Last nights towel controversy

dondada · Post by **dondada** » 19 Feb 2007, 14:45

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

Sorry Scrap, but I don't buy it. If Eames' was spot on, why didn't he pull him out at the end of the second round then?

Lenny · Post by **Lenny** » 20 Feb 2007, 04:42

Because Earl proved he could hurt Katsides but nobody at the time had the gift of hindsight, it looked far more likely Earl was going to be trapped on the ropes and take more very hurtful punches. Vann shouldn't be saying no when I corner asks to pull a fighter out who is taking a lot of punishment. Nobody could see that Earl was going to hurt Katsides and unfortunatly he couldn't hurt him again afterwards.

Twinkle Toes · Post by **Twinkle Toes** » 20 Feb 2007, 05:18

harrygreb wrote: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.

I was talking about his balance rather than his speech, which to me looked very poor, during and more so after the fight.

Nice attempt at humour though.

Lenny · Post by **Lenny** » 20 Feb 2007, 06:55

Exactly the same here Terence, my girlfriend actually put her book down and was on the edge of her seat watching it saying "i've never seen a boxing match like this" whilst I too was worried about the amount of times Earl's head was snapping back but then he would come back throwing punches which made the fight very hard to stop, have to say I did have a brief thought of another Levander Johnson scenario.

But going back to the Vann knowing Earl's ability to come back, does he know this better than Eames? I'm not sure brave refs are all that good

dondada · Post by **dondada** » 20 Feb 2007, 07:08

Lenny Albert wrote:Because Earl proved he could hurt Katsides but nobody at the time had the gift of hindsight, it looked far more likely Earl was going to be trapped on the ropes and take more very hurtful punches. Vann shouldn't be saying no when I corner asks to pull a fighter out who is taking a lot of punishment. Nobody could see that Earl was going to hurt Katsides and unfortunatly he couldn't hurt him again afterwards.

If Eames had the courage of his convictions he would have pulled him out at the end of the second. You can't slag Vann off for not accepting the towel and then letting your man fight on when you could have pulled him out yourself.

harrygreb · Post by **harrygreb** » 20 Feb 2007, 09:42

absolutely right.
and vann has a better view of the fight and the ins and outs of it than johnny eames sitting in the corner.

i'm beginning to sound like i dont like eamsey, nothing could be further from the truth.

theguru · Post by **theguru** » 21 Feb 2007, 07:17

Eames is supposed to be a respected trainer but throwing the TOWEL into to the ring is banned and he should have known this.The correct procedure is to stand on the ring apron and wave the towel to get the refs attention.If that towel had impeded either of the fighters vision as it was thrown across one of them could have got seriously hurt.
Van was right to remove the either fighter could have tripped over it.