Leedswolf is Richard Maynard!!

bennie · Post by **bennie** » 08 Dec 2003, 10:14

Press agent for allegedly. Shit.

stujones · Post by **stujones** » 08 Dec 2003, 10:27

He seemed okay, do you think he'll be posting again Bennie?

REAL_DEAL · Post by **REAL_DEAL** » 08 Dec 2003, 10:27

his views are always welcome

Guest · Post by **Guest** » 08 Dec 2003, 10:30

stujones wrote:He seemed okay, do you think he'll be posting again Bennie?

Cant say I'm surprised. That's the last of the "Wolf". I wonder if any new members will register in the next few days?

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 08 Dec 2003, 10:30

It's a possibility, no way of being sure who it is though. Has greywolf dissapeared?

bennie · Post by **bennie** » 08 Dec 2003, 10:36

Richard Maynard's a good bloke. But he's definitely checking us out.

REAL_DEAL · Post by **REAL_DEAL** » 08 Dec 2003, 10:39

i bet hes got a bad member list, who to watch out for

Guest · Post by **Guest** » 08 Dec 2003, 10:40

bennie wrote:Richard Maynard's a good bloke. But he's definitely checking us out.

Are both those statements accurate?

bennie · Post by **bennie** » 08 Dec 2003, 10:41

Well, that's you for one, Chris.

bennie · Post by **bennie** » 08 Dec 2003, 10:42

lightsoot wrote:
bennie wrote:Richard Maynard's a good bloke. But he's definitely checking us out.
Are both those statements accurate?

You know the old adage, Lightsoot. Never let truth get in the way of a good story.

stujones · Post by **stujones** » 08 Dec 2003, 10:42

To be honest if anybody (and I'm not suggest that anybody is) is offended by the comments made on this forum then we're in trouble regardless of any decision the moderator may take.... The possibilty of banning any poster will only make matters worse in my opinion as it will give the party an excuse to be angry.

The comments on this forum can be viewed by anybody so the banned person can view any slanderous comments made on this forum - that all it is doing on stopping from posting here, nothing more.

I'm sure the moderators at other forums in the past have barred posters will connections from using their forum, simply becuase they may be aware of their connections. But that hasn't provented the closure of many boxing forums.

At this moment, I haven't read any degradory comment made about any promotor on this forum, I have the respect for the job that they do (I wouldn't do it for sure) and I'm sure Mr Wolf wouldn't have made 40+ posts here if he were damning of his employer (or any other promotor for that matter).

I am sure, as a promotor himself, John Shepard would be mighty annoyed if some of the posters here were damning of anybody in his proffesion.

MightyWarrior · Post by **MightyWarrior** » 08 Dec 2003, 10:46

bennie wrote:Richard Maynard's a good bloke. But he's definitely checking us out.

He's probably sitting in a small chair in Frank's office now, giving him an update on who's been slandering him lately.

Did you see Warren's letter in BN last week? He replied to about 3 or 4 people he thought had unfairly critisised him the previous week - even the slightest critisism was noted. He seems to read everything! and is obviously a sensitive fellow...

steve689 · Post by **steve689** » 08 Dec 2003, 11:14

Frank is a very sensitive bloke, first he gets the hump with Secondsout.com and then British Eastside. Do his people sit and read Boxing forums all day looking for slanderous comments? Bullshit. You won't hear any from me!! I love allegedly, best promoter in the world

...What?!

Kieran · Post by **Kieran** » 08 Dec 2003, 11:17

Interesting choice of name Richard.
Wolf - a predatory wild dog, covered in flees.
Leeds - would be Premiership outfit on the verge of Administration.
mmmmmm

Kieran · Post by **Kieran** » 08 Dec 2003, 11:19

Richard's ok.
Ask him to recount a few stories from his days as a would be boxer at Brendan's !!!

Lugh · Post by **Lugh** » 08 Dec 2003, 11:23

Here is an unfashionable view - FW and SN ARE unfairly treated.

Because they cornered the market (and don't forget broke the British Boxing Cartel) and dare I say it breathed new life into a sport in decline.

Nowadays it seems as if it's de rigeur to pan FW.

By all means support the up and coming Promoters - but please don't expect FW to do so!! He (literally) went for the blood, sweat and tears route and helped to bring boxing back into the country's perception.

He didn't get where he is by ignoring perceived threats and not responding to challenges.

I am not excusing some of the recent tame matching of the top boys.

stujones · Post by **stujones** » 08 Dec 2003, 11:29

Lugh wrote:Here is an unfashionable view - FW and SN ARE unfairly treated.

Because they cornered the market (and don't forget broke the British Boxing Cartel) and dare I say it breathed new life into a sport in decline.

Nowadays it seems as if it's de rigeur to pan FW.

By all means support the up and coming Promoters - but please don't expect FW to do so!! He (literally) went for the blood, sweat and tears route and helped to bring boxing back into the country's perception.

He didn't get where he is by ignoring perceived threats and not responding to challenges.

I am not excusing some of the recent tame matching of the top boys.

Thats not a bad view at all. If you compare the amount of boxers who have claimed they are unhappy with their treatment at sports network to those who have claimed "allegedly is the best promotor in the world" it does speak volumes of the work he has done over the years.

No doubt, overall, Frank is a top promotor. The needle doesn't always stop with him either, sometimes its the fighter who has to take a long look at himself.

REAL_DEAL · Post by **REAL_DEAL** » 08 Dec 2003, 11:37

bennie wrote:Well, that's you for one, Chris.

i am on the i love him list,

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 08 Dec 2003, 11:38

I think Richard Maynard and allegedly are second only to God and the Angel Gabriel, wonderful, wonderful people....do I need to say it again? Can you hear me out there?

In seriousness for a moment, anyone who has a monopoly is going to come under criticism, it's a fact of life that not everyone is going to like what a single promoter who covers so much ground does.

I've been openly critical of some of the moves made, but credit where it's due, Warren has mananged to make big stars out of Naseem Hamed, and is very close to doing the same with Ricky Hatton. Hamed did open the floodgates for a lot of lighter weigh fighters to make the money they are now, and is a very rich man as a result of it, richer than he deserves to be if anything.

I do think Calzaghe's career is a letdown, but how much of that is down to Calzaghe himself, hard to say.

Ricky Hatton is a fighter i stick by, i don't think he's a fake, and I do think he can go on to bigger things, it won't be easy, but I think he's a genuine talent.

However, I don't think allegedly is the devil, but I don't think he's the second coming either.

Lugh · Post by **Lugh** » 08 Dec 2003, 11:54

When you look at someone like - Johnny Nelson.

Someone tell me he has been hard done by with SN, or that he might have achieved more elsewhere?

Exactly - there are if anything a few OVER ACHIEVERS at SN.

I think we (the fans) are guilty because we expect all the best fights to be just "Made" - we also pretend that "in the old days - real champs didn't pick & choose, or duck anybody".

Anyone care to address that one?

The Joe Louis "Bum of the Month club" springs to mind.

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 08 Dec 2003, 11:58

As does Jack Dempsey not defending his title at all for almost 3 years!

I guess as fans it's easy to get frustrated when the fights we want to see materialise (Calzaghe v Hopkins, Calzaghe v Eastman etc) don't materialise), but the bottom line is, boxing is a business, and at the end of the day, I doubt that Calzaghe is exactly 'screwing' about being skint.

the wishes of the fans are always going to be secondary to keeping the fighter happy, it's the fighter that's the client.

I do think that if a fighter wants fights badly enough, they will happen.

bennie · Post by **bennie** » 08 Dec 2003, 12:14

One thing I've said over and over again: allegedly's a great payer. He's made millionaires of Hatton, Calzaghe and Nelson. And probably Nobby Nobbs as well.

stujones · Post by **stujones** » 08 Dec 2003, 12:17

Yeah, didn't he give Peter Buckley a bonus when he was reach a recent milestone? I think it was 100 defeats.

Also gave Vann a commerative belt when he reached a milestone - in the Smith vs Hatton fight. I suppose some might have criticised for the type of belt he gave (WBU). However, it was a WBU title fight and you have to ask yourself, how many other promoters would have cared if Vann was celebrating a milestone.

snoopy · Post by **snoopy** » 08 Dec 2003, 17:37

Richard with out doubt is not Leedswolf..........

bennie · Post by **bennie** » 08 Dec 2003, 17:38

snoopy wrote:Richard with out doubt is not Leedswolf..........

Well, everyone knows who you are.

Leedswolf is Richard Maynard!!

Leedswolf is Richard Maynard!!

Richard Maynard is not Leedswolf

Re: Richard Maynard is not Leedswolf