BoxRec

I am currently reading the autobiography of Eubank. Decent read.

However, what does the forum actually think about Eubank as a fighter? Was he as good as the legend makes out? Sure, he had a great chin, but how many top fighter did he actually beat?

IMO he lost the second fight with Benn and the first fight with Watson (and we all know he was very close to losing the rematch). He lost both times to Collins and Thompson and Calzaghe beat him. Who did he actually beat apart from Benn in their first fight that was of any real calibre???

Maybe I`m being a bit harsh on him, but I don`t really see why he is rated (in some quarters) as high as he is. He got some very dodgy decisions in his favour throughout his career.

Comments?

I have the same views as you, he was a tough bastard but I feel Benn beat the better opposition.

He beat Watson. He also looked great in beating good fighters in Rocchigiani and Wharton. He did fight down to the level of his opposition but he was world class. And the manner of his loss to Thompson confirms this rather than refutes it.

I agree with what you say , I dont know if he would be up there with the likes of froch today but without him there wouldnt have been that great triad of benn, watson and himself. My first recollection of seeing him live was when he fought collins and was too young to understand the whole whether he was past it or not. I so however remember the hysteria it caused in this country and i dont know anyone here who didnt watch or listen to it. Looking at his old matches now is great, he had that great talent of winding the crowd up by doing very little. Here is a great piece of footage http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CO-jsOiJfxs , I know most of you will have seen it but for those of you haven't should, its something we seem to have lost over the years.

metropol wrote:I agree with what you say , I dont know if he would be up there with the likes of froch today but without him there wouldnt have been that great triad of benn, watson and himself. My first recollection of seeing him live was when he fought collins and was too young to understand the whole whether he was past it or not. I so however remember the hysteria it caused in this country and i dont know anyone here who didnt watch or listen to it. Looking at his old matches now is great, he had that great talent of winding the crowd up by doing very little. Here is a great piece of footage http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CO-jsOiJfxs , I know most of you will have seen it but for those of you haven't should, its something we seem to have lost over the years.

Great post thanks for the link. If boxing was still on domestic television Witter-Hatton could have been a modern day Benn-Eubank in terms of hype IMO.

black panther wrote:

metropol wrote:I agree with what you say , I dont know if he would be up there with the likes of froch today but without him there wouldnt have been that great triad of benn, watson and himself. My first recollection of seeing him live was when he fought collins and was too young to understand the whole whether he was past it or not. I so however remember the hysteria it caused in this country and i dont know anyone here who didnt watch or listen to it. Looking at his old matches now is great, he had that great talent of winding the crowd up by doing very little. Here is a great piece of footage http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CO-jsOiJfxs , I know most of you will have seen it but for those of you haven't should, its something we seem to have lost over the years.

Great post thanks for the link. If boxing was still on domestic television Witter-Hatton could have been a modern day Benn-Eubank in terms of hype IMO.

Yes or now cal - froch as there is that slight bitterness between the 2. I would live to see the interviews with the two fighters in the studio at the same time, it creates a tension for the viewers instead now we get these repetitive 24/7 shows. Christ i must of heard "in this dingy old gym" or "oscar entrusts this man to wrap his hands" . I swear i dont know how many times ive seen oscars hands wrapped. I suppose there trying to appeal to the casual fan but i would like to see the boxers being more real and not in the hatton way.

forcefraser wrote:I am currently reading the autobiography of Eubank. Decent read.

However, what does the forum actually think about Eubank as a fighter? Was he as good as the legend makes out? Sure, he had a great chin, but how many top fighter did he actually beat?

IMO he lost the second fight with Benn and the first fight with Watson (and we all know he was very close to losing the rematch). He lost both times to Collins and Thompson and Calzaghe beat him. Who did he actually beat apart from Benn in their first fight that was of any real calibre???

Maybe I`m being a bit harsh on him, but I don`t really see why he is rated (in some quarters) as high as he is. He got some very dodgy decisions in his favour throughout his career.

Comments?

I felt he beat Collins' in their first fight, although I may have to watch it again.
Benn deserved their rematch and Watson was ahead when Eubank somehown brought the win out in one of the most exciting moments in British Boxing, and one of the saddest.

Eubank was a classy operator and he lost to men who were not as good as he was.
I always thought Eubank, after the Watson rematch was only ever 70%(and at times, he wasn't even that) the fighter he had been before. It certainly had an effect on him.

On his best night, he beats everyone he ever faced in my book.

Hatton v Witter and Calzaghe v Froch would have been nowhere near as big as Benn v Eubank. Benn v Eubank was big mainly because of their love-hate personalities where as the only one out of that foursome with a personality is Hatton, the other three are about as interesting as a bar of soap and a lot of people don't even know who Witter or Froch are. A shame really because I would have looked forward to a Hatton v Witter fight although I think JC is all wrong for Carl.

banjo wrote:Hatton v Witter and Calzaghe v Froch would have been nowhere near as big as Benn v Eubank. Benn v Eubank was big mainly because of their love-hate personalities where as the only one out of that foursome with a personality is Hatton, the other three are about as interesting as a bar of soap and a lot of people don't even know who Witter or Froch are. A shame really because I would have looked forward to a Hatton v Witter fight although I think JC is all wrong for Carl.

I don't doubt that they wouldn't be a big but they would be of interest to the general public , i would imagine it would be a topic of general conversation.
I have to agree about the fighters being boring , there is nothing worse than listening to a boxer being interviewed and knowing that you could have written down what he is going to say , same with footballers and managers. Thankfully tonight im going to get to listen to some interesting punditry tonight after Ireland beat georgia, not like the stuff you get on sky and bbc lol.

metropol wrote:I have to agree about the fighters being boring , there is nothing worse than listening to a boxer being interviewed and knowing that you could have written down what he is going to say

I know, it's all the same cliched nonsense all the time, sometimes when they make a little preview film shown just before the fight with all the training montages and Rocky-like cliches I usually cringe.

The difference with Benn and Eubank was you never knew what they'd come out with(Eubank especially, the man was a headcase).

u just cant compare froch to eubank (yet).

god this thread makes me feel old. has it really been that long?

How good was eubank? Depended which 1 turned up!

Understandably, he was never really the same after the Watson tradgedy. He seemed to carry his opponents somehow.

I just feel that if he had been in with McAllum, Mcllellan or Jones, they would have done him.

forcefraser wrote:I am currently reading the autobiography of Eubank. Decent read.

However, what does the forum actually think about Eubank as a fighter? Was he as good as the legend makes out? Sure, he had a great chin, but how many top fighter did he actually beat?

IMO he lost the second fight with Benn and the first fight with Watson (and we all know he was very close to losing the rematch). He lost both times to Collins and Thompson and Calzaghe beat him. Who did he actually beat apart from Benn in their first fight that was of any real calibre???

Maybe I`m being a bit harsh on him, but I don`t really see why he is rated (in some quarters) as high as he is. He got some very dodgy decisions in his favour throughout his career.

Comments?

He was passed it and washed up by the time he faced Calzaghe and Thomson.

At his very best, Eubank was an A-grade fighter, as was Benn. In beating Benn, Eubank deserves his place in history. Watson was perhaps an A-minus and Eubank beat him, too. Other genuine world class wins include Rocchigiani, Wharton, Malinga and Thornton.

Unfortunately the Watson rematch robbed Eubank of much of his potency and his style and approach changed dramatically. The pre-Watson Eubank would have finished off Collins and Thompson when he had them hurt, no question, and his legend would have been that much greater. He may even have been more adventurous in his matchmaking and we may have seen him against Jones, Toney, Nunn, McClellan. It's accepted that he went up or down to the level of his opponents so it would have been fascinating to see him in with them.

Unfortunately we'll never know. HUGE fame and fondly remembered, but kind of a Calzaghe-type WBO reign (Pudwill, Mkrtchian, Thornberry, Sobot, etc/Schomer, Storey, Amaral, Close), minus the equivalent of Lacy, Kessler, Jones and Hopkins (although Benn was of that class).

forcefraser wrote:I am currently reading the autobiography of Eubank. Decent read.

However, what does the forum actually think about Eubank as a fighter? Was he as good as the legend makes out? Sure, he had a great chin, but how many top fighter did he actually beat?

IMO he lost the second fight with Benn and the first fight with Watson (and we all know he was very close to losing the rematch). He lost both times to Collins and Thompson and Calzaghe beat him. Who did he actually beat apart from Benn in their first fight that was of any real calibre???

Maybe I`m being a bit harsh on him, but I don`t really see why he is rated (in some quarters) as high as he is. He got some very dodgy decisions in his favour throughout his career.

Comments?

Great read this autobiorgraphy, never liked Eubank becuase I was a Benn fan but reading this book changed my opinion of Eubank, some of the stories he has are hilarious.

Dont be deluded by time. Eubank would have done to Froch what he did to Gary Stretch. Froch may be better than Stretch but trust me, Eubank would have played with him and knocked him out. Having said that Benn and Watson would have easily beaten Froch too.

I'd have loved to have seen Eubank take on Calzaghe in his prime (would have needed a time machine), think it would have been a very hard night for both men. They were both incredibly tough, Calzaghe was quicker, but Eubank was a very awkward customer, and incredibly strong too, with a punch that could have put Joe on his arse.

metropol wrote: I dont know if he would be up there with the likes of froch today but without him there wouldnt have been that great triad of benn, watson and himself.

steady...steady.... prime for prime he would knock out Froch IMO, who although very promising still has to deliver whereas Eubank delieverd so I would say Froch is perhaps not quite up there with the likes of Eubank's or Benn's yet.

boxingchat wrote:Dont be deluded by time. Eubank would have done to Froch what he did to Gary Stretch. Froch may be better than Stretch but trust me, Eubank would have played with him and knocked him out. Having said that Benn and Watson would have easily beaten Froch too.

Whenever anyone says "trust me", beware.

If Froch can keep his title, and in good company, it will be interesting what ppl think then.

OK, this is one of my pet hates...

Chris Eubank was bloody average, he never had problems killing people off, he had no confidence in his stamina so had to fight at a slow pace...its pure bullshit to blame his farce of a reign on the Watson tragedy and pure revisionism...

Eubank got gift after gift after gift for the main reason the WBO wanted a VISIBLE champion..who cares about Ray Close and the other guys who were fleeced against 'simply the best'..they werent box office!!

You make some good points, TPR. In many fights Eubank just didn't do anything. He was an enigma. More showman with muscles than anything else...or so it seemed until someone would try to back him into a corner.

A massively inconsistent performer. Even vs no nonsense opponents, he was on-and-off in the ring - Rocchigiani, Thornton - those 2 fights even are disputed in some quarters, highly temperamental wins. Some highly dramatic moments - none more so than Watson rematch - followed by Benn 1 and the 2 brilliant fights with Thompson - make him an unmissable fighter all the same.

A star, brought controversy and profile to boxing; but also a man who did get lucky in many fights. He seldom seemed to go on there with a proper game plan, a very physically talented guy but a poor strategist. Reckon he would have been best if he'd fought at light heavy. The stamina might have been better.

No one seems to hold it against Eubank that he was the first with the WBO malarky. Benn fought good foes for that title, but Eubank it seemed was allowed to fight anyone.

Many champs have lucky decisions go there way it doesn't make them bad champs, Ali, Joe Louis, Chavez, Calzaghe to name a few. Eubanks had some lucky close decisions but it wasn't like he didn't have his moments against Ray Close for instance and I thought he scored the better punches in Watson 1. Also he was unlucky not to get wins against Collins/Thompson. Also even if he lost to Ray Close, maybe he would have got a much needed kick up the backside that would have egged him on to be better. Eubanks had great performances against Benn, Watson, Rochiagani and had 24 world title fights (albeit mainly the WBO).

For those that say 'Eubanks wasn't affected by the Watson tragedy', well why did he so often talk about not loving the sport and only fighting for the money? I think he had serious mental barriers after that fight and naturally so, Ezzard Charles, Nigel Benn also had some serious remorse and were never the same again from their tragic fights

thepocketrocket wrote:Chris Eubank was bloody average, he never had problems killing people off, he had no confidence in his stamina so had to fight at a slow pace...its pure bullshit to blame his farce of a reign on the Watson tragedy and pure revisionism...

BS. Look at the pre- and post-Watson Eubanks. There were huge differences. Before, he had the killer instinct. He flattened a lot of guys, finished off Benn, crushed Stretch, and so on. Post-Watson, he had only one proper stoppage win for the belt (Jarvis, as Storey was stopped on injuries). He knocked down several of his opponents but never seriously tried to finish them. Before Watson, he would have done. In fact, in the post-fight interview after Rocchigiani, he even said he no longer seeks the knockout if he can win on points.

I agree he could have worked harder in a lot of his fights, but if his stamina was bad, how did he come through those epic wars with Benn 1 and Watson 1? Only someone of superb fitness could have come through them.

Eubank didn't have "superb fitness." He struggled mightily to fight at a hard pace. I think he hung on to his titles for too long, leaving himself weak at middle and super middle. Obviously there wasn't a title opening up at 175 (Michalczewski was WBO champ and lineal champ, Jones had every other belt).

Like I said, strategically he was poor despite having speed and power. He would often walk off turning away from his opponent. He would often be backed up and flail with off balance shots.

This so called great performance v Rochigiani. It wasn't great at all. Eubank was throwing the same shots all night and Rocchi was blocking many of them and countering with jabs and left crosses. Benn rematch - Eubank throwing inaccurate shoeshiners, Benn's head movement giving him absolute fits.

OK he was in epic fights (Benn 1, Watson 2, Thompson 1, Thompson 2), gave Calzaghe a couple of scores. He was good, and he was a high profile star. But blimey there were some terrible performances. ppl are starting to look at the record and get seduced by numbers a bit. And forgetting some of the fights. Too many times, it was a case of Eubank being the champ, therefore he walked away with title at the end.

You don't go 43 fights unbeaten by luck. He was absolutely exceptional. Had the longest unbeaten reign in boxing in terms of both ammount of time and ammount of fights - You Cannot argue with that.

He also made the most money outside the heavyweights.

You can't argue with it.

He started w/ nothing.

He deserves crazy respect and doesn't get it. The Wars he had with some blokes..Logan, Benn (1), Watson (2), Thompson (1)..ya don't see those kind of wars today.

All those 12-rounders every few months, all that attention, it was highly abnormal and we won't see it again.

About 18 months ago he referred to himself and Mayweather in the term of 'becoming so good you don't need to throw punches'.