BoxRec

Tonight

ESPN Classic at midnight

A classic fekking robbery.

I have never seen this before and have read it is a good battle. Looking forward to it.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:A classic fekking robbery.

Close, but no robbery.

Not even close to a robbery.

Very competitive fight that could have gone either way.Eubank at times boxing Watson's ears off, but being outworked down the stretch.

Very close fight and a great fight if you haven't seen it tune in.

Thought Watson won. Its not that good a fight. Similar to Benn/Eubank II.

Arbachakov wrote:Not even close to a robbery.

Very competitive fight that could have gone either way.Eubank at times boxing Watson's ears off, but being outworked down the stretch.

Well that goes against the views of the media & general public at the time.

If it was no robbery how come they squared off again only a couple of months later at super-middle?

Watson beat Eubank & got robbed.

overhand_right wrote:

Arbachakov wrote:Not even close to a robbery.

Very competitive fight that could have gone either way.Eubank at times boxing Watson's ears off, but being outworked down the stretch.

Well that goes against the views of the media & general public at the time.

If it was no robbery how come they squared off again only a couple of months later at super-middle?

Watson beat Eubank & got robbed.

The public and media hated Eubank (or have you forgotten all the booing that accompanied Eubank to the ring in most of his fights?). It should be noted that Watson came on strong down the stretch, which probably gave a false impression of how the whole fight panned out.
It was a close fight and had enormous public interest, which is exactly why there was a rematch.

Robbery, my arse.

If you dont think it was a robbery fair enough but I do, and millions of people also believed it. I'm not basing it on Eubanks pantomime villain act i'm basing it on a decent amount of boxing knowledge. IMO Watson won the fight. The judges took it from him. This equates a robbery.

I'd like to watch the fight again, but at the time I thought it was a robbery, Watson was all over Eubank for the majority of the fight, and I seem to recall some lusty booing from the crowd too, though you could if you were cynical attribute that to Eubank not being that popular.

As I recall the reason there was a rematch was there were lots of complaints about Watson being robbed.

Watson's effort in the seconf fight was a super-human. Or seemed so at the time, but I was younger and may have been led by the commentator. I'm not one for watching, and rewatching fights.

Barrera v Morales is the only fight I've watched more than once.

And a couple of the Ali's ones.

However, i digress. I remember the first being contentious and it was clear Watson didn't want the second one going the same route. He was overwhelming and very busy.

What about that though, two domestic rivals having a world-class rematch within 3 months.

!!!!

watson won the first clearly (and i like chris) and was leading 2 when that thing happened

Yep, Watson was giving Eubank one almighty slapping in that second fight. Chris really showed the heart of a whale to get off the canvas and throw that shot. Where he summoned the wherewithall to do that is beyond me, not only was he badly hurt, but he was exhausted as well.

I've rarely seen a fighter show the desire that Watson did in that second fight, he was simply walking right through Eubank, something than Benn was never able to do, and was panning him from pillar to post.

No wonder Eubank commented after the fight that he wanted Watson checked for drugs because Watson seemed like he was on PCP the way he fought.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:I'd like to watch the fight again, but at the time I thought it was a robbery, Watson was all over Eubank for the majority of the fight, and I seem to recall some lusty booing from the crowd too, though you could if you were cynical attribute that to Eubank not being that popular.

As I recall the reason there was a rematch was there were lots of complaints about Watson being robbed.

It was a chessmatch with Eubank edging backwards and Watson trying to box with him.Watson didn't really put much pressure on at all, was outboxed for most of the first 7 rounds and allowed Chris to control the pace(which was what made the difference in the rematch).Eubank turned in one of his best defensive performances imo.

It could have been given to Watson by a point or two, but no more than that.Almost every round was very close.

I don't think a term like robbery should be used unless there is absolutely no way one guy should have won or got a draw.Whitaker vs Chavez, Holyfield vs lewis 1 and the like.This fight would be totally out of place in such a list.

Well, I can remember being outraged at the time, and I remember not being alone. There was a big ballyhoo in the media about the decision too as I recall, and I even seem to recall Eubank looking rather embarassed at the decision.

Arbachakov wrote: It could have been given to Watson by a point or two, but no more than that.Almost every round was very close.

I don't think a term like robbery should be used unless there is absolutely no way one guy should have won or got a draw.Whitaker vs Chavez, Holyfield vs lewis 1 and the like.This fight would be totally out of place in such a list.

Ok with that kind of thinking now I go along with you. Robbery is more of a Lewis/Holyfield I kind of thing.

It also pisses me off when people cant differentiate between a past his best but still good heavy & a SHOT heavy. i.e. Holmes v McCall was way past his best but you couldnt call him 'shot'.

I will reserve judgement until I see the fight again, I can only say that at the time I was disgusted by the decision, and until I see it again can only say that.

I agree the word robbery is used too often, but there are many fights which have been explained away which I thought were clear cases of one fighter being shafted badly, like Mosley v DLH II, in which Shane Mosley did absolutely fekk all, and was controlled throughout, and yet got the decision. There's often a way of explaining how or why the judges might have given rounds to a certain fighter, but it doesn't mean they should have done.

A robbery is when a fighter CLEARLY should get the decision,but it goes the other way.
Lewis/Holyfield 1 was a robbery

When a fight is close and could legitimately go either way,then that in no way,shape or form is a robbery.
This is what happened in Eubank/Watson 1.Close fight,could have gone either way,Eubank got the nod,can't say it's a robbery.

I was only a young'un at the time(maybe 10 or so?),and I remember all the men in the pub I was in(with my dad)jeering and booing Eubank,and were'nt best pleased with the result!!! Me?I was well chuffed as Eubank was my hero!!!

yiddo14 wrote:A robbery is when a fighter CLEARLY should get the decision,but it goes the other way.
Lewis/Holyfield 1 was a robbery

When a fight is close and could legitimately go either way,then that in no way,shape or form is a robbery.
This is what happened in Eubank/Watson 1.Close fight,could have gone either way,Eubank got the nod,can't say it's a robbery.

I was only a young'un at the time(maybe 10 or so?),and I remember all the men in the pub I was in(with my dad)jeering and booing Eubank,and were'nt best pleased with the result!!! Me?I was well chuffed as Eubank was my hero!!!

Don't teach yer grandma to suck eggs sonny-boy, I know what a robbery is mate

I am saying that at the time I THOUGHT this fight a robbery. Whether or not I was right I don't know, would need to see the fight.

Whatever anyones thoughts on the decision in the first fight both Watson and Eubank were absolute warriors in both fights.

nickd wrote:Whatever anyones thoughts on the decision in the first fight both Watson and Eubank were absolute warriors in both fights.

Couldn't say it any better myself.

Taki... wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:A classic fekking robbery.

Close, but no robbery.

i had eubank winning 6 to 5 with 1 even when i scored it about a year back.

u could make a case for eubank winning the first 5 rds. close battle that one.

[quote="jamesmcdonnell"]Well, I can remember being outraged at the time, and I remember not being alone. There was a big ballyhoo in the media about the decision too as I recall, and I even seem to recall Eubank looking rather embarassed at the decision.[/quote]

yes james, i was outraged too. eubank suprised me in that he knew he did not win it, it was written all over his face, yet he claimed to have done enough, why i was surprised was i thought chris was a big enough/honest enough guy to admit the truth. very nieve of me.

harrygreb wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:Well, I can remember being outraged at the time, and I remember not being alone. There was a big ballyhoo in the media about the decision too as I recall, and I even seem to recall Eubank looking rather embarassed at the decision.

yes james, i was outraged too. eubank suprised me in that he knew he did not win it, it was written all over his face, yet he claimed to have done enough, why i was surprised was i thought chris was a big enough/honest enough guy to admit the truth. very nieve of me.

Nice to see we have a number of expert 'face readers' and 'mind readers' hereabouts. Eubank had plenty of rounds in the bank going into the second half of the fight, more than enough, imo, for the win (his claim was therefore spot-on in my book). Though a round either way would have been more than enough to change the result... Close, but no robbery.