Eubank VS Watson to be shown...

jeej · Post by **jeej** » 15 Apr 2006, 23:38

http://www.observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_n ... 83,00.html

"Footage of the horrific bout that changed the face of boxing will finally be seen again, 15 years after Chris Eubank left Michael Watson in a coma.

ITV, which broadcast the fight, has never allowed the pictures to be shown again after Watson ended up with irreparable brain damage from a Eubank uppercut in the 12th and final round.

But from next week the action can be viewed at Eubank's website, http://www.chriseubank.com, for £1.50 per round. The two boxers are to share the proceeds. Watson spent 40 days in a coma but recovered to walk the London Marathon."

Mick Sturbs · Post by **Mick Sturbs** » 16 Apr 2006, 18:10

Disgusting. Greed at it's worst. How is he allowed to do this? Who owns the rights?

jeej · Post by **jeej** » 16 Apr 2006, 18:20

Apparently the profits are to be shared equally between the two boxers.

Razor · Post by **Razor** » 16 Apr 2006, 19:02

Wow i think this is sick as fornicate, and one of the worst ways to make money EVER! If anything Eubank shouldnt get fornicate all, getting money for airing a fight where he gives someone brain damage. Is this a wind up, cause its a sick one if it is.

bollox · Post by **bollox** » 16 Apr 2006, 20:11

Why anyone would want to see such a sickening accident is beyond me. Eubank should be ashamed of himself for putting it up

Phenomenal-Nutrition · Post by **Phenomenal-Nutrition** » 17 Apr 2006, 05:09

Eubanks desperate for cash, Watson hardly made his fortune and will happily pick up the cheques. It was a great fight why shouldnt it be seen again - we've all seen McCellan Benn many times havent we? I wouldnt pay £1.50 a round for it and doubt many would.

Razor · Post by **Razor** » 17 Apr 2006, 07:20

Phenomenal-Nutrition wrote:Eubanks desperate for cash, Watson hardly made his fortune and will happily pick up the cheques. It was a great fight why shouldnt it be seen again - we've all seen McCellan Benn many times havent we? I wouldnt pay £1.50 a round for it and doubt many would.

You are joknig right? Do you know how much Watson has gotten from all this?

Phenomenal-Nutrition · Post by **Phenomenal-Nutrition** » 17 Apr 2006, 08:20

Razor wrote:
Phenomenal-Nutrition wrote:Eubanks desperate for cash, Watson hardly made his fortune and will happily pick up the cheques. It was a great fight why shouldnt it be seen again - we've all seen McCellan Benn many times havent we? I wouldnt pay £1.50 a round for it and doubt many would.
You are joknig right? Do you know how much Watson has gotten from all this?

No I don't know but I don't see why it shouldnt be shown. People watch and rewatch other fights with a fighter getting terribly damaged all the time. I'm sure people here have downloaded fights like Grifith-Paret (Paret died), Benn-McCellan, Charvez-Taylor, Gatti-Gammaci - those are great fights and tradgically a fighter got permentantly damaged but it is part of the game - not saying I wouldn't love those fighters to have been unharmed but the fight happened, people like to watch great fights, let the fighter sell the fights.

stujones · Post by **stujones** » 17 Apr 2006, 08:31

I'm not sure there is any proof that the damage Taylor got was from the Chavez fight. Its just like people say Ali got some damage after the Frazier fight.... Both Taylor and Ali fought on, so hard to really know (without the medical evidence) to know when they got their damage.

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 17 Apr 2006, 09:27

Well Taylor was certainly never the same fighter again after the first Chavez fight...

Hardhitters11 · Post by **Hardhitters11** » 17 Apr 2006, 12:31

At least he is giving Watson some money, What is anyone else doing?

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 17 Apr 2006, 13:02

Eubank has helped Watson a lot I believe since that fight... the fight is being distributed between collectors anyway why shouldn't the fighters themselves make some money from it?... I'm sure if Micheal objected to the fight being shown Eubank wouldnt show it, he's a much nicer guy than he's often credited for...

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 17 Apr 2006, 13:03

I've always thought that Micheals injury was caused by the back of his head hitting the ropes when he went down rather than the punch itself...

Max Molyneux · Post by **Max Molyneux** » 17 Apr 2006, 15:45

That site is in development.

Where did you really get that from Jeej?

jeej · Post by **jeej** » 17 Apr 2006, 18:13

Max Molyneux wrote:That site is in development.

Where did you really get that from Jeej?

Where did I REALLY get it from?

Well, on the front of Boxrec they display the latest boxing news. There was a link to a story the Observer was running about Eubank's website showing the fight for £1.50 a round.

Do you think I'm making it up or something?

ABA Boxing · Post by **ABA Boxing** » 17 Apr 2006, 18:17

Ive never seen that fight, i wouldnt mind watching it not because of the outcome, but im not paying that!!!

Foggy · Post by **Foggy** » 17 Apr 2006, 19:04

I understand that Watson got seriously hurt but i have no objections with them showing the fight, why not, its apart of boxing history. I personally have never seen the fight but have heard it is a classic in its own right, i do feel for Watson but thats what can happn when you enter the ring.

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 18 Apr 2006, 07:51

I have no problem at all with Michael and Chris making money from this fight. After all, it was Watson who took the terrible punch which ended his career and rendered him comatose, so why shouldn't he profit?

As I recall, didn't watson receive less than the agreed payout from the BBBofC as they were short of cash? Or did the sale of their old HQ make up the defecit?

Watson probably saved the life of Spencer Oliver and Paul Ingle, amongst others by doing what he did, and I've no problem with him making money from this. If Eubank weren't sharing the profits, I'd be uncomfortable with Eubank screening it on a website and profitting however.

yiddo14 · Post by **yiddo14** » 18 Apr 2006, 08:03

Its just the old british tabloids kicking a man when he is down.fornicate what the guardian or any other paper has to say about it.They don't represent my views and they should'nt represent yours.

I have the fight on dvd,along with benn/mclellan.
I don't watch them to see guys get injured,i watch it because they were classic fights,involving great English fighters.

And if eubank and watson can make a few bob from some mug paying £1.50 a ROUND! then fair play to them both.

Loftgroov · Post by **Loftgroov** » 18 Apr 2006, 08:26

silkov wrote:I've always thought that Micheals injury was caused by the back of his head hitting the ropes when he went down rather than the punch itself...

Correct. I've read a report explaining that when Watson's neck snapped back horribly on the bottom rope as he fell this caused the serious damage(not the uppercut from Eubank). This was a report from the neurosurgeons that treated him etc.

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 18 Apr 2006, 08:47

Really? I don't recall ever hearing that explanation though it sounds feasible.

boxingchat · Post by **boxingchat** » 18 Apr 2006, 09:33

Loftgroov wrote:
silkov wrote:I've always thought that Micheals injury was caused by the back of his head hitting the ropes when he went down rather than the punch itself...
Correct. I've read a report explaining that when Watson's neck snapped back horribly on the bottom rope as he fell this caused the serious damage(not the uppercut from Eubank). This was a report from the neurosurgeons that treated him etc.

What caused him to go down and his head to ultimately hit the rope as you say then?

Fact is, you are talking complete nonsence.

Taki... · Post by **Taki...** » 19 Apr 2006, 16:27

boxingchat wrote:
Loftgroov wrote:
silkov wrote:I've always thought that Micheals injury was caused by the back of his head hitting the ropes when he went down rather than the punch itself...
Correct. I've read a report explaining that when Watson's neck snapped back horribly on the bottom rope as he fell this caused the serious damage(not the uppercut from Eubank). This was a report from the neurosurgeons that treated him etc.

What caused him to go down and his head to ultimately hit the rope as you say then?

Fact is, you are talking complete nonsence.

Using that kind of logic one could blame anything that ultimately lead-up to Michael Watson's head hitting the bottom rope (including taking up boxing in the first place). In the end one has to put the incident down to pure bad luck.

jeej · Post by **jeej** » 27 Apr 2006, 17:49

Eubank justifies website... http://www.news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/boxing/4947848.stm

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 27 Apr 2006, 19:43

boxingchat wrote:
Loftgroov wrote:
silkov wrote:I've always thought that Micheals injury was caused by the back of his head hitting the ropes when he went down rather than the punch itself...
Correct. I've read a report explaining that when Watson's neck snapped back horribly on the bottom rope as he fell this caused the serious damage(not the uppercut from Eubank). This was a report from the neurosurgeons that treated him etc.

What caused him to go down and his head to ultimately hit the rope as you say then?

Fact is, you are talking complete nonsence.

Its not nonsense mate... Micheals injury was caused by the whiplash action of his neck hitting the ropes... obviously if he hadnt taken the uppercut he wouldn't have gone down but the fact is that had his neck not hit the ropes he would not have recieved the injuries that he did.
Davey Moore was simularly injured in his featherweight title fight with Sugar Ramos in the early 60s.... he was knocked down and the vack of his head hit the ropes just like Watsons did...
I was actually ringside for the Eubank vs Watson fight and remember very clearly seeing him hit the ropes when he went down...
you need to brush up on your research Chat rather than calling people names all the time...