Joined
·
14,188 Posts
It's not easy working as a journalist. Building a career in the field, especially in an increasingly niche sport like boxing is a real achievement. But, just sometimes, a writer comes along whose relative success is baffling.
Matt Christie is one such writer. Not content with a sixth form approximation of Jeff Lindsay (the writer of Darkly Dreaming Dexter), he's apparently immune to either logical analysis or being objective during a fight. The man can't read a fight or, apparently, write a decent round-up of one. But my opinions on his shoddy, over-ambitious but under-thought work are well known. Today he did something I never thought possible. He got worse.
This week's Boxing News features a piece on how Joe Calzaghe would fare against the class of 2013. It's a really interesting idea and I was expecting views from maybe Bernard Hopkins as a common opponent, or respected trainers. Instead, we get what amounts to a fan boy's forum post, full of wild speculation without any understanding of the stylistic factors in each fight.
But, that's pretty much par for the course with Matt. So, what bothered me so much? Well, it's a pet hate of mine: poor fact-checking. Whenever I'm writing about something where there's a historical record, I always check it, regardless of how sure I am.
Say for example, I'm writing about Chad Dawson, and I'm sure his only loss is at 168lbs, against Andre Ward. I'm going to state he's never lost at 175lbs. But, just to be sure, I'm going to check his record on BoxRec, or Wikipedia, or FightFax, or with his agent or promoter. Or, if I really want to be sure, the man himself on Twitter.
A quick check of BoxRec reveals I've clearly had a stroke, because somehow I've forgotten his pretty pitiful (and high-profile) loss to Jean Pascal, which netted the Haitian fighter the Ring belt at 175lbs in 2010. So my previous statement was utterly wrong and it only took me around 60 seconds to check this. I'm a professional journalist after all and I want to make sure my facts, even in an speculative opinion piece, are 100% accurate.
Or I could do what Matt Christie does and write some utter bollocks on the very first piece of body copy in the article about Dawson, saying he's undefeated at 175lbs. Despite his first loss being at 175lbs in a high-profile, relatively contemporary bout. And then in the Carl Froch comparison I ignore anything resembling stylistic analysis, indulge my crush on Froch's nose, and write the sort of shit 16-year olds would cringe at.
How the fuck is this man a paid fight journalist? He's fucking dreadful.
Matt Christie is one such writer. Not content with a sixth form approximation of Jeff Lindsay (the writer of Darkly Dreaming Dexter), he's apparently immune to either logical analysis or being objective during a fight. The man can't read a fight or, apparently, write a decent round-up of one. But my opinions on his shoddy, over-ambitious but under-thought work are well known. Today he did something I never thought possible. He got worse.
This week's Boxing News features a piece on how Joe Calzaghe would fare against the class of 2013. It's a really interesting idea and I was expecting views from maybe Bernard Hopkins as a common opponent, or respected trainers. Instead, we get what amounts to a fan boy's forum post, full of wild speculation without any understanding of the stylistic factors in each fight.
But, that's pretty much par for the course with Matt. So, what bothered me so much? Well, it's a pet hate of mine: poor fact-checking. Whenever I'm writing about something where there's a historical record, I always check it, regardless of how sure I am.
Say for example, I'm writing about Chad Dawson, and I'm sure his only loss is at 168lbs, against Andre Ward. I'm going to state he's never lost at 175lbs. But, just to be sure, I'm going to check his record on BoxRec, or Wikipedia, or FightFax, or with his agent or promoter. Or, if I really want to be sure, the man himself on Twitter.
A quick check of BoxRec reveals I've clearly had a stroke, because somehow I've forgotten his pretty pitiful (and high-profile) loss to Jean Pascal, which netted the Haitian fighter the Ring belt at 175lbs in 2010. So my previous statement was utterly wrong and it only took me around 60 seconds to check this. I'm a professional journalist after all and I want to make sure my facts, even in an speculative opinion piece, are 100% accurate.
Or I could do what Matt Christie does and write some utter bollocks on the very first piece of body copy in the article about Dawson, saying he's undefeated at 175lbs. Despite his first loss being at 175lbs in a high-profile, relatively contemporary bout. And then in the Carl Froch comparison I ignore anything resembling stylistic analysis, indulge my crush on Froch's nose, and write the sort of shit 16-year olds would cringe at.
How the fuck is this man a paid fight journalist? He's fucking dreadful.
