we all know that!banjo wrote:"failing in HM Services"
Did you not read the bit where it said he got his Para wings then? And I know from personal experience how hard they are to earn, they don't just hand them out you know.
information leads us to believe that other wings were also received(by this man) and it was a split decisionbanjo wrote:"failing in HM Services"
Did you not read the bit where it said he got his Para wings then? And I know from personal experience how hard they are to earn, they don't just hand them out you know.
sorry but even if he was, how is being a control freak relevant to this thread? a thread about 1 on 1 fighter/trainer contact and the different idea that fighter and trainer had over said contact. looks to me that this is spiralling out of control again. a few ppl have come out and are using this thread to have a dig at joe, it seems. ppl seem to be turning the screw in, after he has lost a good talent in jeffries. joe's a great trainer on the up, and his fighters are 4-0, 4 stoppages in pro title fights and i've known him to be a very thorough bloke. also, of the olympian debuts, the fighters gallagher prepared - joe murray and of course jeffries - looked much better than t'others.bigdaddy wrote:joe gallagher seems a bit of a control freak and loves the press i here he picked the boxing shorts and ring music young joe boxed in and was told terry edwards thought joe gallagher ruined young joe murry chances of winning a medal in the olympic.and europeans .ps think john murry a great boxerTerry D wrote:It is crazy, a mutually agreed split has become this big daft soap. Jaffa is his own man, and in control of his own destiny, I am sure he still rates Joe G as a coach.
As for one-on-one time, Gallagher gave his fighters time. Since the turn of '09 BBN saw him take John Murray into a title fight, and John was given time, plus Joe told everyone that John was the best British champ on the circuit.
Then they took Jaffa into his fight. Jaffa had told BBN that he had always trained in an amateur gym, so Joe G said that Jaffa had the most changes to make, but would make them with ease and would be the best Olympian so far to turn over, and there was evidence to support that on the night.
Then Joe took Macklin into his title fight, Matt was given time and Joe told BBN that Matt was the best British boxer around at the moment and his time was coming, sound familiar? He said the same about John prior to his fight.
Joe Murray was next up, he got some time with Joe and Joe told everyone that Joe M was the best Olympic hopeful due to the fact he had trained in a pro gym for so long. Then Joe got six-rounds of solid boxing, and Joe G said that was the best performance so far, all things considered (the fact he went 6 x 3, took a few shots and came on strong), from the lads who went to the Games.
Then it would have been Jaffa and Joe out next, on the same night, and I fully imagine that Gallagher would have been telling us that both lads were the best of the amateur bunch turning over, and that both were the best prospects in the UK, it is Gallagher's MO.
So the talk about Joe Murray was not a slap in the face for Jaffa, just as the talk about Macklin was not a slap in the face for John Murray, it is how things are done down there. The British champions were preparing fro 12-round contests and both came through them, and both men gave credit to the training they had done, so it is not as if something is being done wrong, and Jeffries has said the move is not a reflection on the man as a trainer.
Since BBN has worked with him, Gallagher has been the type of guy to make his lads feel that they have just as much in their locker as any other fighter, and his results this year are speaking for themselves, two British title fights, two wins, making him 2-0 overall in British title fights, with both Olympians posting good notices.
Everyone is entitled to an opinion, some take 5 or 6 and run with them, but the results overall speak for themselves. If you asked Joe G who the best Olympians are he would say his two lads, who did look the best, along with Frankie Gavin and Darren Sutherland, of course he is going to talk Joe M up, as his fight was off-air. That is not a slur, it is what the guy does to gee his men up. It is about motivation.
People may say that Macklin was a cert to win his fight, that is fine, if you felt that before the fight then voice that opinion, if you did not think Macklin would win then you cannot come out and say, "I knew it all along".
The whole thing should have a line drawn under it. The whole 'cult' personality nonsense should also, the guy is dedicated, and at the moment his work is speaking for itself, two British titles with minimal support prior to Kayes stepping in and offering him a gym, that is not bad going.
On the other hand Joe G was talking about Jesus of Nazareth the other day, he has probably nicked a few motivational slogans from the guy.
Fraink maloneylegaleagle.ftm wrote:Spud wrote:Dear oh dear oh dear!!!
The Sunderland man is letting the fame he is getting in the small town of sunderland go to his head and thinks he is a superstar - in my opinion if he carries on like this he will end up like his football team - sinking fast!!!
I simply cannot understand Jeffries thinking on this one - he is one fight into his professional career and already "it seems" he is demanding this that and the other - yes demand things once you have proved yourself as a professional but to do so after only one fight against a journeyman ?? - for f*ck sake - Gallachers gym is not exactly that big and the excuses given for leaving in my opinion are not adding up with regards to one on one training - because I honestly thought he gave this as one of the biggest reasons for going there in the first place.
When I met Jaffa - I honestly thought he was a nice person and extremely pleasant to talk to - he is however in my opinion setting himself up for an almighty fall!!!
Having considered the content of your post, it appears to our legal department that you speak with experience from matters within your own life. "demand things once you have proved yourself". We take it that you will never therefore be in a position to demand anything as you have never proved yourself in any area of your life. "he is setting himself up for an almighty fall". No-one has fallen like you my son, job to job, promoter to promoter since failing in HM Services.
DD 
DD 
I think its because we are all in awe of Spud's army career...DavidPayne wrote:One post from me and this thread dies on its arse, crickey, its this deoderant int it? Bloody Insignia.
Very, very funny.....DavidPayne wrote:Following on from Andy McNab and Chris Ryan read thrilling excerpts from the latest frontline novel, "After Tax" from debut writer 'Spud' Woollatt telling the gripping tale of life in the Wages department of the worldest toughest regiment.
"This story grips you from the first P60" says The Sun
"Woollatt goes where Ryan fears to tread" says Frederick Forsyth
"Spud boils, fries and roasts the competition with his debut outing" say Heat
"An inevitable blockbuster" says Richard and Judy
"Calm down dear" says Michael Winner.
"*****" says The Sport.
im sure spud is not offended its all a good bit of mickey taking banter DD
I agree he doesn't back down and I did give him credit for having called it, whether by luck or judgement, in an earlier post but he put himself up for some stick over many years.teddy007 wrote:Too many people give spud shit on here and its getting boring now. I'm totally f*cked off with it as i'm sure he is, you must give him credit becuase at least he has his own opinions and doesn't backdown and for that I respect him.
Payne,DavidPayne wrote:I agree he doesn't back down and I did give him credit for having called it, whether by luck or judgement, in an earlier post but he put himself up for some stick over many years.teddy007 wrote:Too many people give spud shit on here and its getting boring now. I'm totally f*cked off with it as i'm sure he is, you must give him credit becuase at least he has his own opinions and doesn't backdown and for that I respect him.
was in order - the poster stated "no stay around, keep to your opinions and remember an old arabic phrase "nobody kicks a dead dog" - look it up guys!!!DDDeserter - you are not a lawyer - apologies if I am mistaken.Deserter wrote:Spud wrote:If you read my posts on this thread I honestly believe I have not stated anything that is alarming or grossly out of order.
Spud, last thing I'll say on this matter, but while there are clearly some posters who have a 'history' with you, you also need to be objective enough to acknowledge your own failings.
If you can't see that the tone and language of your initial post was both inflamatory and insulting then quite frankly I'm staggered. It would have been easy for you to get your opinion across without resorting to accusing Jeffries of being a prima donna and yet you chose that route, despite not being privy to the discussions between both parties.
If your stance is that this falls within the remit of you being entitled to your 'opinion', then equally you have to accept that others have an 'opinion' on you. At the moment it appears to me that you want to change the goalposts to suit your own agenda.
Spud wrote:
You use the words - "inflamatory and insulting" - if that were the case - that works both ways and there is a clear audit trail of threads which have been printed I have on that score - so please do not take me as a fool.
In addition - do not take things for granted - how on earth do you know who i have spoke to - phone records will verify this and in addition verify who has phoned me and the duration of the calls - whilst I accept the content of those calls is down to "honesty".
However I accept you have your opinions.
Haha! Legend......Columbo, DG, not you but ColumboDG. wrote:Spud wrote:
You use the words - "inflamatory and insulting" - if that were the case - that works both ways and there is a clear audit trail of threads which have been printed I have on that score - so please do not take me as a fool.
In addition - do not take things for granted - how on earth do you know who i have spoke to - phone records will verify this and in addition verify who has phoned me and the duration of the calls - whilst I accept the content of those calls is down to "honesty".
However I accept you have your opinions.
Audit trail of threads?
Not just any old audit trail of threads you know...oh no, a PRINTED audit trail of threads. Crickey I hope none of the filing cabinets are on the first floor at the Woollatt Barracks.DG. wrote:Spud wrote:
You use the words - "inflamatory and insulting" - if that were the case - that works both ways and there is a clear audit trail of threads which have been printed I have on that score - so please do not take me as a fool.
In addition - do not take things for granted - how on earth do you know who i have spoke to - phone records will verify this and in addition verify who has phoned me and the duration of the calls - whilst I accept the content of those calls is down to "honesty".
However I accept you have your opinions.
Audit trail of threads?
:D
