Page 1 of 2
Atleast Dick Turpin wore a mask
Posted: 05 Jun 2004, 19:17
by buzz
Poor Vanzie, love him or loathe him yet again he was shit on by either Spunks Waxwork or British Boxing Board or both.
What a total let down this boxing game is at times.
I dont mind home favourites and close calls, but daylight robbery like that makes me feel sick and that is from an neutral point of view.
Terry O'conner, what a big wet puff. :x
Posted: 05 Jun 2004, 19:26
by beduff
me to not a vanzie fan but that was plan robbery.train hard and gets robbed by someone taking a back hander,terry o conor should never referee another british title fight again[the man is a disgrace to the sport.
Posted: 05 Jun 2004, 19:27
by bennie
To quote Barry Hearn recently: Glenn McCrory needs to get a proper job and so does his B-team sidekick Adam Smith. I thought it was a close fight. Yet the B-team kept telling us Vanzie was winning easily. They were plain wrong in my opinion. It was a close fight.
Posted: 05 Jun 2004, 19:28
by kevin
Totally agree Bennie, I had it by 2 rounds to Earl as did Tony C from Boxing News, Abrams had Vanzie by one round and we are all sitting next to each other, so that's how close it was!
Posted: 05 Jun 2004, 19:29
by Twinkle Toes
Such a shame for Vanzie. He was robbed.
The ref shouldn't be officiating at championship level. He has made a mess of championship fights before now. I'm looking with interest to see what the bbbc do about this.
f~ck all probably, except fine Vanzie.
Posted: 05 Jun 2004, 19:35
by beduff
nothing to do with the commentators i had music on so i could not hear them

vanzie outboxd earl.earl did not know what to do with vanzie,for me the punchstats were close but vanzie was throwing the better shots.robbery.
Posted: 05 Jun 2004, 19:36
by bennie
beduff wrote:nothing to do with the commentators i had music on so i could not hear them

vanzie outboxd earl.earl did not know what to do with vanzie,for me the punchstats were close but vanzie was throwing the better shots.robbery.
Good post. I was about to pose the question: I wonder how the fight would have been viewed minus the B-team?
Posted: 05 Jun 2004, 19:37
by kevin
Very partisan crowd favouring Earl which also could have played on the ref's mind as I said I had some rounds very close, but gave them to Earl from where I was sitting, but I'll probably score differently watching it again!..
Kev
Posted: 05 Jun 2004, 19:39
by paulyb
unbelievably the refs score card showed that he has scored round 4 to Earl. If he had counted the knock down he would have scored it 10 8 to Vanzie which would have made Vanzie the winner by 2 points.
Posted: 05 Jun 2004, 19:40
by bennie
Regrettably, Vanzie is going to get suspended for calling the game "corrupt". Jack Doughty tried to stop him, but to no avail.
Posted: 05 Jun 2004, 19:44
by Twinkle Toes
I know it's a leading question, but does anyone think what Vanzie has said is really that wide of the mark?
Not just in regards to tonight's fight, but about boxing in general?
I think I already know the answer's you guys would give, and maybe such a topic deserves to have it's own thread for us to discuss it in, just wondered really.
Posted: 05 Jun 2004, 19:46
by bennie
Twinkle Toes wrote:I know it's a leading question, but does anyone think what Vanzie has said is really that wide of the mark?
Not just in regards to tonight's fight, but about boxing in general?
I think I already know the answer's you guys would give, and maybe this topic deserves to have it's own topic for us to discuss it in, just wondered really.
It's the same all over the world when you fight the 'house' fighter. You don't expect any favours. So two things you don't do are 1) stand off when you have your man wobbling and 2) showboat.
Posted: 05 Jun 2004, 19:50
by DOG
Vanzie by 4 in my book.
Listened to all the crap afterwards.
And we think Germany is a joke?
Posted: 05 Jun 2004, 19:50
by TheRiverCityHippy
totally disagree with bennie and kevin, no way was that close.
apart from the knockdown which wasn`t and being out on his feet in the sixth earl came off second in all the exchanges.
bad night for boxing imo.
Posted: 05 Jun 2004, 20:07
by stujones
Yeah, Vanzie won more clearer than the last time. I actually think some the good start Earl made, according to McCory and Smith, was slightly exagerated.
IT IS HIGH TIME THAT WE APPOINT THREE JUDGES IN A FIGHT, THE RULE IS OLD AND IS EVEN WORSE THAN THE 1/2 POINT ROUNDS. WHEN IT COMES TO THE POINT WHERE I CAN TELL THE WAY IS SCORING THE FIGHT BECAUSE OF THE BODY LANGUAGE, ITS TIME TO CHANGE.
I KNEW THAT VANZIE NEEDED A KO IN THE LAST FEW ROUNDS, CAUSE IT SEEMED APPARENT THE O'CONNOR DIDN'T APPRECIATE HIS TACTICS, BY HAVING GOES AT HIM CONTINUALLY, THE SAME APPLIES FOR DANNY WILLIAMS DEFEAT BY SPROTT AND ALSO VINCENT VS BARNES, I JUST KNEW WHO THE REF APPRICATED MORE.
I don't think its necessary a house fighter thing, but there seems to be some bias there - Like Williams' showboating, Vanzie's elbows were affecting the refs judgment and he was giving the closer rounds to the fight he "likes".
The fact I'm not gob smacked by who hands O'Conner raised says alot about the current rule.
Its got to change and change now.
Posted: 05 Jun 2004, 20:09
by silkov
Posted: 05 Jun 2004, 20:09
by buzz
Surely in this day and age with human rights and freedom of speech, Vanzie can speak out how he feels.
The Boxing board should fine that shithouse of a ref.
Even Nicky Piper was shit scared that he may of upset the 'Spunks Waxwork Board of Control'.
The honourable sport of boxing does not need the assholes dragging it into the gutter. :x :x
Posted: 05 Jun 2004, 20:13
by buzz
The ref couldnt wait to raise Earls hand at the final bell.
Posted: 05 Jun 2004, 20:17
by kevin
As I said, I had 4 rounds very close to call. I honestly thought Vanzie was going to stop Earl in the 6th. The ref had Vanzie winning the first 3, I had Earl winning 2 and one even.
Posted: 05 Jun 2004, 20:18
by silkov
buzz wrote:Surely in this day and age with human rights and freedom of speech, Vanzie can speak out how he feels.
The Boxing board should fine that shithouse of a ref.
Even Nicky Piper was shit scared that he may of upset the 'Spunks Waxwork Board of Control'.
The honourable sport of boxing does not need the assholes dragging it into the gutter. :x :x
Thing is Buzz Nicky is one of them... the stuffed suits that turn a blind eye for the Status Quo and are ready to slit Vanzies tongue out of his head for daring to suggest that the game is a bit dodgey. Did you hear Nicky saying that he thought Vanzie will be 'frozen out' for a while!!!.... oh yeh! I bet he will!. And what about Pipers comment on the Mirovic retirement 'No boxer should ever quit' he said or something like that..... all heart our Nicky aint he!!!........... 8)
Posted: 05 Jun 2004, 20:20
by buzz
silkov wrote:buzz wrote:Surely in this day and age with human rights and freedom of speech, Vanzie can speak out how he feels.
The Boxing board should fine that shithouse of a ref.
Even Nicky Piper was shit scared that he may of upset the 'Spunks Waxwork Board of Control'.
The honourable sport of boxing does not need the assholes dragging it into the gutter. :x :x
Thing is Buzz Nicky is one of them... the stuffed suits that turn a blind eye for the Status Quo and are ready to slit Vanzies tongue out of his head for daring to suggest that the game is a bit dodgey. Did you hear Nicky saying that he thought Vanzie will be 'frozen out' for a while!!!.... oh yeh! I bet he will!. And what about Pipers comment on the Mirovic retirement 'No boxer should ever quit' he said or something like that..... all heart our Nicky aint he!!!........... 8)
Piper seems to have forgot he was a fighter once.......or was he??
I get the feeling he looks down at the fighters now.
Posted: 05 Jun 2004, 20:22
by bennie
Piper's anger was visible after the Vanzie interview. That was unprofessional on his part.
Posted: 05 Jun 2004, 20:32
by silkov
Pipers a prat, just interested in keeping the butter wet on his slice of bread!....... he was a crap fighter too!....

:x

Posted: 05 Jun 2004, 20:34
by Lefthookhappy19
I think the refs scorecard had Earl winning rounds 7 to about 11, like he was making up the difference. That knockdown was clear as fornicating day, it wasn't even a slap like they said, a clear punch landed and he went down. Maybe the ref isn't good at math and didn't want to have to work out a 2 point round into his planned scorecard. Like the Ottke vs Reid fight scorecards that had Ottke winning most the early rounds when he didn't land a punch.
Posted: 05 Jun 2004, 20:36
by kevin
Ref's scorecard
1-3 all Vanzie
4 & 5 - Earl
6 - Vanzie
7-10 - Earl
11 - Draw
12 - Vanzie