Great Eubank interview

Old bones Ian · Post by **Old bones Ian** » 29 Apr 2006, 13:23

I don't know if you lot like him or can't stand him, but reading this interview its hard not to like him. He is a very tough man.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/main.j ... thspt.html

lvlarc · Post by **lvlarc** » 29 Apr 2006, 13:44

You right that was an excellent interview. I warmed to him a good few years back when he was in "When Louis Met Frank"

He's a strange character, eccentric, sometimes you think he's putting up a front but I do love watching him when hes on tele.

Perhaps it stems from his "fractured" childhood. He likes that word. "Fractured, yes!" he said, seizing upon it happily. It is often stylised "hard" or "disturbed" because his mother left him and his three elder brothers with a gambling, womanising, drinking father in south-east London. He went into care at 11. Don't be sympathetic. He rejects it.

"Jesus, there was a pool table. There was furniture. There were three meals a day. How wonderful it was for me. There were girls there. It was blissful. I didn't need to be loved. Not then. That childlike essence is probably what I need now as a man. But as a child I was: 'Get out of my way'. My mother left when I was eight. I was: 'Great, I've only got one parent to dodge now'. It was fantastic. You make do with what you have. I got on with it. Which is why the bankruptcy is a feather in my
cap."

Class

Old bones Ian · Post by **Old bones Ian** » 29 Apr 2006, 13:47

Eubank went through hell against Benn, Watson, Thompson, Collins and the rest, has he one of the strongest fighting spirits of any British boxer?

MightyWarrior · Post by **MightyWarrior** » 29 Apr 2006, 13:51

Yes that's a brilliant piece - always liked Eubank, such a one off character.

What a great line from Eubank -

"There are many impostors in this field of honour who cut and run. They say they are like us, but they are not like us. They are pretenders. We, Michael and I, were true warriors that night."

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 29 Apr 2006, 13:59

Great interview...

steve689 · Post by **steve689** » 29 Apr 2006, 14:11

Eubank for all his flaws was a warrior who ducked no one, was watching the Rocchigiani fight the other day, he went to Germany and gave a solid title defence. Just out of interest my DVD cut out at the end of the bout, anyone know the scores for the Rocchigiani fight?

stujones · Post by **stujones** » 29 Apr 2006, 14:42

steve689 wrote:Eubank for all his flaws was a warrior who ducked no one, was watching the Rocchigiani fight the other day, he went to Germany and gave a solid title defence. Just out of interest my DVD cut out at the end of the bout, anyone know the scores for the Rocchigiani fight?

I have the fight, so will confirm - but boxrec says its.

Cesar Ramos 115-113

Frank Skilbred 118-109

Mike Glienna 114-113

Don't really agree with your post, thought he was a fantastic fighter one of the country's finest and think he would have been too much for Joe in his prime - great Warrior.

But ducked no one? I don't see Michael Nunn, James Toney, Frankie Liles, Tim Littles, Iran Barkley, Sambu Kalambay, Roy Jones etc on his resume.

Even Barry Hearn admited in a 1999 documentary on the Benn vs Eubank rivarly, that Eubank did enjoy being the big fish in the small bond... He regretted signing that options deal with King, which was supposed to start win or lose vs Benn in the rematch... The draw meant a way out and both he an Hearn took advantage of it... Had he stuck with it, he could have easily added the WBA title cause Michael Nunn lost to Steve Little in a massive upset just months after Benn vs Eubank II.

steve689 · Post by **steve689** » 29 Apr 2006, 14:51

I suppose i meant domestically rather than worldwide, fighting the likes of Watson, Benn, Collins and Thompson all twice and Calzaghe as well earns him my respect. Did he face Henry Wharton as well? My memory eludes me. Cheers for the scores though, Eubank was worthy of that win for sure.

stujones · Post by **stujones** » 29 Apr 2006, 14:53

steve689 wrote:I suppose i meant domestically rather than worldwide, fighting the likes of Watson, Benn, Collins and Thompson all twice and Calzaghe as well earns him my respect. Did he face Henry Wharton as well? My memory eludes me. Cheers for the scores though, Eubank was worthy of that win for sure.

Yes, he did - career best performance aswell. Shutout - or a least close to one.

lvlarc · Post by **lvlarc** » 29 Apr 2006, 19:40

He's been busy, similar interview for The Times.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, ... 45,00.html

harrygreb · Post by **harrygreb** » 30 Apr 2006, 08:34

good interview - chris is an honest guy - but he could have more honest at the time after the first watson match in which he was also well outboxed.
chris claimed to have won that fight. had he been more honest - no rematch, no tragic end.
watson was the best of the very good three men we had at that weight at the time.

E · Post by E » 30 Apr 2006, 11:47

There is also an article in the mail on Sunday on Nicolai Valuev - it is in the centre pages.

It is a truly rubbish article, but good to see such interest.....and prime column inches.

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 30 Apr 2006, 12:38

harrygreb wrote:good interview - chris is an honest guy - but he could have more honest at the time after the first watson match in which he was also well outboxed.
chris claimed to have won that fight. had he been more honest - no rematch, no tragic end.
watson was the best of the very good three men we had at that weight at the time.

Don't agree with your logic really, even if Chris had lost the first fight there was always going to be a rematch...

harrygreb · Post by **harrygreb** » 05 May 2006, 21:21

what are you talking about? chris got a whupping in the first fight. rematches are not compulsory even when they are in the contract!!
boxing being what it is, yes the fight was just close enough for a rematch to be a money spinner. but i have seen closer outcomes where a rematch has not happened.
chris was not honest about the way the first bout went. watson IMHO was a clear winner, had chris admitted this (ok we all know it was deemed a draw) but its what your heart tells you and i think he blagged it.

harrygreb · Post by **harrygreb** » 05 May 2006, 21:23

by the way, you may have gathered that I judge the fight, not the judges.

fist · Post by **fist** » 06 May 2006, 07:30

I remember immediately after the fight Eubank was speaking to the cameras and saying he wanted Watson tested for drugs insisting that no man could keep up the pace he did. The commentators speculated that Chris would regret his comments, as Watson lay on the foor. never actualy got mentioned again, suppose it was heat of the moment.

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 06 May 2006, 09:16

harrygreb wrote:what are you talking about? chris got a whupping in the first fight. rematches are not compulsory even when they are in the contract!!
boxing being what it is, yes the fight was just close enough for a rematch to be a money spinner. but i have seen closer outcomes where a rematch has not happened.
chris was not honest about the way the first bout went. watson IMHO was a clear winner, had chris admitted this (ok we all know it was deemed a draw) but its what your heart tells you and i think he blagged it.

What are you talking about?... the first fight was very close and Eubank kept the title... do you really think had he said that Watson had won that Watson wouldn't have wanted to fight him again???... the rematch was the biggest money match there for both of them at the time save for a Benn fight...