Last nights towel controversy

johnswan1 · Post by **johnswan1** » 18 Feb 2007, 06:34

I was at the Wembley Arena last night for what turned out to be a surprisingly good night of boxing.

Regarding the towel incident in the Earl fight, was it really ok for Vann to throw it back out of the ring? I know on TV they said it's British rules that the corner can't do that, but would the WBO rules not override any British rules considering it was for their interim title? And if the referee was correct, how did the corner not know this rule considering they probably never even had many fights outside of a British ring?

Watched it again when I got home last night, I was wondering whether it really was as good as I first thought or whether it was just a one sided beatdown with a bit of drama, but Earl definitely had his moments. Can't see that he'd have much of a chance in a rematch but I'd definitely like to see Katsidis again over here.

m1kee50 · Post by **m1kee50** » 18 Feb 2007, 06:49

I think he can accept the towel but is not forced to? im not sure, i think its a custom more than a rule but im not sure

dondada · Post by **dondada** » 18 Feb 2007, 08:26

Not sure about the WBO but I know the rule is that the ref does not have to accept the towel as retirement.

If Johnny Eames had really wanted it stopped, he would have had to enter the ring and get his man DQ'd but then he would have had his licence suspended and/or fined. So that's not really an option.

He would have had to withdraw his man at the end of the round. And he didn't do it at the end of the second, did he, so the towel was obviously premature.

Vann was right.

Phenomenal-Nutrition · Post by **Phenomenal-Nutrition** » 18 Feb 2007, 09:05

Imagine if there was a tradegy involving Earl though - and with the punnishment he took it wasn't out the question. Chin of iron that man.

stujones · Post by **stujones** » 18 Feb 2007, 09:16

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:Not sure about the WBO but I know the rule is that the ref does not have to accept the towel as retirement.

If Johnny Eames had really wanted it stopped, he would have had to enter the ring and get his man DQ'd but then he would have had his licence suspended and/or fined. So that's not really an option.

He would have had to withdraw his man at the end of the round. And he didn't do it at the end of the second, did he, so the towel was obviously premature.

Vann was right.

Of course Eames wasn't going to pull Earl out after he rocked Kastidis to the soles of his boots.

Hindsight can be a wonderful thing, but in boxing it can also be a horrible thing - which I am sure the likes of Dai Gardiner can vouch for.

dondada · Post by **dondada** » 18 Feb 2007, 12:24

stujones wrote:
Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:Not sure about the WBO but I know the rule is that the ref does not have to accept the towel as retirement.

If Johnny Eames had really wanted it stopped, he would have had to enter the ring and get his man DQ'd but then he would have had his licence suspended and/or fined. So that's not really an option.

He would have had to withdraw his man at the end of the round. And he didn't do it at the end of the second, did he, so the towel was obviously premature.

Vann was right.
Of course Eames wasn't going to pull Earl out after he rocked Kastidis to the soles of his boots.

So he was premature in throwing in the towel then, yes? Always better to be safe, I completely agree.

TheGoods · Post by **TheGoods** » 18 Feb 2007, 14:30

Vann cost me a packet. Had a massive lump on Katsidis outright anyway but also had 30 notes on him winning in the second at 33/1! You can imagine my face in the boozer when the silver fox threw it back out...

ILikeBeer · Post by **ILikeBeer** » 18 Feb 2007, 15:46

I'll put my hands up in the air. I didn't know this was a rule. Call me ill informed if you like.

But to be honest, it's a dumb rule. If a team wants to quit, why shouldn't they be able to? Boxing's first priority should be to prevent tragedy as much as possible. I don't think it should be the referees decision to not allow a quitting mid-round.

Abbo · Post by **Abbo** » 18 Feb 2007, 16:47

TheGoods wrote:Vann cost me a packet. Had a massive lump on Katsidis outright anyway but also had 30 notes on him winning in the second at 33/1! You can imagine my face in the boozer when the silver fox threw it back out...

That is all-time bad luck

harrygreb · Post by **harrygreb** » 18 Feb 2007, 17:01

vann was right, eamesy was wrong. great trainer but he dont know too much about boxing

stujones · Post by **stujones** » 18 Feb 2007, 19:40

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:
stujones wrote:
Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:Not sure about the WBO but I know the rule is that the ref does not have to accept the towel as retirement.

If Johnny Eames had really wanted it stopped, he would have had to enter the ring and get his man DQ'd but then he would have had his licence suspended and/or fined. So that's not really an option.

He would have had to withdraw his man at the end of the round. And he didn't do it at the end of the second, did he, so the towel was obviously premature.

Vann was right.
Of course Eames wasn't going to pull Earl out after he rocked Kastidis to the soles of his boots.
So he was premature in throwing in the towel then, yes? Always better to be safe, I completely agree.

I have a tendancy to agree with Real Deal's view - maybe had the towel not been thrown in maybe Kastidis wouldn't have been that careless.

If you heard Eames' view after the fight - the fight went 3 rounds after the towel incident but he still felt what Vann did was out of order.

I thought Eames was premature in pulling out Earl when he did.... and yes, obviously was with the towel (although as I said, not convinced Earl would have hurt him had he not thrown the towel)... However, still think what Vann did was a bit wrong, not against the official rules but against the "moral" rules.

salaco · Post by **salaco** » 19 Feb 2007, 06:19

Fun fight but katsidis was beating the piss out of him at most points..it could have been stopped several times, Earl caught him once or twice but I didnt feel tthere would be any other outcome...

Twinkle Toes · Post by **Twinkle Toes** » 19 Feb 2007, 06:45

This is Mickey Vann we are talking about here - It has always been my view that he has a rather large ego, and where as most refs would have accepted the towel, it didnt surprise me in the slightest when Vann flung it back out of the ring.

I personally thought Vann reffed the fight quite poorly.

Mr Boogaloo · Post by **Mr Boogaloo** » 19 Feb 2007, 07:08

I didn't know the ins and outs of the rule - but to watch it, I could hardly believe what I was seeing - in effect, Vann was saying 'I know your fighter better than you do - this is a good fight, I'm going to let it go...'

I mean - fair play, it did work out for the best in this case, but he was damn lucky about that. If a ref ever did that and a fighter ended up getting hurt, the ref would face accusations that he had been almost criminally negligent.

The rules on this need to change to give the corner a chance to withdraw their fighter. If I was a cornerman, and I threw the towel in to save my mate - the ref blanks me, watches him take 8-9 extra punches before stopping it himself, I'd be spitting.

harrygreb · Post by **harrygreb** » 19 Feb 2007, 07:47

it shows that vann was bang on the case. good reffing in my view. earl was losing and taking big shots but he wasnt out of the fight and could conceivably have won. johnny eames made a bad call (see my post above). perhaps we are losing sight of what sort of contest pro boxing is. i didnt see the towel coming in during nigel benns disatrous first round against gerald mcclelland.

Goz · Post by **Goz** » 19 Feb 2007, 07:54

Abbo wrote:
TheGoods wrote:Vann cost me a packet. Had a massive lump on Katsidis outright anyway but also had 30 notes on him winning in the second at 33/1! You can imagine my face in the boozer when the silver fox threw it back out...

That is all-time bad luck

Agreed.

You could probably sue Vann for your money if this happened in the US!

steve689 · Post by **steve689** » 19 Feb 2007, 08:03

I was totally shocked when Vann threw the towel out but looking back it is the type of thing he would do. The only similar thing i can recall is when Gino Rodriguez ignored Uli Wegner trying to pull Mario Veit out against Joe Calzaghe in the classic rematch. However as soon as the fight resumed Calzaghe continued beating up Veit anyway and the American ref just dived in like a hero.

I think Earl was slurring a bit in his pre-fight interview, i think the kids a bit punchy. They will probably use him as fodder for Khan soon enough but after that he should retire.

Max Molyneux · Post by **Max Molyneux** » 19 Feb 2007, 09:15

It wasn't just a tune up fight though, It was a title fight so Vann was right to give Earl a chance, Eames was overprotective.

Twinkle Toes · Post by **Twinkle Toes** » 19 Feb 2007, 09:18

Over protective?

Did you not see Earl punch drunk more than 10 minutes after the fight had finished?

Scrap · Post by **Scrap** » 19 Feb 2007, 09:59

I thought Eames call was spot on, exactly as I saw it. He has to live with the circumstances, and Johns not a bottle job neither are his fighters

Max Molyneux · Post by **Max Molyneux** » 19 Feb 2007, 10:01

Twinkle Toes wrote:Over protective?

Did you not see Earl punch drunk more than 10 minutes after the fight had finished?

No proof he was punch drunk, Kat was taking many heavy shots too.

Lenny · Post by **Lenny** » 19 Feb 2007, 10:10

But then again Max you do view fights through union jack tinted specs so your opinion comes as no surprise. If Eames thinks Earl has taken enough then that should be it, he knows his fighter better than Vann who was also crap with the low blow call imo. It's like when Ian John Lewis was trying to get Power to fight another round against Munyai, the refs shouldn't be making calls that put a fighter in danger against their corners wishes.

m1kee50 · Post by **m1kee50** » 19 Feb 2007, 12:19

Scrap wrote:I thought Eames call was spot on, exactly as I saw it. He has to live with the circumstances, and Johns not a bottle job neither are his fighters

thats right. if it all goes wrong, what does vann care? soccer fans will know how bad Uriah Rennie can be, that was my first thought when the towel got rejected tbh

Twinkle Toes · Post by **Twinkle Toes** » 19 Feb 2007, 13:20

Max Molyneux wrote:
No proof he was punch drunk, Kat was taking many heavy shots too.

No proof? - Go and re-watch Earl closely after the end of the fight - You'll see Earl struggling badly with his balance.

As far as I am concerned he was pulled out at the right time, yeah it's true he had a decent fifth round, but it wasn't all Earl, and to be honest it was clear to see that Earl was being affected more by the shots being landed.

It also pays to note that if Rawling is correct with what he was saying, then it isn't any wonder Earl had a competitive fifth - Vann supposedly had told the corner he was only giving Earl one more round.

harrygreb · Post by **harrygreb** » 19 Feb 2007, 13:27

graham earl was suffering from an abundance of tough head shots. if i clumped you a dozen times you'd talk like that for a good few hours too.
earl isnt punchy. perhaps you were surprised he didnt sum up the fight in the manner of stephen fry but i wasnt.