BoxRec

Ambling Alp wrote:It's worth noting that Calzaghe did beat the legendary Chris Eubank. (I'm sure there has to be some lame excuse).

Eubank lost 2 of his previous 5 fights before Calzaghe. After Calzaghe, He lost his next 2 fights as well.

Legendary yes, but if you rate Calzaghe for beating up Eubank then, you really dont know what you're talking about then do you

I'm joking when I call Eubank "legendary". I just find it amusing that people are arguing that Calzaghe wasn't as good as Eubank, and that Calzaghe hadn't beat that tough of competition, and ignore that he had beat Eubank.
You can't have it both ways.
Either Eubank was a great fighter, and it was a big win for Calzaghe.
Or Eubank wasn't a great fighter.
I choose the latter.[/quote]

Er..No.. You're ignoring the fact that Eubank was Passed it by then.

Look at when Eubank faced Benn, in his Prime. At that stage Eubank would have destroyed Calzaghe. Calzaghe deserves credit for beating Eubank, but it cannot be rated as a significant win since Eubank was way passed his best. It's the same as Lewis-Tyson, Ali-Berbick, Marciano-Louis.

The only result is beating a name.[/quote]

Wow. At 31, (and with not that many fights) Eubank was already that far past his best? That's pretty hard to believe. Even if that was true, then Eubank certainly wasn't that good for long. Yet another reason for him not be in. There are literally dozens of more worthy fighters that aren't in.[/quote]

I would have thought it was obvious by now that Age does not mean nothing in prime.

Boxing Prime and Physical (age) Prime are two different things. At 31, his Physical Prime maybe somewhat close to his peak, but His Boxing Prime was obviously on the decline.

He lost 2 of his 5 previous fights, and lost his next two. Physically he was there, but Boxing-wise he was passed it and on the decline for some time.

Why don't we just do that with everyone from now on? After a guy loses his first fight, just say the guy was past his prime; that way everyone is undefeated.
Lets just speculate on who would have won between two fighters in their primes regardless if they actually fought and neither was very old.
That way we can say the fighter that we like better would have won.

Besides, why should longevity and consistency count for anything anyway?

Robinson wrote:If that does...then criminals of the past from Liston to Blackburn...
to racist biggots from Sullivan to Corbett be allowed in?

Neither killed people though Kym. Unfortunately Chris did, and paralysed another.

Thinking about it, Eubank was a very big talent. Fast hands, granite chin. I think he depleted his stamina by continuing to make 168 pounds. Maybe he COULD have been a great champ at light heavy. I just think so many times he acted as though it was enough to just turn up, rather than actually do some good boxing.

Eubank was a star, so it's understandable why he made all those WBO title defenses. By contrast Calzaghe wasn't known at all, yet he still clung to the WBO route. That means he had a lot of dodgy challengers of course (yet he has beaten world class names Malinga, Thornton, Wharton, Roccigiani). But also some great British rivalries such as Benn, Watson and Thompson. The first with Benn, the 2nd tragic fight with Watson, the 2 with Thompson - at cruiserweight! - are some of the greatest British fights.

Eubank could have been one of the greatest UK based fighters, had he pressed the attack and knocked out Thompson and Collins - he had them both in massive trouble yet allowed them to survive and let the wins slip. And also, had he refined his skills he would have been much better - his style was all for show, rather than practical needs of fighting.

In all, he was a very successful man, and not the type of fighter to back in a corner as he could come up with the shot to change a fight dramatically.

Chris Eubank didnt make the most of his ability. He was never the same fighter after the Michael Watson tragedy, his career stalled after this and he always seemed negative and only wanted to do enough to win after.
But to put it into perspective, the Watson that he had two see-saw fights with (and lost most of the rounds) got crushed by a real great in Mike McCallum the year before

Anyway, HOF is just one way of judging someone's career. Calzaghe will get in, with his US recognition and 2 Ring belts. However, due to matchmaking, Joe has not had one single great fight. Eubank certainly had his share of crap fights, but he's been in some great ones - Benn 1, Watson 2 (barring the terrible result), Thompson 1 and 2 - and it was usually an event when he fought whihc cannot be said of many, many others.

Eubank was a very good fighter.

But when we Stateside are sitting on top of a prime Roy Jones Jr and James Toney while Eubank is posing to the latest edition of THE SUN.

Chris was allways the guy that was the hard sell.

Damn Toney called him out on UK TV and he took a walk.

Nigel Benn would be more of a candidate rather than Eubank if you ask me.

Benn was a step up guy.

Hell when Eubank fought Gary Stretch the crowd screamed when Strech entered the arena.

Yet little did they know that it was Gary Stretch's brother coming in ahead of Gary at the time.

They didn't even know what Gary Stretch looked like dude,goes to show how well known Stretch was at the time. ;;-)

Eubank feasted on fighters that were well below his reach.

Autobarn wrote:No, but Eubank will get more respect, given that Benn and Calzaghe etc are known to US viewers. Calzaghe's success will encourage revisionism, hopefully bringing acclaim to underrated (but hermetic) British scenes at middle/super middle throuhg the mid 90s and early 00s. Eubank obviously one of the biggest UK names.


Joe beat a superb fighter in Kessler, add to that Lacy and you have 2 impressive wins vs men in their primes, unbeaten guys with titles.

Eubank hasn't beaten a Kessler quality foe that was in his prime (IMO) and he didn't beat a fighter that the Americans were slavering over (Lacy). Remember that the HOF voters are the BWAA (Boxing Writers Association of America). Fights with Hopkins, Lacy, Kessler, RJJ all got considerable US attention.

Eubank did very well, held only WBO titles in 2 weights, whereas Joe held Ring titles over 2 weights. Meaning he had wider recognition as The Man at the weights he competed in.

Eubank has a few dodgy results on his record (Watson 1, Benn 2), a close call with Thornton.

That doesn't mean a prime Eubank couldn't have beaten a prime Calzaghe, but as we know boxing is about guys on the up vs guys on the slide, is about handicapping and matchmaking over "prime for prime."

Your right Eubanks doesnt belong.
However Re "Eubank hasn't beaten a Kessler quality foe that was in his prime (IMO) and he didn't beat a fighter that the Americans were slavering over (Lacy)".
C'mon Both Watson and Benn in 1990 were more accomplished and better than Kessler.
That said Eubanks never beat someone like Lacey, but he did beat very solid foes in Malinga, Benn, Watson, Thornton, Rocchigiani, 3 of whom went on to win world titles.

Re: Posted by Ambling Alp " Wow. At 31, (and with not that many fights) Eubank was already that far past his best? That's pretty hard to believe. Even if that was true, then Eubank certainly wasn't that good for long. Yet another reason for him not be in. There are literally dozens of more worthy fighters that aren't in"

Eubanks isnt in period. But he was very shopworn by 31. He had a very very high profile and controversial life as a champ from 1990-1995. He followed a break neck pace of title defences around the world. He was involved in the Watson tragedy and he killed a man in a driving incident. He lived a excessive life too for all his dedication.

How can a guy who openly admitted avoiding the best competition (jones, toney, nunn, mcclellan) and said he fought for money alone, belong in a HOF much less one lucky to get decisions over Watson , Schommer, a draw with benn, ray close etc