What has happened to Eastman?

bugs · Post by **bugs** » 05 May 2004, 14:03

Hey,

I was just thinking that I have not heard anything about Eastman for a while, he seemed to be quite busy fighting last year, and looked good for another shot (even though Hopkins would not face him) at big fight nights, and now he has dissappeared.

Any idea?

And linked to the other post about the funniest fight, he fought some school teacher last year, southern area champ or something like that, total mismatch, Eastman just hits him and the guy goes flying. Also any Eastman press conferences are funny coz the guy is a little 'eccentirc', know what I mean?

Bugs

stujones · Post by **stujones** » 05 May 2004, 14:52

Bugs,

Yeah Eastman is a funny guy, and has been waiting for ever for an underserving (IMO) shot at Hopkins. I am sure he is playing the waiting game but he needs to shout it out more often.

I heard that Hopkins does most of his negotiations on Boxingtalk, if Eastman wants HOPKINS then maybe he should contact them.

There has been no recent talk of the #1 contendor match, if Hopkins does vacate I hope Eastman fights someone decent for the title - that Italian guy isn't too good.

Eastman vs Taylor for the vacant title would be acceptable to classify Eastman as a geniune champion, I would not be convinced to call Eastman a champion if he fights anyone else.

Matchfixer · Post by **Matchfixer** » 05 May 2004, 16:03

stujones wrote: Eastman vs Taylor for the vacant title would be acceptable to classify Eastman as a geniune champion, I would not be convinced to call Eastman a champion if he fights anyone else.

That's a ridiculous stance! So only Hopkins and Taylor are acceptable?

Loftgroov · Post by **Loftgroov** » 05 May 2004, 17:37

stujones wrote:Bugs,

Yeah Eastman is a funny guy, and has been waiting for ever for an underserving (IMO) shot at Hopkins. I am sure he is playing the waiting game but he needs to shout it out more often.

I heard that Hopkins does most of his negotiations on Boxingtalk, if Eastman wants HOPKINS then maybe he should contact them.

There has been no recent talk of the #1 contendor match, if Hopkins does vacate I hope Eastman fights someone decent for the title - that Italian guy isn't too good.

Eastman vs Taylor for the vacant title would be acceptable to classify Eastman as a geniune champion, I would not be convinced to call Eastman a champion if he fights anyone else.

Hopkins will NEVER EVER fight Howard Eastman. He simply won't gain enough money out of it. He wants HUGE PPV cheques from fights against people like De La Hoya.

He'll retire soon, so wants as big a payday as he get get before he does, and fighting Howard Eastman won't provide that. Eastman can forget it ever happening for that reason alone.

stujones · Post by **stujones** » 05 May 2004, 19:13

Matchfixer wrote:
stujones wrote: Eastman vs Taylor for the vacant title would be acceptable to classify Eastman as a geniune champion, I would not be convinced to call Eastman a champion if he fights anyone else.
That's a ridiculous stance! So only Hopkins and Taylor are acceptable?

No, but Taylor is ranked high in the WBC rankings. #3 I believe. I would prefer if the Eastman vs #2 contendor (who I have already forgotton) is an eliminator and then Taylor is involved for the vacant title.

There are a few other guys, like Aaron Mitchell, Robert Allen, William Joppy, Keith Holmes and even Raul Marquez - they would be acceptable world title contendors. Much lower than that and your getting to the point in which Eastman can be labelled a geniune world champion, whose best victory is still against a faded McCraken.

That Italian is certainly not a worthy world title challenger.

Matchfixer · Post by **Matchfixer** » 06 May 2004, 04:36

stujones wrote:
Matchfixer wrote:
stujones wrote: Eastman vs Taylor for the vacant title would be acceptable to classify Eastman as a geniune champion, I would not be convinced to call Eastman a champion if he fights anyone else.
That's a ridiculous stance! So only Hopkins and Taylor are acceptable?
No, but Taylor is ranked high in the WBC rankings. #3 I believe. I would prefer if the Eastman vs #2 contendor (who I have already forgotton) is an eliminator and then Taylor is involved for the vacant title.

There are a few other guys, like Aaron Mitchell, Robert Allen, William Joppy, Keith Holmes and even Raul Marquez - they would be acceptable world title contendors. Much lower than that and your getting to the point in which Eastman can be labelled a geniune world champion, whose best victory is still against a faded McCraken.

That Italian is certainly not a worthy world title challenger.

Fair enough. I would like him to see avenge the Joppy defeat although it might not be high on his agenda right now.

Would the chance of Hopkins v Eastman increase if Hopkins got KO'd or comprehensively beaten by Allen?

deadpan · Post by **deadpan** » 06 May 2004, 06:37

I fear Eastman is savagely over-rated. How many times has he plodded away against 'cagey' Eastern European opponents for a dishwater-dull mid-rounds stoppage?

As mentioned his best win was against a VERY faded McCracken, a fringe world prospect if ever there was.

He looked okay against Joppy, but was too ponderous for many of the rounds. Trinidad destroyed Joppy in his first outing at 160.

His defence is an afterthought, and he could well be made to pay for overconfidence in his chin at the highest level. He wobbled against Scott Dann, which is cause for concern.

He is an interesting character in a division that is depressingly short of charisma.

He would've struggled to be top 10 in the 80's (and not just because he would've been a pre-teen at the time).

Kilburn · Post by **Kilburn** » 06 May 2004, 06:46

I'd like to Eastman versus David Lopez or Raymond Joval. Both are 50-50 fights.

Although it looks like Joval is being lined up for Taylor.

adamiw · Post by **adamiw** » 06 May 2004, 06:54

deadpan wrote: Trinidad destroyed Joppy in his first outing at 160.

cant compare Eastman to Tito.

Eastman showed that he's got potential on the world stage with his performance against Joppy. It was clear that he was capably of winning the fight, had he applied more pressure earlier on. As it was i think he won by a point. He floored Joppy, something Hopkins couldn't do.

But i am concerned about his recent progress. It seems like he is just waiting for his chance, rather than chasing it. If he was younger, then fair enough, dont take unnecessary risks, but he's 33. He needs to beat some good names, to buiold up more interest stateside for a world title challenge.

knockout · Post by **knockout** » 06 May 2004, 07:15

Kilburn wrote:I'd like to Eastman versus David Lopez or Raymond Joval. Both are 50-50 fights.

Although it looks like Joval is being lined up for Taylor.

Dan: Joval and Soliman are having a rematch in July..... IBF eliminator I think

Kilburn · Post by **Kilburn** » 06 May 2004, 11:15

knockout wrote:Dan: Joval and Soliman are having a rematch in July..... IBF eliminator I think

Oh right. It seems Taylor has got Raul Marquez which is not a great match.

stujones · Post by **stujones** » 06 May 2004, 19:37

Kilburn wrote:
knockout wrote:Dan: Joval and Soliman are having a rematch in July..... IBF eliminator I think
Oh right. It seems Taylor has got Raul Marquez which is not a great match.

I actually disagree, its an excellent fight for Taylor at this stage in his career. I honestly believe that Marquez should have had a rematch with Moseley, because that fight wasn't conclusive. Moseley is not the fighter he was and it was at Light Middle, but I do think Marquez hurt Moseley more than Del La Hoya did.

I think someone at the Beeb said Marquez was looking for a way out, a completely disagree it was a terrible cut and Marquez is to proud a champion to do that.

I think his performance has rekindled his desire (well, from what I have read) and he is an ex Light Middleweight world champion who is not past it.

With the lack of depth in this devision I believe Marquez sits comfortably in the Middleweight top ten, so he is the best fighter Taylor has faced.

Kilburn · Post by **Kilburn** » 07 May 2004, 04:30

Stu you always disagree with me. 8)

I'm not saying it's a mismatch but it's not a great match, any more than Miguel Cotto's fights against lightweights are. Taylor is a big middlewight banger who looks almost certain to take over from Hopkins one day. Marquez is a faded, easy to hit light-middle who hardly had a glorious reign as IBF champ when at his peak.

Taylor is just too dangerous to be fighting little guys.

stujones · Post by **stujones** » 07 May 2004, 14:09

Kilburn wrote:Stu you always disagree with me. 8)

I'm not saying it's a mismatch but it's not a great match, any more than Miguel Cotto's fights against lightweights are. Taylor is a big middlewight banger who looks almost certain to take over from Hopkins one day. Marquez is a faded, easy to hit light-middle who hardly had a glorious reign as IBF champ when at his peak.

Taylor is just too dangerous to be fighting little guys.

I do get your point of view, however the Middleweight devision is a lot different to the Light Welter in terms of talent. The options for Taylor are very limited and with the exception of Mitchell and Allen, I think Marquez has a good chance against the other Middleweight top tens.

Also, the comparison with Cotto's opponents is also wrong because Marquez' standing a Light Middle, is/was better than most of Cotto's opponents at Light Welter. With the exception of Bezan I can't remember Cotto fighting and Lightweight world champion. Bezan was a good win, and I have always given Cotto credit for it, I believe Bezan was a lot fresher than people give credit.

The difference between Marquez and the likes of Juuko and Brown is that Marquez has more ambitions and is still fairly fresh. He is also a geniune world champion, although not the best Light Middle King.

I would sort of compare Taylor vs Marquez, to a prospect taking on Sparaforda.

Kilburn · Post by **Kilburn** » 08 May 2004, 15:09

To be fair Stu Marquez was hardly an outstanding "world champ". It's who you beat and who beats you that decides what level you're at, not whether or not you've been fortunate enough to pick up a vacant title belt. The best win Marquez has on his record is probably his 12 round struggle against Keith Mullings.

stujones · Post by **stujones** » 08 May 2004, 15:14

Kilburn wrote:To be fair Stu Marquez was hardly an outstanding "world champ". It's who you beat and who beats you that decides what level you're at, not whether or not you've been fortunate enough to pick up a vacant title belt. The best win Marquez has on his record is probably his 12 round struggle against Keith Mullings.

Agree, but given the lack of depth in the devision its a good match. A win over Marquez, is everybit as good as any of Eastman's wins.