BoxRec

Most know that Vanzie lost to Stewart last night on points over 4 rounds, anybody though have any details on the contest? Was it a robbery? Did Stewart look good? Did Vanzie look poor?

Thoughts would be appreciated.

REAL_DEAL wrote:http://www.boxrec.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=21743

Sounds like a close one then, Bobby can bounce back from this - but now that promoters/fighters have this opportunity to forget about him, I think they might.

I know it sounds funny but i wouldn't worry too much about this loss if i were Vanzie, it was possibly a freak result and shouldn't harm his immediate prospects too much.

Yeah, I do agree the result isn't a big worry, losing a 4 rounder by a point can happen. I cannot believe that the fight was only 4 rounds.

Perhaps it can work in his favour, the likes of Cook and Burke may want to add to their CV and good name who is "shot", however I suspect that they will not be that foolish to consider this result that much and will use this as an opportunity to pass on a fight with Vanzie.

Vanzie's shot, in my opinion. He's never been the same since Yuri Romanov hammered him to the canvas five times and stopped him in eight rounds last year. He looked lucky to get the verdict over Keith Jones and Tony Montana afterwards, lost twice in close fights with the strong but one-dimensional Earl, and now this.
Retire, Vanzie. It's over.

Interesting perspective.

Obviously I found someone else who thought he LOST to Earl, thats four people now - Earl, Eames, Maloney and you.

So a fighter who lost contentiously in June for the British Lightweight title, is shot by September because he dropped a 39-38 to Dave Stewart over four rounds when prepared for 8 on ten days notice.

Stupid.

Sure the Romanov fight was damaging and whilst I could venture excuses I wont - he got beat heavily, cant argue.

However, I think BV is reflecting on his career and what the future may hold. He had no arguments with the decision either.

They thought it was over Alexander when he got beat by Delroy Leslie and dropped in his previous bout. Needn't be.

bennie wrote:Vanzie's shot, in my opinion. He's never been the same since Yuri Romanov hammered him to the canvas five times and stopped him in eight rounds last year. He looked lucky to get the verdict over Keith Jones and Tony Montana afterwards, lost twice in close fights with the strong but one-dimensional Earl, and now this.
Retire, Vanzie. It's over.

Have a tendancy to agree, the only time I was impressed with Vanzie since Ramanov was his rematch "defeat" vs Earl. However, that might have been his one last good one that shot fighters often have (i.e. Dunne vs Rigby, Holyfield vs Rahman, Whittikar vs De La Hoya).

While I think Vanzie won both fights with Earl, I did think he dissapointed in the first match.

I saw the fight ,stewart applied constant pressure,vanzie was never in trouble but never did enough to win the fight.Strange the only time i see him box well is in title fights.

DavidPayne wrote:Interesting perspective.

Obviously I found someone else who thought he LOST to Earl, thats four people now - Earl, Eames, Maloney and you.

So a fighter who lost contentiously in June for the British Lightweight title, is shot by September because he dropped a 39-38 to Dave Stewart over four rounds when prepared for 8 on ten days notice.

Stupid.

Sure the Romanov fight was damaging and whilst I could venture excuses I wont - he got beat heavily, cant argue.

However, I think BV is reflecting on his career and what the future may hold. He had no arguments with the decision either.

They thought it was over Alexander when he got beat by Delroy Leslie and dropped in his previous bout. Needn't be.

Not stupid. Fact. Signs of a shot fighter occur in a series of poor performances close together. Stand back and look again. I was actually being kind to the Bradford man when I said he's been shot since the Romanov massacre in 2003. He hasn't convinced since he chinned Anthony Maynard in 2001.
Don't get taken in by the man's spiel. Talk - or in your case, the written word, comes cheap.

PS: Vanzie fought Earl after the Luton man had been out for nine months with a whole series of injuries. Earl was ripe for the taking but gritted his teeth and won the fight on determination and correct punching. I repeat. Vanzie is shot. Finished. I take no pleasure in saying it.

Vanzie is obviously not as good as he was but I wouldnt say he is completely shot. And I can quite believe he lost a 4 rounder, he has always been a slow starter.

bennie wrote: Earl was ripe for the taking but gritted his teeth and won the fight on determination and correct punching.

Earl was given the fight (both of them). He didn't win either.

A valid point bennie and one I have to agree with

bennie wrote:

DavidPayne wrote:Interesting perspective.

Obviously I found someone else who thought he LOST to Earl, thats four people now - Earl, Eames, Maloney and you.

So a fighter who lost contentiously in June for the British Lightweight title, is shot by September because he dropped a 39-38 to Dave Stewart over four rounds when prepared for 8 on ten days notice.

Stupid.

Sure the Romanov fight was damaging and whilst I could venture excuses I wont - he got beat heavily, cant argue.

However, I think BV is reflecting on his career and what the future may hold. He had no arguments with the decision either.

They thought it was over Alexander when he got beat by Delroy Leslie and dropped in his previous bout. Needn't be.

Not stupid. Fact. Signs of a shot fighter occur in a series of poor performances close together. Stand back and look again. I was actually being kind to the Bradford man when I said he's been shot since the Romanov massacre in 2003. He hasn't convinced since he chinned Anthony Maynard in 2001.
Don't get taken in by the man's spiel. Talk - or in your case, the written word, comes cheap.

PS: Vanzie fought Earl after the Luton man had been out for nine months with a whole series of injuries. Earl was ripe for the taking but gritted his teeth and won the fight on determination and correct punching. I repeat. Vanzie is shot. Finished. I take no pleasure in saying it.

Everybody has the right to their opinion Bennie but for me Vanzie was robbed twice against Earl. That said I agree that Vanzie is on the slide, 4 or 5 years ago he would have koed earl and not had to worry about the decision. I wouldn't say he is shot as my interpretation of a shot fighter is someone who basically shouldn't be in there anymore, I still think that he could beat many of the top Lightweights around in Europe and certainly he should get another shot at the British title.
The fact that Vanzie has never got a 'World' title shot is a traversty and shows that there are many in the game who have closed the doors on him. Many people do not care for his boxing style and others seem to dislike him a person but for me Vanzie has been one of the best boxers we've had since Herol Graham.... a very simularly mistreated boxer.

I saw the Vanzie-Stewart fight and the decision was fair. Nothing much happened for the first three rounds but Stewart clearly took the last for me and the verdict.

What I can't understand (and Vanzie has to take plenty of responsibility for this) is why in Gods name did Bobby take a four rounder. He's a championship boxer and this match was over before it had begun really. It was originally scheduled for 8 which seemed about right. No doubt time constraints, but he shouldn't have accepted it over four.



Bennie, Wayne Alexander did not lose to Delroy Leslie. Had they fought I would put money on Wayne brushing him aside in very quick fashion, but I got the point you was making about Alexander.



David Payne, You can add me to the list who thought Earl beat Vanzie in the rematch too. He outworked Vanzie, quietly but effectively. Vanzie's never been great at winning on points over 12 rounds. If you was to see an injustice involving Vanzie try and get a tape of his points win over Anthony Campbell....bad, bad decision. Campbell clearly won.

Infact, you can add Boxing New's Tony Connolly to the list as well, he scored for Earl too.

THEBUTCH wrote:Bennie, Wayne Alexander did not lose to Delroy Leslie. Had they fought I would put money on Wayne brushing him aside in very quick fashion, but I got the point you was making about Alexander.

That's right, he lost to Delroy Mellis. Christ, you've got me worried now. Where's that mag...

THEBUTCH wrote:I saw the Vanzie-Stewart fight and the decision was fair. Nothing much happened for the first three rounds but Stewart clearly took the last for me and the verdict.

What I can't understand (and Vanzie has to take plenty of responsibility for this) is why in Gods name did Bobby take a four rounder. He's a championship boxer and this match was over before it had begun really. It was originally scheduled for 8 which seemed about right. No doubt time constraints, but he shouldn't have accepted it over four.



Bennie, Wayne Alexander did not lose to Delroy Leslie. Had they fought I would put money on Wayne brushing him aside in very quick fashion, but I got the point you was making about Alexander.



David Payne, You can add me to the list who thought Earl beat Vanzie in the rematch too. He outworked Vanzie, quietly but effectively. Vanzie's never been great at winning on points over 12 rounds. If you was to see an injustice involving Vanzie try and get a tape of his points win over Anthony Campbell....bad, bad decision. Campbell clearly won.

Infact, you can add Boxing New's Tony Connolly to the list as well, he scored for Earl too.

Got to be quick.

a) Bobby didn;t know it was a 4 rounder til he got in the ring - how would it have been received had he refused to fight and left the ring?

c) There were many factors that ensured Bobby had to fulfil his obligation too.

d) I know Tony Connolly scored it for Earl, I read his fight report which left a very sour taste for a publication I respect enormously. Not just because I disagreed with it but the style and language was clearly defensive.

He wrote the entire report based on 'why Bobby didn't win' rather than reporting on the fight, it stank of an agenda.

For example the knockdown that wasn't scored - Lines like

'O'Connell didn't have the benefit of replays. End of story.'

There were a few examples like that. Everyone has a right to an opinion and Tony had is but for the first time there appeared a very different objective of the report. I'm sure i'm wrong but it read that way.

Anyway, BV had no argument with the decision. OK I've found 6 people who thought Earl won - do you think I'd have trouble finding 60 people who thought the opposite because I dont.

No, I think Bobby should have pulled out. I wouldn't have blamed him , four rounds is ridiculous for a fighter of Bobby's standard.

Don't see why he had to fulfil an obligation if he was under the impression the fight was an eight rounder when he put pen to paper.

I disagree about Boxing news' write up. It seemed fair to me given Vanzie's disgusting reaction to the verdict. THAT was defensive.

The referee you refer to was O'connor, not O'connoll and is the one that Bobby said "needs sorting out", which I strongly disagree with.

I didn't get the impression Bobby had no argument with the verdict, far from it.

Don't care how many people you can get who thinks Vanzie won, it's a subjective sport.

I said he had no argument with the Stewart verdict.

Clealry, he would have an issue with the Earl verdict.

Sorry for the mistake on the referee's name.

The obligations were there for him to go through with the fight.

Ah, my mistake I didn't realise you meant the Stewart result.

True, Bobby didn't start demonstrating like he has in the past, but unless I'm mistaken he left the ring before the result was announced, so wasn't overly impressed with his sportmanship in that respect.