Secondsout UK are reporting that Howard Eastman is likely to be stripped for pulling out of his meeting with Jorge Sendra which was to take place in Derby later this month.
The likely scenerio, according to Clive Bernarth, is that former world title challenger Maurice Haaker will face Sendra, with the winner likely to face Eastman.
My main question is that at 33, has Eastman got time to be messing around with the European belt he has a mandatory status with WBC and I think if he is officially stripped of his belt then he should focus on world honours as opposed to making these silly European defences against poor fighters.
He still hasn't faught that Bridge fighter between McCraken and the likes of Joppy/Hopkins. He needs to, Haaker and Sendra are not good enough. If he goes back to challenge for his old belt I would seriously question his ambition.
It would be very similar to Danny Williams, who should be thinking of a Samil Sam rematch as opposed to Harrison, Sprott and especially that German warm up opponent he wants to fight again.
More Eastman delay??
Re: More Eastman delay??
As daft as Hakkar looked in that first round against Hopkins I thought then and still do that he'd give Eastman all kinds of trouble. He's no mug it's just that unfortunately everyone only ever recognises him as the guy who ran for his life when the Executioner was first released upon him (maybe he took the nickname literally). He was fine when he settled down.
Not being funny with you here Kilburn, but if you think Hakkar can give Eastman trouble then you don't think alot of the Battersea Bomber. Hakkar has does nothing particularly well and is a tiny Middlweight. He had a snowballs chance of beating Hopkins (and this was shown).
I agree, I think the coverage was a bit harsh and in the end Hakkar showed he wasn't scarred of Hopkins, but still it was a hiding. You obviously don't fancy Eastman to beat Hopkins - and I'm with you whole heartedly on that one.
But, if he can't beat Hakkar then the question I'll be asking the pro Eastman posters is "why all the fuss"? I'd also ask them, where is this extra gear people say he's got.
Maybe your right, but if Eastman is being groomed as a fighter who can dethrone Hopkins then he should take care of Hakkar with ease. If he can't then he's just not good enough at this level. However, he still shouldn't fight Hakkar, because there are plenty of fighters who are closer to world class who would provide a better preperation to Hopkins (guys like Allen, Holmes etc). If he comes unstuck against these, then he can always earn a crust by fighting the likes of Hakkar later.
I agree, I think the coverage was a bit harsh and in the end Hakkar showed he wasn't scarred of Hopkins, but still it was a hiding. You obviously don't fancy Eastman to beat Hopkins - and I'm with you whole heartedly on that one.
But, if he can't beat Hakkar then the question I'll be asking the pro Eastman posters is "why all the fuss"? I'd also ask them, where is this extra gear people say he's got.
Maybe your right, but if Eastman is being groomed as a fighter who can dethrone Hopkins then he should take care of Hakkar with ease. If he can't then he's just not good enough at this level. However, he still shouldn't fight Hakkar, because there are plenty of fighters who are closer to world class who would provide a better preperation to Hopkins (guys like Allen, Holmes etc). If he comes unstuck against these, then he can always earn a crust by fighting the likes of Hakkar later.
Last edited by stujones on 10 Nov 2003, 13:37, edited 1 time in total.