Just...no. From Michael Katsidis' official site:
"The fight with Mick shouldn’t have been stopped, I want an opportunity for revenge, He promised me a rematch, I want a rematch" Earl said via email to Smith earlier today "last we spoke Michael had obligations, he doesn’t now, give our countries what they want Earl V Katsidis 2!"
Katsidis has confirmed that his next fight will be on Australian soil, so if Earl is serious about the challenge he will need to come downunder, something Smith believes he will "He stated in his email to me that he is willing to fight Michael anywhere, not to many boxers in the world are willing to do that"
Team Katsidis are expected to issue a response in the coming days.
Katsidis and Graham Earl went to war in a tremendous fight back in 2007, but since then Katsidis has gone on to world level (largely unsuccessful once there, but a contender), while Earl lost his next two fights by TKO-1, then beat a guy with 125 losses on his record in 2009 and retired. Earl, 33 in August, is now a promoter.
There's no good reason for this fight. Earl hasn't fought in two years and the Katsidis fight essentially ruined him. It was a great fight, but the effects on Earl's career were quite obvious afterward. The TKO-1 to Amir Khan was one thing; the TKO-1 to Henry Castle was another. Here's video of the Castle TKO:
Graham Earl is a very tough guy, but it's not really as if there's unfinished business here, and Earl saying the fight shouldn't have been stopped rings a little empty. Long before the referee stopped that fight, Earl's own corner had thrown in the towel, only to have referee Mickey Vann throw it back for whatever reason he thought he had.
Katsidis recently called out Miguel Vazquez, who turned down the fight.