|
|
|
#16 |
|
Champion
East Side Guru
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 6,025
vCash: 3740 |
IDK if I'd go that far , although it might be possible , but Eubanks would have beaten Leonard worse than Norris did. Better power and chin , not a slow fighter either , Eubanks was just too much for Leonard whom would have never fought him and I don't believe that he was the next on Leonard's list
|
|
| Sponsored Links |
|
|
|
|
#17 |
|
Champion
East Side Guru
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: South of London
Posts: 9,788
vCash: 708 |
With hindsight, 91 Leonard just would not been physical enough to beat Eubank.
Unlike some on here, I think Leonard fighting Norris at 154, did him a favour, as even in the Hagler fight, Leonard claimed to be 149 post fight. Eubank was a huge Middleweight, to the point he had to move up post WatsonI, although clearly slower than even 91 Ray. Maybe Leonard is smart enough and Eubank respectful enough for the bout to go 12 rounds, but I doubt it; Eubank by late TKO, with Ray going out on his sword, trying to turn around a lost cause. Of course all this is written with 20 years hindsight, if the met in 91, I would of backed Leonard to outpoint him! |
|
|
|
#23 |
|
Belt holder
ESB Addict
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,883
vCash: 1000 |
He gave a few very shit performances i remember a few horrible ones .but do you judge a fighter on those or the ones where he performed to his full potential ? I'm guessing from the winks you do realise he was an excellent fighter. |
|
|
|
#26 |
|
Champion
East Side Guru
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 7,173
vCash: 1000 |
I think this boils down to who makes the other lead. If Leonard would somehow manage to make Eubank chase him I think he could win a decision. Eubank wasn't nearly as good an attacking fighter as Norris, not to mention Hearns.
|
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
|
|