Was just refelcting on last nights 'world title defence' by Scott Harrison and thinking that a lot of the foundations for the dreadful title reigns of Calzaghe, Hatton and Harrison were laid by Chris Eubank.
He went on a long title reign against some very non-descript opposition, although punctuated with some decent scraps against top domestic opponents like Benn and Watson he never fought a genuine world top 5 opponent.
We look back at Eubank through rose-tinted glasses because he did ultimately prove himself to be a very brave warrior but he did also set a worrying trend which was much criticised at the time and that trend has now become an epidemic ruining our sport as a spectacle at what should be highest domestic level.
Eubanks title reign did coincide with the mass proliferation of the governing bodies (mainly the WBO) but the way Calzaghe et al go about their careers now bears hallmarks of the way Chris went about his.
At least Eubank fought Benn and Watson, Hatton wouldn't even fight Witter and holds an even tardier belt so it's certainly become worse.
Is Eubank to blame?
-
Bard of Boxrec
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 13114
- Joined: 22 Feb 2002, 20:00
Interesting point, however I think it may have as much to do with TV's obsession with the tag 'World Title Fight'. If I recall right Eubank was payed a great deal of money by SKY to defend his title umpteen times a year, I got the feeling they were not to bothered about the level of opposistion. As long as they had plenty of 'World Title' fights to hype and adverts of Eubank turning into a Panther they were happy.
-
Manos de Oro
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 1630
- Joined: 21 Sep 2004, 12:10
Yea, very interesting. I think Eubank is looked on favourably now partly because of nostalgia, definately. But he was also 'squeezed dry': we saw him tested, saw him lose, and saw him put on a show on more than one occasion. Everyone knows, more or less, how good he was, and against the top guys the general consensus seems to be he would likely have made it interesting but not won. Of course, in the ideal career of a 'world champion' there's little room for speculation, and while I agree that the current bullshit stems from Eubank's era, there is far more speculation, for me, concerning the careers and level of Calzaghe and Hatton, than there is to Eubank.
Exactly, it really annoys me when they compare Harrison's achievements with the likes of Lynch, Watt, Buchanan etc and then he goes and takes part in a farce like that? It just insults the legacies of so many great fighters.
It doesn't matter whether you make 20 defences against stiffs if a guy is making 5 defences against genuine world level opposition.
It doesn't matter whether you make 20 defences against stiffs if a guy is making 5 defences against genuine world level opposition.
Harrison doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as Lynch and Buchanan... or even Watt, who was a step down from Buchanan and Lynch but is still a few steps above Harrison. One of the biggest problems in todays society is that people confuse quantity with quality and this has totally ruined boxing.... people like HATTON, Calzaghe and Harrison would be lucky to be top ten contenders 30 years ago let alone champions! 8)
Yes but Hopkins has the WBO middleweight title now, if he didn't think much of it, then someone like him would have insisted that he wouldn't box with it at stake against De La Hoya. If it was good enough for De La Hoya against Sturm, and Hopkins against De La Hoya, then I'd say it was a genuine world title. All the extra sanctioning fees etc; if it wasn't genuine enough, then they would not want to pay extra money.bennie wrote:The WBO isn't a genuine world title. It's that simple. People keep telling me Scott Harrison is a good fighter - but good fighters don't settle for the WBO. And forget all this unification crap; Scott Harrison will be WBO champ till he dies.
Great post, totally agreesilkov wrote:Harrison doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as Lynch and Buchanan... or even Watt, who was a step down from Buchanan and Lynch but is still a few steps above Harrison. One of the biggest problems in todays society is that people confuse quantity with quality and this has totally ruined boxing.... people like HATTON, Calzaghe and Harrison would be lucky to be top ten contenders 30 years ago let alone champions! 8)
I still say the TV 'money men' have a lot to answer for with their love of 'World Title' fights, Boxing is like any sport controled by the ££££'s.
I've also always felt that the real reason that World Title fights were reduced to 12 rounds was that they fitted better into the TV schedule time slots than the 15 rounders.
I've also always felt that the real reason that World Title fights were reduced to 12 rounds was that they fitted better into the TV schedule time slots than the 15 rounders.
-
glittermonkey
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 2658
- Joined: 28 Feb 2004, 18:03
I wish i'd have seen this sooner, because most of what i wanted to say has now already been said.
For me the biggest contributing factor to the way British boxing careers seem to go now, is SKY tv. They are the ultimate power when it comes to deciding the fights that we get to see. As has been said, they wanted the "World title" tag on their shows, so they were only too happy to sign Eubank and fund his WBO career. Becuase they never demanded that he fought a top level fighter, Eubank and his team were only too happy to take the money for low risk fights.
Things haven't changed either, SKY don't demand that Hatton fights Harris or Mitchell, they're just happy with the fact that he fights, and of course, wins. That, i suppose, is even more important to them. If a fighter keeps winning, then there can be the illusion that he is the best, and a genuine world champion.
Yes, Eubank should take a little of the blame, but most of it should fall on his management, and SKY, for backing his partially sub-standard reign.
For me the biggest contributing factor to the way British boxing careers seem to go now, is SKY tv. They are the ultimate power when it comes to deciding the fights that we get to see. As has been said, they wanted the "World title" tag on their shows, so they were only too happy to sign Eubank and fund his WBO career. Becuase they never demanded that he fought a top level fighter, Eubank and his team were only too happy to take the money for low risk fights.
Things haven't changed either, SKY don't demand that Hatton fights Harris or Mitchell, they're just happy with the fact that he fights, and of course, wins. That, i suppose, is even more important to them. If a fighter keeps winning, then there can be the illusion that he is the best, and a genuine world champion.
Yes, Eubank should take a little of the blame, but most of it should fall on his management, and SKY, for backing his partially sub-standard reign.
Goz, couldn't agree with you more.
My interest in Boxing tailed off with Eubank's title reign. He defended against people I had never heard of before (Dan Sherry, Dan Schommer, Mauricio Amaral). And fights against the likes of Watson, Stretch, Storey, Wharton were no more than British title fights to me.
Some of his later title fights were so unappealing I just didn't bother watching them, moreso when he started getting too many undeserving decisions.
My interest in Boxing tailed off with Eubank's title reign. He defended against people I had never heard of before (Dan Sherry, Dan Schommer, Mauricio Amaral). And fights against the likes of Watson, Stretch, Storey, Wharton were no more than British title fights to me.
Some of his later title fights were so unappealing I just didn't bother watching them, moreso when he started getting too many undeserving decisions.
-
jamesmcdonnell
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 45229
- Joined: 12 Nov 2003, 06:11
Well, should Eubank get the blame entirely. Nigel Benn was calling himself a world champion a year after he lost to Watson through beating a worn Doug DeWitt. The BBBoC were possibly correct in refusing to recognising Nigel, however when the chance came to earn a bit of money with a good domestic tear up the BBBoC suddenly accepted the title.
I do recognise the WBO as a geniune world championship, I think there have been too many good WBO champions (solely) for it not to be recognised (i.e. Marco Antionio Barrera would only be recognised as a world champion for 24 hours in 2002 if we didn't accept it). However, I do also agree the Eubank AND Benn were partly responsible to the problems today. I mean, great as those two fighters became, in 1990 their standing in world terms IS definately comparable to Hatton and Magee's when they clashed. One hadn't won a domestic championship and the other had just LOST the Commonwealth crown. Really they were small fish on a world scale and it was the start of the small fish fighting for big (Officially anyway) titles.
I do recognise the WBO as a geniune world championship, I think there have been too many good WBO champions (solely) for it not to be recognised (i.e. Marco Antionio Barrera would only be recognised as a world champion for 24 hours in 2002 if we didn't accept it). However, I do also agree the Eubank AND Benn were partly responsible to the problems today. I mean, great as those two fighters became, in 1990 their standing in world terms IS definately comparable to Hatton and Magee's when they clashed. One hadn't won a domestic championship and the other had just LOST the Commonwealth crown. Really they were small fish on a world scale and it was the start of the small fish fighting for big (Officially anyway) titles.
Is Eubank to blame
In a word No - The dreadful state of British boxing is more due to allegedly than Eubank.
The preference for second tier titles and second rate opponents has almost put British boxing of the radar.
Calzaghe and Hatton are viewed as clowns that are treated with derisory contempt, unless and until they do something meaningfull.
Naturally the boxers themselves are also to blame as they appear to participate quiet willingly with the charade.
And finally the fans that fill the area's every time Hatton fights do not also help. If 50% of the people that support Hatton had supported Brodie in his attempts at Chi I would have been more optimistic or even going back a few years ago Billy Schwer against Stevie Johnson.
These were both quality match ups with more recognised versions of the title on the line but drew less than 4,000 fans.
I was encouraged by Scott Harrisons initial progress but now fear that he is following the tried and trusted route of multiple defences against non discript opponents in his home town - I hope that I am wrong.
I would state on a positive note that Amir Khan managed to get 8 million brits watching boxing and he may be an ace in the pack yet.
The preference for second tier titles and second rate opponents has almost put British boxing of the radar.
Calzaghe and Hatton are viewed as clowns that are treated with derisory contempt, unless and until they do something meaningfull.
Naturally the boxers themselves are also to blame as they appear to participate quiet willingly with the charade.
And finally the fans that fill the area's every time Hatton fights do not also help. If 50% of the people that support Hatton had supported Brodie in his attempts at Chi I would have been more optimistic or even going back a few years ago Billy Schwer against Stevie Johnson.
These were both quality match ups with more recognised versions of the title on the line but drew less than 4,000 fans.
I was encouraged by Scott Harrisons initial progress but now fear that he is following the tried and trusted route of multiple defences against non discript opponents in his home town - I hope that I am wrong.
I would state on a positive note that Amir Khan managed to get 8 million brits watching boxing and he may be an ace in the pack yet.
-
don't call it a comeback
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 332
- Joined: 26 Apr 2004, 08:47
Eubank was involved in some very competitive and exciting contests at the start of his reign and at the end of his career. But mainly with domestic foes - he showed no interest in getting international recognition. This is because the growth of sky allowed him to make millions at home, he emphasised the showbiz element of his personal thus allowing him to make money outside the ring, he held the wbo title and they rarely imposed difficult challenges and, finally, because there were at least four super middleweights in the UK during this period with world standing: Benn, Collins, Watson and, to a lesser extent, Calzaghe. This last factor helped override some of the downsides of the other elements.
Other fighters have gone down the same route as Eubank but lacked the redeeming elements of three or four titanic tussles.
So in my view, key elements of the unrealised potential of british boxers are
1. The WBO - some genuine champs, few genuine challengers
2. Sky - hyping the ordinary, reluctant to reward promotional competition
3. FW - not interested in genuine world titles, not interested in staging fights overseas, not really interested in boxing history. Is FW a manager or a promoter? As a promoter he makes money out of a dull product, as a manager he ruins careers.
4. Lack of public interest due to lack of terrestial exposure.
Maybe Sky moving boxing to a friday will be the jolt required....either that or the death knell..A lot of fans get passionately interested in boxing for a year or two then lose interest because the big fights never materialise.
Right now most careers of most high profile british boxers are going through the longest period of foreplay without climax in history.
Other fighters have gone down the same route as Eubank but lacked the redeeming elements of three or four titanic tussles.
So in my view, key elements of the unrealised potential of british boxers are
1. The WBO - some genuine champs, few genuine challengers
2. Sky - hyping the ordinary, reluctant to reward promotional competition
3. FW - not interested in genuine world titles, not interested in staging fights overseas, not really interested in boxing history. Is FW a manager or a promoter? As a promoter he makes money out of a dull product, as a manager he ruins careers.
4. Lack of public interest due to lack of terrestial exposure.
Maybe Sky moving boxing to a friday will be the jolt required....either that or the death knell..A lot of fans get passionately interested in boxing for a year or two then lose interest because the big fights never materialise.
Right now most careers of most high profile british boxers are going through the longest period of foreplay without climax in history.
If memory serves me right, most of Eubanks better fights (eg early in his career) were on ITV, then he switched to Sky............ and the rest is history.don't call it a comeback wrote:Eubank was involved in some very competitive and exciting contests at the start of his reign and at the end of his career. But mainly with domestic foes - .
Eubank's sky fights were - Wharton, Collins x 2, Calzaghe and Thompson x2. I wouldn't have said these were his poorest opponents or his poorest contests.KOJOE90 wrote:If memory serves me right, most of Eubanks better fights (eg early in his career) were on ITV, then he switched to Sky............ and the rest is history.don't call it a comeback wrote:Eubank was involved in some very competitive and exciting contests at the start of his reign and at the end of his career. But mainly with domestic foes - .
The likes of Jarvis etc were on ITV.
stujones wrote:Eubank's sky fights were - Wharton, Collins x 2, Calzaghe and Thompson x2. I wouldn't have said these were his poorest opponents or his poorest contests.KOJOE90 wrote:If memory serves me right, most of Eubanks better fights (eg early in his career) were on ITV, then he switched to Sky............ and the rest is history.don't call it a comeback wrote:Eubank was involved in some very competitive and exciting contests at the start of his reign and at the end of his career. But mainly with domestic foes - .
The likes of Jarvis etc were on ITV.
Stu, I think he had more fights than that on Sky. I'm pretty sure the Storey & Schommer fights were on Sky, maybe even the Amaral fight.
Perhaps your correct, I have the vast majority of Eubanks' fights on tape but not the ones you mentioned. I remembered listening to Wharton on the radio (hence on Sky) but cannot remember whether I just missed the Storey/Schomer fights or whether they were on Sky.lamphey wrote:stujones wrote:Eubank's sky fights were - Wharton, Collins x 2, Calzaghe and Thompson x2. I wouldn't have said these were his poorest opponents or his poorest contests.KOJOE90 wrote: If memory serves me right, most of Eubanks better fights (eg early in his career) were on ITV, then he switched to Sky............ and the rest is history.
The likes of Jarvis etc were on ITV.
Stu, I think he had more fights than that on Sky. I'm pretty sure the Storey & Schommer fights were on Sky, maybe even the Amaral fight.
His two fights between the Collins rematch and the Calzaghe fight were shown live on Eurosport.
Eubank
Calzaghe has signed for Warren again which confirms my belief that the boxers are almost as much as Frank is to blame for the current situation.
Regarding Eubank and Sky -my recollection was he signed an 8 fight deal worth 2 million pounds and almost completed the deal.
A lot of his opponents were medioca and it was only towards the tail end of his career with his fights against Calzaghe and Thompson that the public warmed to him.
His resume is streets ahead of Calzaghe and his style was IMO compromised by the Watson incident.
He would probably have beaten Collins first time around if he had capatilised on the 10th round knockdown, instead of posing.
He became more offensive against Thompson and to a lesser extent Calzaghe as he was in survival mode.
Regarding Eubank and Sky -my recollection was he signed an 8 fight deal worth 2 million pounds and almost completed the deal.
A lot of his opponents were medioca and it was only towards the tail end of his career with his fights against Calzaghe and Thompson that the public warmed to him.
His resume is streets ahead of Calzaghe and his style was IMO compromised by the Watson incident.
He would probably have beaten Collins first time around if he had capatilised on the 10th round knockdown, instead of posing.
He became more offensive against Thompson and to a lesser extent Calzaghe as he was in survival mode.
I thought Amaral won that fight as well. Not so sure if it was Eubanks first fight on SKY I would need to check my tapes.lamphey wrote:In fact, the more I think about it, I believe the Amaral fight was his first for Sky.
I was convinced Amaral had won (as were many others) and thought great way to start the new Sky deal with a defeat - then came the judges to the rescue once again.