BoxRec

stujones wrote:Taylor = better resume PERIOD

Eubank (in prime) = better fighter.

Did Taylor really dethrone Hopkins, did he really beat Winky Wright (or even draw) and Cory Spinks.

martin_g91 wrote:Froch don't do it for me.

He's not in the same bracket as Calzaghe and he's going to get stopped by Kessler.

Captain Hook wrote:

stujones wrote:Taylor = better resume PERIOD

Eubank (in prime) = better fighter.

Did Taylor really dethrone Hopkins, did he really beat Winky Wright (or even draw) and Cory Spinks.

I had him beating Winky and Bernard twice without too much debate IMO...

I had him beating Wright by 2 rounds...

Ant Evans wrote:

oliverfennell wrote:People will be quick to jump on Taylor now he's 0-2 (2) in recent contests, but even if he never wins another fight he's already got a better CV than Eubank, who was never ranked as number one in either division he held titles in, much less unified any belts or dethroned a modern great.

Taylor sneaked by Hopkins twice - and a lot of people think he lost at least one of those - and the rest of his record is shite. He hasn't KO'd a decent fighter in his life, after Hopkins he's lost every fight he's had except against Lacy.

Eubank was, in my view, a better fighter. He may not have been ranked No1 at any single point in his career, but Taylor was and we now know Taylor was pretty poor... so what does a No1 ranking a magazine really mean?

Terry D wrote:

Autobarn wrote:I wouldn't say Taylor and Wright were above Benn and Eubank. Different styles and different careers and different management/promoting.

Wright was a fine boxer but didn't achieve anything above light middle. I am being harsh here, because Winky went for hard fights. One reason for this, is because he has no fan base. Unlike Benn and Eubank. WW may have had a great right jab and a tight guard, but no power and little mobility proved to be big limitations out of his natural weight.

Taylor won a proper title and defended it in some big fights, basically relying on American TV money. He's a good fighter. Never beat anyone good convincingly, but always lost narrowly (until Abraham). It's all well going on about Taylor's A class fights, but his promoter got him smaller opponents because he can't beat bigger opponents. Benn and Euabnk, for instance, are bigger men.

Eubank really twatted about, got the benefit of the doubt many times. Threw away what could have been 2 GREAT wins, v Collins 1 and Thompson 1. More of a poser than a fighter. But Benn 1, Watson 2, Thompson 1 & 2 are awesome fights and he tapped into reserves of strength that you never really see in the HBO licence fee reliant Yanks Wright and Taylor - just look how they faded at the end of their torrid draw. That could've been the defining moment

Also, Taylor and Wright have won nothing at 168, the best weight of Eubank and Benn.

That said, Froch's win over Taylor is better than Joe's over Eubank, because Taylor was an active world ranked contender. Eubank had lost 2 to Collins 2 years before. Taylor had lost twice to Pavlik, a year or two before.

It is a bit disingenuous to discount Wright and have a middleweight cut off only to go on and include Chris' cruiserweight heroics. Wright twice defeated Shane Mosley and also defused Trinindad, who is better/more accomplished than McClellan was. They are both better than anyone beaten by Chris.

Eubank in particular is being massively overplayed. He spent his entire career at European/fringe world level and was extremely fortunate to draw with Benn the second time around, Chris' sole attempt at grabbing a more established title, and only then against a guy he had previously beaten and, I presume, he expected more of the same from Benn.

Taylor never defeated anyone convincingly, at all, in nearly thirty contests? The wins over Hopkins were close but clear. Eubank would not have gone near Hopkins with your body. Chris was brave, yes he could take a lot of solid blows to the chin but he was a reluctant fighter when it came to inking deals with the really big names. There is more than one way to duck the other top fighters.

Chris did not throw away the first Collins fight. He hurt his man and eased off, sure, but maybe stamina was playing a role here. Say what you like about Hopkins/Taylor but Bernard's long run was not ended by a meat and two veg swarmer from Ireland.

Chris is massively over egged in this thread. You point to wins over Watson, who was not on the level of Wright or Taylor. Watson was badly out-classed by McCallum; Hopkins would have done the same to Michael. Going life-and-death with Michael does not make you the top fighter in your class. Contentious wins over Hopkins x 2 and a draw with Wright is also much better than struggles with Ray Close, Malinga and Dan Sherry.

Maybe if Taylor took on fights with men like Sam Storey more often during his title reign we'd be talking Taylor up that bit more. Chris took on Storey as part of his world tour, the stoppage win was sandwiched between two extremely unimpressive performances. Chris then returned to form with a win over Wharton, a good win, granted but is it that much better than Taylor's win over Lacy?

Chris was good fun, his fights often weren't and some of the opposition was dire. For all his faults Taylor has never turned down a tough foe. In fact you can argue that his entire career was derailed by terrible management: Hopkins x 2, Wright, Ouma, Spinks, Pavlik x 2, Lacy, Froch and Abraham, that is one tough run of fights and you'd be right to think that Lou hates Jermain.

gemmell wrote:

Captain Hook wrote:

stujones wrote:Taylor = better resume PERIOD

Eubank (in prime) = better fighter.

Did Taylor really dethrone Hopkins, did he really beat Winky Wright (or even draw) and Cory Spinks.

I had him beating Winky and Bernard twice without too much debate IMO...

I had him beating Wright by 2 rounds...

i agree stujone's is just trying to make carl's win against taylor mean nothing.i had taylor edging the 2 fight's with b hop and i had him beating winky by 1

coghaugen11 wrote:Let's not forget Lindell Holmes. Sure, he was overstatedly (at the time) 35 years old, but isn't Hopkins like 45, Calzaghe like 37 and Froch 32? He was beating Van Horn before being stopped on a kidney shot.

He was very skilled.