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

[dondada]

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

The 'twat' thing was merely a summary of various opinions, not a quote.

Everything in the fight wasn't 'dictated' by Vann's refusal of the towel - Eames could have dictated it otherwise - and did, eventually.

Jesus, I'm normally the last one to defend Uncle Mickey.

Another keyboard warrior, eh? Well done.

[Andy Mac]

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

Sorry Stu, but I just dont see that. He might well have improved on the previous rounds, which were pitiful for him. But win it, i honestly dont think so.

[Twinkle Toes]

The 'twat' thing was merely a summary of various opinions, not a quote.

Everything in the fight wasn't 'dictated' by Vann's refusal of the towel - Eames could have dictated it otherwise - and did, eventually.

Jesus, I'm normally the last one to defend Uncle Mickey.

Another keyboard warrior, eh? Well done.

So a twat is a twat, apart fom when you use the word...Ok got it - I would suggest you learn how to summarise.

Eames tried to dictate the situation by throwing the towel in originally Ian - The point I am making is that the point blank refusal of Vann to act on the towel throw in led to another 3 rounds of action, and a sustained hammering for Earl and to a lesser extent Kastidis.

The referee is the one employed to protect the fighter's - I don't think Vann did a good job of protecting Earl despite the long counts, ignoring the towel, warnings for good body shots etc.

I maintain he reffed poorly, and if you maintain he did a great job, then I would like to hear your views on the supposed low blows and the extended counts. It was a typical Vann performance as far as I can see and certainly far from being a good one.

As for the keyboard warrior comment - Not sure how you come to that conclusion, another misguided summary maybe, and most uncalled for :)

[stujones]

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

Sorry Stu, but I just dont see that. He might well have improved on the previous rounds, which were pitiful for him. But win it, i honestly dont think so.

Oh yeah, it is open to debate - I can see your point.

My post was really aimed at those who gave Earl any other round.... I took the piss out of Duke McKenzie for saying that.

[dondada]

The 'twat' thing was merely a summary of various opinions, not a quote.

Everything in the fight wasn't 'dictated' by Vann's refusal of the towel - Eames could have dictated it otherwise - and did, eventually.

Jesus, I'm normally the last one to defend Uncle Mickey.

Another keyboard warrior, eh? Well done.

So a twat is a twat, apart fom when you use the word...Ok got it - I would suggest you learn how to summarise.

Eames tried to dictate the situation by throwing the towel in originally Ian - The point I am making is that the point blank refusal of Vann to act on the towel throw in led to another 3 rounds of action, and a sustained hammering for Earl and to a lesser extent Kastidis.

The referee is the one employed to protect the fighter's - I don't think Vann did a good job of protecting Earl despite the long counts, ignoring the towel, warnings for good body shots etc.

I maintain he reffed poorly, and if you maintain he did a great job, then I would like to hear your views on the supposed low blows and the extended counts. It was a typical Vann performance as far as I can see and certainly far from being a good one.

As for the keyboard warrior comment - Not sure how you come to that conclusion, another misguided summary maybe, and most uncalled for :)

1. I don't need advice on English skills from you. 'Twat' was merely an arbitrary, overarching term chosen by me to encompass all the criticisms he was taking. Apologies if this caused any offence to you.

2. Yes, agreed, Eames did try to dictate the situation. But he could have taken matters into his own hands several times before he did. He wasn't being dictated to in the breaks after rounds two or three. I like Eames - I just think the beatification of him and the condemnation of Vann is a bit skewed.

3. Yes, agreed on the bit about the ref being there to protect the fighter. My theory about Vann having a good night in general is based almost solely on the decision to refuse the towel which almost resulted in one of the biggest turn arounds in recent years. I suppose there's nothing else to be said on this - we'll have to agree to disagree.

4. A keyboard warrior, in my opinion, is someone who makes uncalled for, truculent comments which they would not make in person. Maybe I'm wrong - maybe you would tell me to take my tongue out of Vann's arse in person. I'm at the bill in Doncaster tomorrow night if it suits. Unless you are bigger and harder than me of course, which is likely.

[Twinkle Toes]

I wonder what we would be saying if Earl had been taken out of the ring on a stretcher - Thank god that wasn't the case, but all the same it is a sobering thought.

Like I said previously, Vann got lucky with the call this time and Earl landed the one haymaker that has now given us somethig to bicker about, but it could have easily been Kastidis landing a huge bomb and we may be having a different debate now :)

Digressing slightly, I found it worrying that Earl couldnt follow up on his big shot landing and maybe that is something Eames should have spotted. I guess in the heat of the moment the decision to send him out for the third was wrong, but it was certainly no worse than the decision's of Vann's to throw the towel back out of the ring i.e Earl could have gone on to land a haymaker.

The licking of Vann's arse comment was said in jest (something that isnt always easy to portray via words) hence the smiley - Apologies if you took that as an insult.

[dondada]

Lock this thread before I get any more grief!

[rhino222]

A keyboard warrior, in my opinion, is someone who makes uncalled for, truculent comments which they would not make in person

jesus.....have you read spuds cv?

[harrygreb]

ian, i'm with you on this one as you know. our opinions are based on what happened before our eyes and not a supposition. had the towel come in and was despatched by vann before a haymaker by katsidis laid earl out bad enough for the ambulance to be called i think we both would be of the opinion that the throwing out of the towel by vann was the wrong decision - but that did not happen. and that is what i base my view of vanns well judged reffing on (as you do) - me and my 15 bruvvers are now making our way up to doncaster to give you a bit of support for tonights ruck

[dondada]

ian, i'm with you on this one as you know. our opinions are based on what happened before our eyes and not a supposition. had the towel come in and was despatched by vann before a haymaker by katsidis laid earl out bad enough for the ambulance to be called i think we both would be of the opinion that the throwing out of the towel by vann was the wrong decision - but that did not happen. and that is what i base my view of vanns well judged reffing on (as you do) - me and my 15 bruvvers are now making our way up to doncaster to give you a bit of support for tonights ruck

OK, Harry...but wait until about 8, will you? I've got a dinner ticket

[silkov]

The 'twat' thing was merely a summary of various opinions, not a quote.

Everything in the fight wasn't 'dictated' by Vann's refusal of the towel - Eames could have dictated it otherwise - and did, eventually.

Jesus, I'm normally the last one to defend Uncle Mickey.

Another keyboard warrior, eh? Well done.

So a twat is a twat, apart fom when you use the word...Ok got it - I would suggest you learn how to summarise.

Eames tried to dictate the situation by throwing the towel in originally Ian - The point I am making is that the point blank refusal of Vann to act on the towel throw in led to another 3 rounds of action, and a sustained hammering for Earl and to a lesser extent Kastidis.

The referee is the one employed to protect the fighter's - I don't think Vann did a good job of protecting Earl despite the long counts, ignoring the towel, warnings for good body shots etc.

I maintain he reffed poorly, and if you maintain he did a great job, then I would like to hear your views on the supposed low blows and the extended counts. It was a typical Vann performance as far as I can see and certainly far from being a good one.

As for the keyboard warrior comment - Not sure how you come to that conclusion, another misguided summary maybe, and most uncalled for :)

1. I don't need advice on English skills from you. 'Twat' was merely an arbitrary, overarching term chosen by me to encompass all the criticisms he was taking. Apologies if this caused any offence to you.

2. Yes, agreed, Eames did try to dictate the situation. But he could have taken matters into his own hands several times before he did. He wasn't being dictated to in the breaks after rounds two or three. I like Eames - I just think the beatification of him and the condemnation of Vann is a bit skewed.

3. Yes, agreed on the bit about the ref being there to protect the fighter. My theory about Vann having a good night in general is based almost solely on the decision to refuse the towel which almost resulted in one of the biggest turn arounds in recent years. I suppose there's nothing else to be said on this - we'll have to agree to disagree.

4. A keyboard warrior, in my opinion, is someone who makes uncalled for, truculent comments which they would not make in person. Maybe I'm wrong - maybe you would tell me to take my tongue out of Vann's arse in person. I'm at the bill in Doncaster tomorrow night if it suits. Unless you are bigger and harder than me of course, which is likely.

Whose beatifying Eames??... I'm not saying the guy is a saint or anything but he done a damn better job than Vann on the night. You keep saying Eames could have stopped the fight at other times, yet he tried to stop it in the 2nd and then finally did stop it, Vann the man never came close to stopping it so how can you criticise Eames at all??... it beggars belief. And I'm still struggling to know what was so good about Vanns reffing, other than the fact that he allowed a few more round of action for the audience?. Sure Earl landed a good punch that shook the Aussie, but it was just one punch and it didnt turn the fight as after that it was back to Earl getting hammered, bravely but onesidedly, he never came close to reproducing that punch again, how many rounds do you let a guy take a beating for just because he landed a good punch in the second round!??.... the truth is the fight was exciting because of Earls bravery under heavy fire rather than him ever having a realistic chance of winning...
In my opinion Vanns performance that night was reckless to the point of negligence, at no point did he seem close to stopping a fight in which Earl was taking continual heavy punishment to the head.... considering the punishment Earl was taking and the fact that he seemed concussed after the first round this is extremely odd!??..... what about the point when he was caught on the ropes and took about 30 odd punches to the head, anyone remember Benny Paret??... and this is not to mention all the other punches he took between the 2nd and the 5th rounds!....imo Vann (and indeed Earl) is extremely lucky that Eames is not one of the more gun-ho trainers and actually seems to care about the well being of his fighters, rather than just letting them go until the drop... its a shame more trainers arent like him.

[stujones]

On a side issue - did any/every body watch the ITV 1 version of the fight. When live on ITV 4 the cut between rounds 4 and 5, but on the delayed version they showed the between rounds without Rawling and Duke talking..... it showed that Earl was pretty fooked.

"Your the trainer its your call" was the words he used when Eames asked should he stop it - and he looked very bad. So I have changed my mind about that - it was a good call.

Maybe, Earl was looking as bad at the end of the first and maybe Eames was tempted (with justification if it was) to pull him out then and gave him the benefit. One more time hurt again in the 2nd and Eames chucked the towel - so I would say it was pretty obvious that Eames wasn't happy about letting him go into the second.

[harrygreb]

but he was more than happy to let him go into the 3rd.

now silkov, i only wish you had a bloke like eames to throw in the towel to stop you from taking further argumentative punishment. but you wont give in! like graham earl you been given a good pasting and i think its time that you were pulled out for your own safety. wheres that towel when its needed???

[Andy Mac]

ian, i'm with you on this one as you know. our opinions are based on what happened before our eyes and not a supposition. had the towel come in and was despatched by vann before a haymaker by katsidis laid earl out bad enough for the ambulance to be called i think we both would be of the opinion that the throwing out of the towel by vann was the wrong decision - but that did not happen. and that is what i base my view of vanns well judged reffing on (as you do) - me and my 15 bruvvers are now making our way up to doncaster to give you a bit of support for tonights ruck

Sorry H, but you and Ian are just plain wrong in this debate. I have respect for you both and your opinions, but wrong is wrong.

The title of the thread is " Did Vann cost Earl the fight? " Far from it he tried his best to keep Earl in the fight, almost to the point of negligence. Trying to apportion blame to Johnny Eames is IMHO clutching at straws.

[harrygreb]

well, andy thanks for drawing my attention to the title of the thread which i had actually taken no notice of at all. of course vann didnt cost graham the fight, that would be daft to suggest and i dont think ian would say that either. all i am saying is the decision to dismiss the towel was correct for the myriad of reasons previously stated by both of us. vann is not my fave ref by a long chalk but in this one act he was right - johnny whom i have the greatest respect for as a trainer (he trained my mate kevin lear)
misjudged it. further than those facts i am not prepared to go.
maybe i should read the title of the thread before commenting on it in future

[Andy Mac]

Just as an example of qualifying my observation, someone has put up round 2 on you tube as a candidate for round of the year, on another message board. I noticed that when Earl hit the canvas the clock showed 2.18. By the time Vann let the action resume, he clock was bang on 2.00 . So much for the so called 8 count, and so much for the did Vann cost Earl theory.

[jimglen]

of course he did...you are right Andy Mac,
this is what I stated at the beginning of this thread which is the same kind of stuff that goes on to much here in British boxing, and also applies to the London thread...

"...I was waiting for someone other than me to comment on the 'home bias'...Mickey Vann did Earl favours through the whole fight!

However, the fight going the way it went I think one more round would have been nice to see if Earl 'really' was turning the fight his way...he was doing great at times and it looked at times as though he could have won it...who knows.

Katsidis was much stronger and hard hitting and Earl did alright in trying to let him punch himself out, but I thought right from the start Earl, who can "box" should have boxed him, stick and move, lateral movement and clever boxing and only coming into end it when opportunity was clear.

He fought the wrong fight in my mind, though it might not have made the difference in the end.

Good fight, too much British bias - evident when listning to the BS about Harrison - who is DONE!.."

[dondada]

ian, i'm with you on this one as you know. our opinions are based on what happened before our eyes and not a supposition. had the towel come in and was despatched by vann before a haymaker by katsidis laid earl out bad enough for the ambulance to be called i think we both would be of the opinion that the throwing out of the towel by vann was the wrong decision - but that did not happen. and that is what i base my view of vanns well judged reffing on (as you do) - me and my 15 bruvvers are now making our way up to doncaster to give you a bit of support for tonights ruck

Sorry H, but you and Ian are just plain wrong in this debate. I have respect for you both and your opinions, but wrong is wrong.

FFS. Firstly, your last statement is ridiculous. If it's a matter of opinion, there is no 'wrong' in terms of 'fact'. Secondly, all I am saying (and H too no doubt) is that Vann was immediately (at least partly) vindicated in his refusing the towel by Earl decking the lad. Further, it is blatant hypocrisy if Earl's team criticise Vann when they let him go on.

If you disagree, you disagree - like you say, I have respect for your opinions too.

Hey, I've no problem with the view that Vann did everything to keep Earl in the fight and I've had a go at Mickey loads of times in the past.

[rhino222]

Just as an example of qualifying my observation, someone has put up round 2 on you tube as a candidate for round of the year, on another message board. I noticed that when Earl hit the canvas the clock showed 2.18. By the time Vann let the action resume, he clock was bang on 2.00 . So much for the so called 8 count, and so much for the did Vann cost Earl theory.

so... we had a minus 18 second count did we, is micky vann that clever !!

[harrygreb]

it staggers me that the usually shrewd posters on this forum could think that vann should have done anything other than what he did. my father who is a better judge of boxing protocol than me, and who often disagrees with me about boxing issues, did not see the fight and did not know the result but i gave him a resume of the whole situation only yesterday and he said straight away that vann was right in the first instance and that johnny was only right when he asked graham how he felt about carrying on just before he pulled him out. i'm staggered that good analysts can see it differently. and i have to add earls lack of power when it mattered cost him the fight.

[Andy Mac]

Just as an example of qualifying my observation, someone has put up round 2 on you tube as a candidate for round of the year, on another message board. I noticed that when Earl hit the canvas the clock showed 2.18. By the time Vann let the action resume, he clock was bang on 2.00 . So much for the so called 8 count, and so much for the did Vann cost Earl theory.

so... we had a minus 18 second count did we, is micky vann that clever !!

I dont know about your school but this is how we were taught subtraction when I went many years ago
2.18
- 2.00
= 18

Hence it was 18 seconds from Earl landing on all 4's until Vann let the action resume.

[mattyp151]

Just as an example of qualifying my observation, someone has put up round 2 on you tube as a candidate for round of the year, on another message board. I noticed that when Earl hit the canvas the clock showed 2.18. By the time Vann let the action resume, he clock was bang on 2.00 . So much for the so called 8 count, and so much for the did Vann cost Earl theory.

so... we had a minus 18 second count did we, is micky vann that clever !!

I dont know about your school but this is how we were taught subtraction when I went many years ago
2.18
- 2.00
= 18

Hence it was 18 seconds from Earl landing on all 4's until Vann let the action resume.

He must have mistaken the boxing clock with the soccer timekeeping where they count up...the only excuse I can think of for being so openly dimwitted.

[Andy Mac]

it staggers me that the usually shrewd posters on this forum could think that vann should have done anything other than what he did. my father who is a better judge of boxing protocol than me, and who often disagrees with me about boxing issues, did not see the fight and did not know the result but i gave him a resume of the whole situation only yesterday and he said straight away that vann was right in the first instance and that johnny was only right when he asked graham how he felt about carrying on just before he pulled him out. i'm staggered that good analysts can see it differently. and i have to add earls lack of power when it mattered cost him the fight.

Well H we will just have to agree to disagree on some minor points, and I have noticed your respect for your fathers knowledge in past posts. SoI have no wish to be seen to disagree with him either. You are however bang on the money in your observation about Earls power when it mattered most. To be honest that is the part that worried me most. Someone, no matter who, should have noticed this earlier and intervened. I think I agree with the posters that say it was lucky young Earl was not badly hurt.

[harrygreb]

its been a good post, this one. lots of opinionated bast..ds weighing in, love it.