How good was Eubank ?

[robert ungurean]

For some reason I never saw him fight.
How good was he?
How would he fair against the likes of Hopkins,Taylor and Wright?

[Thread Stealer]

He was a good fighter.

I don't think he'd beat Winky or Hopkins. Maybe Taylor. Taylor is hard to figure out since he seems to fight to the level of the opposition.

Eubank got lucky though against Watson when he "won" the first fight.

[McGrain]

Originally Posted by Erratic Behavior

Eubank got lucky though against Watson when he "won" the first fight.

Yeah.

But he had a horribly awkward style, was difficult to fight. He'd have a chance with absolutley anyone at peak in my view, though you would bet against all the top class fighters to beat him.

But if anyone takes him lightly they would get beat in my view.

[Mantequilla]

He was definitely a more talented fighter than Wright and Taylor

Should beat Winky, though a win wouldn't be guaranteed mostly due to Eubank's own inconsistency rather than Wright's talent.

[Vantage_West]

he was an unorthodox british middlewieght.
his style involved being in a squat stance but being upright with the half guard very similar to tommy hearns. he used his reactions and agilty to move in and out of range and counter every thing that came at him.
had an good jab that was quick and hit hard.
right hand was also very decent very hard puncher and a good ko artist...sadly after eubank-watson II (in which watson was put into a coma) eubank didnt play the role of puncher any more but of an unorthdox slickster. but what made him such a hard tough man was his chin...he was could take so many powerful shots and keep on coming. he didnt have the stamina tho he could pant out in the later rounds and have to walk away just to get a breather

i think to american fans he is severly underated but for british fans he is seen as jesus reincarne...so mixed opinions. my thoughts was that he was a great fighter could beat 90% of top middlewieghts from all era's

hopkins - i say hopkins he was much taller and could cut the ring to shreds where it will turn to a infight which chris was alright and could be on the inside but hopkins was by far more the technical boxer on the inside and would fight smart in which chris wouldnt have the room to fight his fight...but you never know chris might be able to be slick enough to move jab and counter his way to a victory? but my heart goes bernard.

wright - ...is the closest thing i can think to mike watson in which eubank had little to answer to give....clear ud by winky

taylor - chris has this in the bag. taylors style is to jab foreward and fire a right hand, clinch and repeat (with some hooks and fluff in between) but chris was very hard to hit he would slip jab,cross and be doing the stuff that won him the later fights just being smart and moving. taylor is big but doesnt use his hieght like hopkins does. eubank ud

[Vantage_West]

Originally Posted by Mantequilla

He was definitely a more talented fighter than Wright and Taylor

Should beat Winky, though a win wouldn't be guaranteed mostly due to Eubank's own inconsistency rather than Wright's talent.

wright is the featherfisted version of watson high guard counter jab and throw a right hand when you want in a combo and was toe to toe with you... watson was a great fighter it's a shame he was cut short from the credit he could of deserved.

winky will win his jab is longer whic is also more consistent and he will never go to war he will be on the back foot but give his ground inch by inch a ud with chris winning a few rounds by the power shots and counters but winky to me is way to smart

[Brighton bomber]

Originally Posted by hughweb

His punching technique at times was exceptional. His stiff left jab, sneak right hand, left uppercut and right uppercut were the best I've ever seen, when he got them off right. He could also throw a perfect left hook when he got the pivot and angle right. But sometimes he'd throw this ridiculous cricket-throwing right hand that would almost have the ring lights out, or miss a left hook that would swing him around 180 degrees. No consistency.

He could move well (although he looked odd and mesmorising) and had very good ring generalship (though it may have been more to do with the fact he just needed to (and could only) fight in spurts), change of direction etc and a wide stance. His hands were low and he often left his chin out to dry.

His problem was that he wasn't gifted enough to flow, and wasn't gifted enough to be able to take an opponent out when he wanted. He couldn't even double the hook, for example. He was clearly the product of obsessive training where he obviously nailed single shot technique and obsessive sparring where he probably honed his ring intelligence on the back foot.

His other problem was that he didn't have a clue how to fight coming forward, he just couldn't fight coming forward at all. It seemed he had never learned how to cut off the ring, how to step in etc. He relied on his opponent trying to close the gap or his opponent being static. He was awkward because he'd slip shots by swaying back with his high hips, and he could reach and land shots from out of range then slip back and make you fall short (which he was the master of, esp with the step jab to the body) because he had these high hips (he didn't really discover this until he was world champ).

His main problem was that he had no stamina.

Wright, Hopkins and Taylor all out-work him just like everyone else.

Good post.

I agree with your assessment of Eubank. He had many strenghts but also many weaknesses as well and while he would give anybody a tough fight he was never really the best.

[Brighton bomber]

Originally Posted by hughweb

Oh and he also had the flashiest of flurries, but would hardly ever let his hands go (couldn't be bothered)

I don't think it was he couldn't be bothered but he was limited by is own abilities. He had serious stamina issues so any kind of sustained attack left him tired and his balance was sometimes terrible. He would fall into his punches and smother his work so he would not be in a position to follow up with anything.

He was my favourite fighter as a kid but he could be so frustrating to watch as it always seemed he could do more. After he fought Watson he lost a lot of the intensity he had shown before, like when he beat Benn.

[Sweet Science]

I found Eubank very frustrating to watch, he only ever did just enough to win and even then some decisions were questionable. He was talented, but preferred to pose than to fight. He did not like to step out of his comfort zone. Despite all this, I like him though as he was a very colourful character.

Toney, Nunn, Jones, and possibly McClellan would have beaten him.

I think he was rarely the same fighter after the 2nd Watson fight as he was before it.
He chose to pose instead of fight against some very mediocre fighters, and he got gift decisions against some of them. I cannot remember too many fights post-'91 where I felt his was fighting to his full capacity. Maybe against Henry Wharton.
The fight you must see is his win over Nigel Benn in 1990. That fight is an absolute classic.

[mcvey]

Originally Posted by robert ungurean

For some reason I never saw him fight.
How good was he?
How would he fair against the likes of Hopkins,Taylor and Wright?

Underneath the absurd posturing he was a brave fighter with a good punch and a good chin ,his legacy is diminished by not fighting Toney and some questionable decisions aginst less than stellar WBO contenders.