BoxRec

I'm just wondering where Howard Eastman can go after losing the Hopkins fight. Howard has done it all at British and European level, and he has never shown any interest in contesting the Mickey Mouse titles out there, plus he will be 35 in December. So is that it?

I think so, he should move up to Super Middle and try and drum a domestic showdown with one of the top 4 Brits (although doubt he will fight Froch).

Thats about the best he can hope for.

I'm sure he can get some big fights at Middle, but seriously doubt he will win them. I think the new breed featuring the likes of Sturm, Taylor, Abraham and Ikeke will be to much.

I could honestly see Eastman staying at middle and possibly getting a fight with Hopkins' successor - whoever that may be. Although super middle does seem a more interesting move

stujones wrote:I think so, he should move up to Super Middle and try and drum a domestic showdown with one of the top 4 Brits (although doubt he will fight Froch).

Thats about the best he can hope for.

I'm sure he can get some big fights at Middle, but seriously doubt he will win them. I think the new breed featuring the likes of Sturm, Taylor, Abraham and Ikeke will be to much.

Good idea.

He's strong enough to do that. I think it's his only option now.

Eastman could try a boxing ring for starters.

I expect him to be out until December before a domestic scrap at Dagenham Leisure centre.

eastman is limited, he's a middleweight ben tackie.

Wherever he goes now, he will end up being outboxed in a dull fight again.

Riddick Blowe wrote:eastman is limited, he's a middleweight ben tackie.

Wherever he goes now, he will end up being outboxed in a dull fight again.

You might not be far wrong there.

Riddick Blowe wrote:eastman is limited, he's a middleweight ben tackie.

Wherever he goes now, he will end up being outboxed in a dull fight again.

Good analogy. Although I would say Tackie is a tad better.

stujones wrote:

Riddick Blowe wrote:eastman is limited, he's a middleweight ben tackie.

Wherever he goes now, he will end up being outboxed in a dull fight again.

Good analogy. Although I would say Tackie is a tad better.

Tackie is a good analogy for Eastman, but I wouldn't say he's better. Eastman has got a much better selection of punches - that right uppercut is a beauty. I don't think his defence is quite as leaky as Tackie's, either - there aren't many challengers to Hopkins that don't end up as many punches as Eastman did without running like hell.

In his inability to get out of third gear and lack of ideas coupled with strong but not explosive punch power and a granite chin, yes, he is a lot like Tackie. I think he has a fair bit more to his offence, though, even if they fight at a similar pace.

dookus wrote:

stujones wrote:

Riddick Blowe wrote:eastman is limited, he's a middleweight ben tackie.

Wherever he goes now, he will end up being outboxed in a dull fight again.

Good analogy. Although I would say Tackie is a tad better.

Tackie is a good analogy for Eastman, but I wouldn't say he's better. Eastman has got a much better selection of punches - that right uppercut is a beauty. I don't think his defence is quite as leaky as Tackie's, either - there aren't many challengers to Hopkins that don't end up as many punches as Eastman did without running like hell.

In his inability to get out of third gear and lack of ideas coupled with strong but not explosive punch power and a granite chin, yes, he is a lot like Tackie. I think he has a fair bit more to his offence, though, even if they fight at a similar pace.

Third gear? I've barely seen him out of first his whole career.

I always thought he had another level and was just not showing it against lower opposition, fact is he's just not that good.

How about going after Hakkar and regaining the EBU belt? It will do him good in terms of rankings.

He could likely make some money coming to the US and fighting someone like David Lopez or Ikeke.

Eastman is a sad indictment of todays middleweight division, if you ask me: He was a deserving contender to the undisputed title, just a few months ago..... But how good is he, really? I felt he deserved his shot at Hopkins, but he surprised nobody when he was both A: Lazy*, and B: Outclassed in the ring.

*'Lazy' may be a bit harsh, because Eastman has always fought at his own pace. But surely I'm not the only one who thought that Howard should have gone hell for leather, at least in the last 2 rounds?

Let's face it, Eastman got a shot because, after waiting his time, there was no-one better: He's got decent power, is accurate (when he's allowed time) and has a decent chin. (Although certainly not as good as his cheerleaders would like to make out) All of which means he's a good fighter. But not that good.

His problem now, as I implied originally, is that there is NO depth at 160lb's. He can't expect another shot soon, even if Hopkins loses. For me, he needs to go supermiddle. At least there are a few fights there, most of them in Europe: Kessler, Larsson, Ulrich.... Calzaghe?

Can Eastman reach that level though? For me, he's operated in a terrible era for middleweights, and not looked that good doing it, to be honest. For me, he's a level below Watson, Eubank and Benn.

He is way below Watson, Benn and Eubank I dont think you can even compare them totally different levels.

As for his pace, I just dont think he has any more than that to offer.

nickd wrote:He is way below Watson, Benn and Eubank I dont think you can even compare them totally different levels.

As for his pace, I just dont think he has any more than that to offer.

Oh, I agree totally. I was just trying to say that Eastman is lucky to be around today: 10/15 years ago, we were blessed with some real talent at his weight, and if he'd fought then, nobody would be talking about him. I guess I offered the comparisons because whilst Howard does most things well, he doesn't compare to Watson's movement and skills, nor Benn's power and sheer will, nor Eubank's chin and ability to control a fight at a slow pace.

I just don't think Eastman is that good, at the highest level.

nickd wrote:He is way below Watson, Benn and Eubank I dont think you can even compare them totally different levels.

That's not to say he wouldn't have given any of them hell. Eastman vs Benn, I might even favour Eastman. You never had to go looking for benn, obviously, and that suits howard. Benn would probably have outworked him, but who the hell could predict for sure? Eastman is better than most of the scrubs both eubank and benn fought, and some of those scrubs gave each of them significant problems.

Eubank and Watson I see outboxing eastman though.

Lmfao at comparing him to Ben Tackie...

Riddick Blowe wrote:

nickd wrote:He is way below Watson, Benn and Eubank I dont think you can even compare them totally different levels.

That's not to say he wouldn't have given any of them hell. Eastman vs Benn, I might even favour Eastman. You never had to go looking for benn, obviously, and that suits howard. Benn would probably have outworked him, but who the hell could predict for sure? Eastman is better than most of the scrubs both eubank and benn fought, and some of those scrubs gave each of them significant problems.

Eubank and Watson I see outboxing eastman though.

No way Eastman would have beaten Benn that is ridiculous.

nickd wrote:
No way Eastman would have beaten Benn that is ridiculous.

Jerry Elliot gave Eastman some shaky moments... plodder Eastman would get eaten up by Nigel, even today

I think the reason Eastman likes to fight at a really slow pace, is that when he does try to open up, he leaves himself open because his defence isn't that good.

I cannot see him winning a title at Middleweight or SM. He may be a strong middleweight, but he doesn't have the power or the workrate to succeed at SM in my opinion anyway. He's a good european level MW, who hasn't quite got the mentality to make it at that higher level.

knockout wrote:

nickd wrote:
No way Eastman would have beaten Benn that is ridiculous.

Jerry Elliot gave Eastman some shaky moments... plodder Eastman would get eaten up by Nigel, even today

Elliott is much bigger than Benn though and I wouldn't call those moments that shaky.

Benn was twice as quick, and 10 times as aggressive, and he would have thrown a hell of a lot more shots than Elliott, he also didn't get discouraged by people throwing as few shots as Eastman. Eubank was better, stronger, smarter and hit harder than Eastman.

I do find it amazing that when Magee got tagged by Elliot people said "oh well, Magee is chinny he was put down by a poor middleweight".

When Eastman was in trouble it was "Howard didn't go down to a Light Heavy".

I know, Elliot was a lot bigger for the Eastman fight, but its the same fighter who campaigned at Middle for most of his career.

Nigel Benn hit harder, hit faster (which is critical) and was generally 100 times better than Elliot.

Expect a 'gritty' BBC documentary in about 15-20 years time with Bunce (or his future equivalent) going on a search around dodgy council estates for Robinson Crusoe lookalike Eastman who says between slurps of 20/20: "I coulda been the champ, maaaan, he ran from me, I was the best in the woooorld."

i don't know where all this talk about eastman being in trouble vs elliott came from.

Watch the fight again. Howard gets tagged clean by some vicious, crunching shots. He covers up, regroups, and dances out of the corner as if nothing happened.

In my opinion, Eastman could be a world beater!

BUT, he would have had to go to the USA to do it, call me crazy but with the right trainer and schooling, i feel he could have beaten Hopkins.

Eastman has a great chin, stamina, and power, everything is there to be built on, but if you watched the fight against Hopkins, he just didnt have the savvy to fight his own fight.

Every time Eastman pressed he took one step to far and just nulified all of his work, I,m not trying to say i know better than his trainers but i think if he had time with Stewerd, Mayweather, Rooney or a host of other American trainers, i think he would a whole different fighter.