so its boxing related!!!

Re: What about this for a charmless feckker?

Posted: 16 Jul 2009, 14:50
by Khaosai-Galaxy
bennie wrote:
DavidPayne wrote:
bennie wrote:Well, he's right in a horribly blunt way. Boxing is a minority sport and barely draws a line in the quality papers. Gatti's death, Arguello's death - not a line. Did Walter Dipley shoot Ketchel in the back? Oh yes
Didn't Arguello make the obituaries in broadsheets?
One sincerely hopes so, but Gatti is the one. Man, a famous fighter, one of the bravest, strongest, wildest, craziest, most exciting fighters the game has ever seen, strangled to death (allegedly) by his wife's bloody purse straps, a sexy former stripper! This is a big story (to the red top newspapers).
Instead, we hear about Flintoff's dicky knee.
Bennie, please. This is non-boxing. Since when has murder and strippers had a place on this forum?
Since i started posting?

Re: What about this for a charmless feckker?

Posted: 17 Jul 2009, 03:31
by oliverfennell
ERIC GUY wrote:gatti was a boxer, so its boxing related!!!
As is Kevin Mitchell. The point is Bennie complained that there was a thread about Mitchell being done for drink-driving, saying it was "non-boxing".

Re: What about this for a charmless feckker?

Posted: 17 Jul 2009, 05:49
by Wake up call
Did any one else notice the disclaimer?

Metro does not endorse the views of its authors or opinions expressed on its pages

What a cop out.

Re: What about this for a charmless feckker?

Posted: 17 Jul 2009, 05:59
by Captain Hook
DavidPayne wrote:http://www.metro.us/us/article/2009/07/ ... /index.xml

I'm not sure whether to write to him or not.
I'm going to write to the pompus pudendum, I hate these type of 'journalists'

No style, no substance.......bloated waffle and misdirected attitude