just a thought.. did vann cost earl the fight...

[harrygreb]

listen silkov, if johnny eames was so concerned about how much his man was taking he would have pulled him out at the end of the towel round whether or not he had decked the aussie with a few seconds of the round to go. it was the punishment he was taking not the stuff he was dishing out that caused eames to throw in the towel. after the aussie wobbled eames thought again; perhaps earl isnt so badly hurt after all, he could win! and that is why johnny's decision to throw it in was a bad one and mickey vanns decision to dimiss the gesture was a good one. yes i did see graham earls post fight interview - a bad-ish cut but no other visible damage (compare grahams face to katsides beaten pulp of a mug!)

a fighter who has taken that amount of shots is not going to be offered a place on university challenge until he has had time to recover fully which by sunday lunchtime he would have done. i do not want to see anyone brain damaged in the ring but nor do i want to see my sport robbed of its lifeblood - which is brave men going to extraordinary lengths to win a contest.
mr mcneilly and i concur

[silkov]

'It's not rocket science' yet you can't seem to grasp it. Stop making Eames out to be a saint. He let his man go another three rounds after the round in which he threw in the towel.

Eames had several opportunities to stop the contest and let several go past before calling a halt.

Vann was right to refuse the towel because

1 Earl wasn't in DEEP trouble at that point
2 He was fighting back
3 Soon after Earl nearly knocked him out

Yet Vann is the twat in all this?

I can't be bothered to argue about this, but if you think Earl wasnt in deep trouble then you must be blind... simple as that.

[harrygreb]

thats about as good an admission of being wrong as we're gonna get.

[silkov]

thats about as good an admission of being wrong as we're gonna get.

Wrong about what?... are you saying that Earl didnt take a hammering??... I dont really see what your beef with me is, I never called Vann a Twat, read my posts, ...if you think thats great reffing good on you.... but the fact that Eames had to pull Earl out rather than wait for the ref to save him from getting badly hurt speaks for itself imo... he knew that Vann wasnt going to stop it!. Vann is a joke as a ref, I 've said that and I'll stand by it too... he's erratic and biased and spends more time trying to help the house fighter win than looking after the fighters health in there which is his real job supposedly... the Aussie would have to have chopped Earls head off before Vann would come close to stopping the fight..... Its nice to see exciting fights but spare a thought about the guys who have to live with the consequences of those punches for the rest of their lives, ....if a guys taking lots of heavy headshots in a fight that he;s unlikely to win should it be allowed to carry on till he collapses unconcious just because some people find it exciting???...

[Andy Mac]

Vann's counts for Earl were pretty slow, and then giving him a few extra seconds after the count to compose himself. He is the SN house referee no doubt about that he always gives the home corner every advantage he can.

Nailed. Plus a ref can give a standing 8 count whether a fighter is on the ropes or not, so i dont see the point rhino is trying to make in his 1st post.

OK then. Bearing in mind that Earl almost sparked the lad seconds after Vann rejected the towel, don't you think that was a good reffing call?

Jesus, I'm the last person to pour cold water on Sports Network conspiracy theories but come on.

That isn't the point Ian. Sure Earl landed ONE great shot, but he was hurt more or less everytime he was hit. Plus Vann clearly said at the beginning of the 5th I will give you one more round. Earl LOST that round, and showed nothing to convince people he could turn the fight around. Yet Vann was not going to stop the fight. That makes it an example of bad reffing IMO.

I have also seen Vann give plenty of rope to Ricky Hatton, and have been pleased to witness it, but a cut like a cows arse is nothing like as dangerous as a guy getting his head knocked in all directions with virtually every solid shot.

[silkov]

Nailed. Plus a ref can give a standing 8 count whether a fighter is on the ropes or not, so i dont see the point rhino is trying to make in his 1st post.

OK then. Bearing in mind that Earl almost sparked the lad seconds after Vann rejected the towel, don't you think that was a good reffing call?

Jesus, I'm the last person to pour cold water on Sports Network conspiracy theories but come on.

That isn't the point Ian. Sure Earl landed ONE great shot, but he was hurt more or less everytime he was hit. Plus Vann clearly said at the beginning of the 5th I will give you one more round. Earl LOST that round, and showed nothing to convince people he could turn the fight around. Yet Vann was not going to stop the fight. That makes it an example of bad reffing IMO.

I have also seen Vann give plenty of rope to Ricky Hatton, and have been pleased to witness it, but a cut like a cows arse is nothing like as dangerous as a guy getting his head knocked in all directions with virtually every solid shot.

Exactly, its amazing how some people only see what they want to see... either that or they just dont know what theyre looking at... I'd like to know what it would have taken for Vann to have stopped the fight, I'm betting that had the Aussie gone down just once and got up a bit wobbily it would have been stopped then and there...

[E]

Going back to the original post I watched the tape 7 or 8 times and it is soooooooo close whether his arse touches the groung - it seems at least the fabric of his shorts did.

Regardless - yes it turned out well, but Vann should have accepted the towel - the trainer knows their fighter better......

I mean - do we really want to go back to the 1930s / 50's when fighters were allowed to carry on as long as they beta the count?

Yes, a very small proportion of them end up winning (I can only think of moore-Durelle) but it's still not worth it.

Moore - Durelle IMO should def have been stopped regardless of Archie's evential victory - they can have a rematch anyway.......

[Sweet P]

How do you people know that Earl would have stopped him any way, Katsidis wasn't as hurt as the commentators made out and still had his gaurd up a few seconds after the knockdown, Vann is baised towards every Warren fighter he gave Earl 19 secs on the first knockdown and 16 in the second round. Katsidi's will learn from the knockdown and will be better for it. Earl was just out gunned and outclassed and blaiming the ref is bullshit even though he is a useless one at that.

[mattyp151]

Just watched it on google video...Vann did everything in his power to keep Earl in it. Slow counts, talkiing to Katsidis, a questionable low blow call the first time, the second on the lower of the belt was low, but not worth a deduction. Earl was cooked after the second KD, it was a matter of time. Too much from Katsidis' right was getting through for Earl to win.

[dondada]

Nailed. Plus a ref can give a standing 8 count whether a fighter is on the ropes or not, so i dont see the point rhino is trying to make in his 1st post.

OK then. Bearing in mind that Earl almost sparked the lad seconds after Vann rejected the towel, don't you think that was a good reffing call?

Jesus, I'm the last person to pour cold water on Sports Network conspiracy theories but come on.

That isn't the point Ian. Sure Earl landed ONE great shot, but he was hurt more or less everytime he was hit. Plus Vann clearly said at the beginning of the 5th I will give you one more round. Earl LOST that round, and showed nothing to convince people he could turn the fight around. Yet Vann was not going to stop the fight. That makes it an example of bad reffing IMO.

I think we are talking at cross purposes, Andy. I'm not disagreeing with what you say here.

What I am saying is that Eames had plenty of chances to pull his man out before he did.

[Max Molyneux]

How do you people know that Earl would have stopped him any way, Katsidis wasn't as hurt as the commentators made out and still had his gaurd up a few seconds after the knockdown, Vann is baised towards every Warren fighter he gave Earl 19 secs on the first knockdown and 16 in the second round. Katsidi's will learn from the knockdown and will be better for it. Earl was just out gunned and outclassed and blaiming the ref is bullshit even though he is a useless one at that.

So knocking a guy down In the 2nd and winning at least two more of the 5 rounds Is called being outclassed?

[Lenny]

Winning at least two more rounds???? Jesus, there was a massive difference in the effect of their punches, I didn't give Earl a thing

[Sweet P]

How do you people know that Earl would have stopped him any way, Katsidis wasn't as hurt as the commentators made out and still had his gaurd up a few seconds after the knockdown, Vann is baised towards every Warren fighter he gave Earl 19 secs on the first knockdown and 16 in the second round. Katsidi's will learn from the knockdown and will be better for it. Earl was just out gunned and outclassed and blaiming the ref is bullshit even though he is a useless one at that.

So knocking a guy down In the 2nd and winning at least two more of the 5 rounds Is called being outclassed?

Watch the fight again without the commentators on. Earl didn't win a round he did slightly better in the 3rd and 4th but didn't land the harder or cleaner punches. I suppose if you go by the crowd reaction or the commentry he would have won every round except the first.

[Max Molyneux]

He won the 2nd was a draw as they both put each other down In that round, and the 5th and maybe the 3rd or 4th.

He was starting to do better and Katsidis looked as If he punched himself out overdoing It, I thought Ealr had a chance If his trainer didn't pull him out.

[mattyp151]

He won the 2nd was a draw as they both put each other down In that round, and the 5th and maybe the 3rd or 4th.

He was starting to do better and Katsidis looked as If he punched himself out overdoing It, I thought Ealr had a chance If his trainer didn't pull him out.

Earl MAYBE could've won the fifth, but he got blistered in 1 and 2, sorry, one punch to put a guy down when you hit the deck yourself doesn't give you the round. I don't recall the deduction round, but it would've only made it a 9-9 round. Katsidid pounded him against the ropes in 4.

No way did Earl win 2 rounds.

[Autobarn]

Of course, it was totally one-sided, it wasn't even a good fight! Katsidis didn't ever run out of steam and Earl didn't once take advantage of his defensive lapses. It was nothing but a showcase for all that is wrong with boxing - one sided beatdowns.

[harrygreb]

silkov - youre even more wrong now coz there is no way that i claimed you "..called vann a twat" dont know where you got that from.
of course earl got a pasting. and PLEASE use your intelligence, my first concern in boxing is the wellbeing of those taking part. period.

my opinion of vanns reffing is based on what happened not what might have happened.
i think you should stop posting on this forum because you MIGHT break a finger typing your hysterical messages. a boxer MIGHT get damaged in a match. we apply our judgement on the likelyhood of these possibilities and act accordingly.
PLEASE do not stop posting, though, because despite the risks this forum would be poorer without you.

[silkov]

silkov - youre even more wrong now coz there is no way that i claimed you "..called vann a twat" dont know where you got that from.
of course earl got a pasting. and PLEASE use your intelligence, my first concern in boxing is the wellbeing of those taking part. period.

my opinion of vanns reffing is based on what happened not what might have happened.
i think you should stop posting on this forum because you MIGHT break a finger typing your hysterical messages. a boxer MIGHT get damaged in a match. we apply our judgement on the likelyhood of these possibilities and act accordingly.
PLEASE do not stop posting, though, because despite the risks this forum would be poorer without you.

Theres a difference in me breaking a nail typing, 8) and a guy taking 30+ headshots on the ropes in the ring... things seem rather confused on this thread, ...Eames is getting criticised for not pulling his man out earlier and Vann is getting praised for not pulling Earl out at all??.... does that make sense?... not to me!. Its always harder for a corner to pull out their fighter than it is for a ref to do it, or rather it should be... one of the reasons for this is that the ref is supposed to be UNBIASED!... (I'm getting het up again now!) but I seriously challenge anyone to say that Vanns refereeing was unbiased on Saturday, ...or in fact in any of the high profile fights he has reffed.... he wasnt called Hattons butler for nothing you know!...
Eames should be praised for his handling of the fight imo and Vanns performance should be questioned... the best that can be said about it was that it was erratic. Should he have stopped the fight earlier?.... imo yes... Earl had far more chance of getting hurt than he had of winning and at the end of the day thats why Eames had the sense and compassion to pull him out, its a shame that Vann didnt... he could have saved Earl from 3 extra rounds of punishment.
far as my nails go though I'm willing to take the risk, I've got a lot of plasters...

[Andy Mac]

OK then. Bearing in mind that Earl almost sparked the lad seconds after Vann rejected the towel, don't you think that was a good reffing call?

Jesus, I'm the last person to pour cold water on Sports Network conspiracy theories but come on.

That isn't the point Ian. Sure Earl landed ONE great shot, but he was hurt more or less everytime he was hit. Plus Vann clearly said at the beginning of the 5th I will give you one more round. Earl LOST that round, and showed nothing to convince people he could turn the fight around. Yet Vann was not going to stop the fight. That makes it an example of bad reffing IMO.

I think we are talking at cross purposes, Andy. I'm not disagreeing with what you say here.

What I am saying is that Eames had plenty of chances to pull his man out before he did.

In that case Ian I apologise, it is my mistake. I thought you were saying that Vann was a good ref per se. You are right about Eames having plenty of chances to pull young Earl though.

Matty, dont you get our TV stations on sattelite now you are over here? You will see in the future that Vann is definitely a SN ref, bad really. Maybe that is why he doesn't get the white shirt abroad so much, just the judging.

[mattyp151]

Of course, it was totally one-sided, it wasn't even a good fight! Katsidis didn't ever run out of steam and Earl didn't once take advantage of his defensive lapses. It was nothing but a showcase for all that is wrong with boxing - one sided beatdowns.

Let's not get crazy here. In terms of entertainment value, it'll be pressing to find a better fight so far, and is an early runner for FOTY, no joking.

Also, 1 sided means controlled from tip to tail, however, Earl had his moments. But, they were fleeting and he just wasn't able to truly hurt Katsidis outside of the KD. Katsidis is a strong bull with a bullet for a right hand, and his strength and toughness was just too much for Earl...but it's not like Earl did nothing, just not enough to win rounds.

[Autobarn]

Of course, it was totally one-sided, it wasn't even a good fight! Katsidis didn't ever run out of steam and Earl didn't once take advantage of his defensive lapses. It was nothing but a showcase for all that is wrong with boxing - one sided beatdowns.

Let's not get crazy here. In terms of entertainment value, it'll be pressing to find a better fight so far, and is an early runner for FOTY, no joking.

Also, 1 sided means controlled from tip to tail, however, Earl had his moments. But, they were fleeting and he just wasn't able to truly hurt Katsidis outside of the KD. Katsidis is a strong bull with a bullet for a right hand, and his strength and toughness was just too much for Earl...but it's not like Earl did nothing, just not enough to win rounds.

I was being a tad ironic.

The shifts in fortune during the 2nd and 4th rds helped make it great. I felt Earl won a big portion of the 5th - terrific fight & it was great seeing it live.

[Max Molyneux]

He won the 2nd was a draw as they both put each other down In that round, and the 5th and maybe the 3rd or 4th.

He was starting to do better and Katsidis looked as If he punched himself out overdoing It, I thought Ealr had a chance If his trainer didn't pull him out.

Earl MAYBE could've won the fifth, but he got blistered in 1 and 2, sorry, one punch to put a guy down when you hit the deck yourself doesn't give you the round. I don't recall the deduction round, but it would've only made it a 9-9 round. Katsidid pounded him against the ropes in 4.

No way did Earl win 2 rounds.

In your opinion he didn't win 2 rounds but the 2nd was even with the knockdowns and he won the 5th and I thought the 3rd I think It was, twas close but gave It to Earl.

It does make the round even If you've both knocked each other down In that round.

[Autobarn]

I'm sure I gave Earl 2 rounds.

[Twinkle Toes]

Bearing in mind that Earl almost sparked the lad seconds after Vann rejected the towel, don't you think that was a good reffing call?

With the benefit of hindsight it could be argued that it was a good call, but at that particular moment, it could quite easily have been the other way around with Earl being stretchered off to hospital.

Ignoring a towel is like playing with fire, this time Vann got lucky, next time he might not.

And you wanna complain about Eames, not pulling his man out at the end of the second? - Ok that's fair enough, but for me everything that happened in that fight from after the moment the towel was thrown in, was dictated by Vanns decision not to accept it.

Good reffing?

Maybe for you, but not for me.

Oh, and no one has called Vann a twat like you have stated - So get your tongue from out off Vanns arse hole :P

[stujones]

Earl won the 5th round IMO... the rest were not even close.... aside from the point deduction.