Page 4 of 4
Re: howard foster, can I remind you
Posted: 05 Oct 2009, 09:57
by Wales
Autobarn wrote:I think Thaxton gave off too much of a "this is the end" vibe before the fight. Had he been talking like this in the days before the fight, and could this have filtered through to the ref, affecting his decision the moment Thaxton was jolted backward as if he'd just had an electric shock? The whole fight, the whole TV production, had the feel of a sentimental send off.
His ring entrance music "And now the end is near, and so I face ... "
Re: howard foster, can I remind you
Posted: 05 Oct 2009, 10:24
by jamesmcdonnell
Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:jamesmcdonnell wrote:I know how difficult a job it is, they are there to protect the fighters above all else, and I'm always in favour of stopping it earlier rather than later
I know you follow this with a 'but', Jim, and I understand why but you've sort of made my point for me here.
Most people here seem to think the stoppage was SLIGHTLY premature but that Murray would have stopped him shortly afterwards anyway.
So in terms of controversies, I'd say this was about as low level as it gets - if it is at all. Plenty of knowledgeable lads on here think it was OK. I do understand the Thaxton camp's views but then, they are bound to react that way.
As for Rothmann-Thompson...I was baying for Richie to call that off about a minute before Thompson came up with the bingo punch. That fight was a one-off as far as I'm concerned. I was ringside and asked Richie how close he was to calling that off. He put his fingers together about a hair's breadth apart and said 'That much!' It's no coincidence that it happens to be the big fella's favourite fight!
]
Indeed, I agree that was a rather unusual case. It's also true of Carl that he often looked a lot more hurt than he really was, partly because he was a rather clumsy fellow footwork wise.
I also recall Dave Paris who was sat in front of me and thee Ian, saying about a minute before the end 'The next punch Carl hits him with, rothmann is going down.' We were naturally skeptical but he turned out to be right.
I'd have just liked the ref the chance for Thaxton to recover from the shot, if he then took four or five unanswered shots, I'd have been happy for it to be called off, but I thought Thaxton was not accorded the opportunity which he deserved.
I was very pissed off at the time, in retrospect I could see the referee's reasoning, and I know Foster is a good referee, but i still think it was a poor call. I'm pretty sure the fight was only going one way, but you cannot assume the outcome, not in boxing of all sports.
Re: howard foster, can I remind you
Posted: 05 Oct 2009, 12:25
by Spud
DavidPayne wrote:Carl Thompson v Sebastian Rothmann.
I thought Jon deserved a little longer, not much, but a little.
2 points
Firstly everyone knows that Carl Thompson had the concussive punch power to get him out of the sh*t at the last possible moment and thats why Referee's may have given him more of a chance to get himself out of a hole - where as Jono Thaxton does not and never had the same sort of punch power at his weight as his record suggests - in addition Thaxton's previous 2 fights were losses - one being totally unexpected against Glover which would have suggested his form was severly on the decline.
Secondly - Referee's go into fights knowing what has happened in previous fights - they probably follow the sport just as much as we do - or they certainly have a perception on how they think a fight will go - I am not saying they prejudge anything but they will certainly climb through the ropes thinking a certain fighter is a favourite to win.
Has anyone thought that maybe just maybe that through compassion and pure respect for all what Jono Thaxton has done for boxing - that the BBBofC or possibly even Foster may not have wanted some young upstart (I do not mean that nastily) like John Murray giving Thaxton a beating - and if that were to happen he might have decided to stop the fight a tadge early if that event was looking as if it were about to happen.
Maybe on this occasion the Referee and god forbid as I criticise them enough the BBBofC have got this one right out of respect and compassion for a fantastic servant to the sport.
Re: howard foster, can I remind you
Posted: 05 Oct 2009, 12:32
by jamesmcdonnell
Spud wrote:DavidPayne wrote:Carl Thompson v Sebastian Rothmann.
I thought Jon deserved a little longer, not much, but a little.
2 points
Firstly everyone knows that Carl Thompson had the concussive punch power to get him out of the sh*t at the last possible moment and thats why Referee's may have given him more of a chance to get himself out of a hole - where as Jono Thaxton does not and never had the same sort of punch power at his weight as his record suggests - in addition Thaxton's previous 2 fights were losses - one being totally unexpected against Glover which would have suggested his form was severly on the decline.
Secondly - Referee's go into fights knowing what has happened in previous fights - they probably follow the sport just as much as we do - or they certainly have a perception on how they think a fight will go - I am not saying they prejudge anything but they will certainly climb through the ropes thinking a certain fighter is a favourite to win.
Has anyone thought that maybe just maybe that through compassion and pure respect for all what Jono Thaxton has done for boxing - that the BBBofC or possibly even Foster may not have wanted some young upstart (I do not mean that nastily) like John Murray giving Thaxton a beating - and if that were to happen he might have decided to stop the fight a tadge early if that event was looking as if it were about to happen.
Maybe on this occasion the Referee and god forbid as I criticise them enough the BBBofC have got this one right out of respect and compassion for a fantastic servant to the sport.
I still say, the fact Thaxton had evaded every follow up shot after being staggered by Murray, for me makes the stoppage premature.
I'm sure Howard Fosters intentions were noble, and I do agree that he has to protect Thaxton from a beating, but this is boxing not tiddlywinks, and Thaxton is an experienced fighter and a tough guy to boot.
I'm not suggesting that he should have allowed Murray to be bludgeoned helplessly on the ropes unable to defend himself until he sagged to the canvas, merely that he be given a chance to clear his head and fight back - a chance he didn't get.
Re: howard foster, can I remind you
Posted: 05 Oct 2009, 18:33
by whicker
Autobarn wrote:If only Jono had gone down from the shot. He would have had a count, etc. But he - like many Ingle style fighters - has strong, muscular legs and they managed to keep him up.
Seems though that often when a fighter goes down, he gets up, gets an 8 count then sees the fight waved off.
Re: howard foster, can I remind you
Posted: 06 Oct 2009, 04:35
by DavidPayne
Spud wrote:DavidPayne wrote:Carl Thompson v Sebastian Rothmann.
I thought Jon deserved a little longer, not much, but a little.
2 points
Firstly everyone knows that Carl Thompson had the concussive punch power to get him out of the sh*t at the last possible moment and thats why Referee's may have given him more of a chance to get himself out of a hole - where as Jono Thaxton does not and never had the same sort of punch power at his weight as his record suggests - in addition Thaxton's previous 2 fights were losses - one being totally unexpected against Glover which would have suggested his form was severely on the decline.
Secondly - Referee's go into fights knowing what has happened in previous fights - they probably follow the sport just as much as we do - or they certainly have a perception on how they think a fight will go - I am not saying they prejudge anything but they will certainly climb through the ropes thinking a certain fighter is a favourite to win.
Has anyone thought that maybe just maybe that through compassion and pure respect for all what Jono Thaxton has done for boxing - that the BBBofC or possibly even Foster may not have wanted some young upstart (I do not mean that nastily) like John Murray giving Thaxton a beating - and if that were to happen he might have decided to stop the fight a tadge early if that event was looking as if it were about to happen.
Maybe on this occasion the Referee and god forbid as I criticise them enough the BBBofC have got this one right out of respect and compassion for a fantastic servant to the sport.
Granted Thompson was a world-class puncher but at Lightweight Thaxton has some good power too. On your second point, plausible I guess, Daniel Van Weile always said he works hard not to have preconceptions when he goes in the ring. I think, as I've said, Thaxton deserved more time - I remember Michael Monaghan rolling with shots in the rematch with Lockett and getting stopped, he hadn't been caught flush in the attack preceding it, but he was stopped.
Now in football we talk about consistency, and while boxing is different because we're assessing health and protection of a fighter too, you have to say the time afforded Thaxton was similar to Manfredo but totally opposite to Williams v Sosnowski, McDermott I and Thompson v Rothmann and Haye for that matter. In my opinion, despite the obvious sentiment that one more punch could be THE punch, I genuinely felt Thaxton deserved opportunity to recover or, arguably, the closure being put down might have brought. As it is, he will feel incomplete and doubtless fight on.
Hennessy has a stack of opponents at the weight if Murray steps up and Thaxton could still sell well in Norwich.
Re: howard foster, can I remind you
Posted: 06 Oct 2009, 05:29
by Autobarn
Thaxton could fight someone like Johanesson or Buckland for the vacant title and perhaps get that last notch on the Lonsdale belt.
Re: howard foster, can I remind you
Posted: 06 Oct 2009, 05:38
by Spud
DavidPayne wrote:Hennessy has a stack of opponents at the weight if Murray steps up and Thaxton could still sell well in Norwich.
I do not mean to disagree again - however I will do so with regards to the direction in which Meaty Mick should take Murray.
He should stay at the weight and in addition Meaty Mick needs to get his finger out of his harris with regards to the promotional aspects of Murray.
Mick should be finding a top 10 European class opponent outside of this country to court favour with the EBU which is the direction I would be taking him if I were in that position.
Another "In house" domestic class opponent would do Murray no favours at all.
Re: howard foster, can I remind you
Posted: 06 Oct 2009, 05:42
by DavidPayne
You've misunderstood me entirely.
The step-up I'm referring to for Murray, is class not weight. And thus, I'm suggesting Thaxton versus domestic opponent from Hennessey stable.
I think they should get on with it for Murray. Katsidas is a big jump but John is fresher, more accurate and holds a shot better than Earl did and he had Katsidas on queer street.
I would however favour the more experienced man.
I htink Murray would grow under pressure however.
Re: howard foster, can I remind you
Posted: 06 Oct 2009, 05:56
by Autobarn
Spud wrote:DavidPayne wrote:Hennessy has a stack of opponents at the weight if Murray steps up and Thaxton could still sell well in Norwich.
I do not mean to disagree again - however I will do so with regards to the direction in which Meaty Mick should take Murray.
He should stay at the weight and in addition Meaty Mick needs to get his finger out of his harris with regards to the promotional aspects of Murray.
Mick should be finding a top 10 European class opponent outside of this country to court favour with the EBU which is the direction I would be taking him if I were in that position.
Another "In house" domestic class opponent would do Murray no favours at all.
I think he meant a British lightweight for Thaxton, so Thaxton can leave boxing with a Lonsdale belt outright, a great feel good story and maybe he can do it.
Murray has certainly courted favour with the EBU - his last 4 opponents, stoppage victims all, were in the EBU top 10, incl Thaxton, a former EBU champ. Murray is supposed to be mandatory. That is why I am horrified to hear that McAllister might be fighting Mezaache next. Hopefully it's not true.
Re: howard foster, can I remind you
Posted: 06 Oct 2009, 08:47
by THEBUTCH
It's the consistency that drives me mad. We've seen Danny Williams bashed left, right and centre and is allowed to carry on, yet a fit and fired up Thaxton gets wobbled, and in they jump.
Re: Murray's next move, i really think the EBU title should be next, and Hennessy should do all he can to make sure it's Murray next. McAllister getting a shot first would be a travesty.
Re: howard foster, can I remind you
Posted: 06 Oct 2009, 09:37
by saad muhammad
You would never have had a" fight of the year " if
fights were stopped like that all time, this is boxing
not tiddelywinks for christ sake, if the ref is so worried
about Thaxton health he shouldn't have been passed
by the board of control doctors in the first place, fighters in the past
for eg; like Boza edwards and saad muhammad would have
lost nearly all their championchip fights, if they got stopped when were wobbled .
Poor refereeing.
Re: howard foster, can I remind you
Posted: 06 Oct 2009, 10:58
by Loynesy
There seems to be an assumption from some people who are posting which is utterly flawed, namely, that because of a certain attribute of Thaxton (be it the tail-end of his career, this lack of knockout punch etc), the referee was right to stop it early.
This is complete nonsense - it is not for a referee to use subjective analysis to influence whether he should stop a fight - it should be based on the objective criteria set forth by the board.
Howard got this one wrong - like most people, I strongly suspect it made no difference to the end result, but the stoppage was premature.
Re: howard foster, can I remind you
Posted: 06 Oct 2009, 11:16
by Autobarn
THEBUTCH wrote:It's the consistency that drives me mad. We've seen Danny Williams bashed left, right and centre and is allowed to carry on, yet a fit and fired up Thaxton gets wobbled, and in they jump.
Re: Murray's next move, i really think the EBU title should be next, and Hennessy should do all he can to make sure it's Murray next. McAllister getting a shot first would be a travesty.
absolutely. i would vomit, if that happened. my worry is, mezaache did beat the #1 contender in kudriavtsev, so can he put off the mandatory (murray) a bit? i am surprised mick h doesn't have an option on mezaache (if he has, no one has said anything about it) going back to thaxton-mezaache.
can hennessy "steal" the fight away from mcallister's team, the way warren "nabbed" the kotelnik fight from under ortiz'sGBP's noses?
Re: howard foster, can I remind you
Posted: 06 Oct 2009, 11:35
by whiteboy
Spud wrote:
Mick should be finding a top 10 European class opponent outside of this country to court favour with the EBU w
I thought he was already mandatory
