Chris Eubank Jnr v Paul Smith

Fitz, I suspected those Golden Gloves titles would be in the Novice class but couldn't find any confirmation. Thanks for the info.

Its not just as simple as saying winning a Golden Gloves title makes you the top amateur in the state.

 

What amatuer experience? As Fitz said they were Novice titles, good to win but not an indictor of an extensive amateur career.

As for Eubank Srs trademark moves that he's "clearly passed on", the only ones we saw on Saurday were jumping the top rope, the high step and a couple of other choreographed showboat moves. Nothing that would actually help the kid improve his skills.

 

I forgot how good that promo was since seeing it a few months ago. I hope he's half the man his dad was. Good luck to the boy.

 

Was he that good on Satuday? I thought he did relatively well, but there wasn't anything spectacular about him, certainly nothing to suggest he's ready for a major step up in class.

A performance such as the one he gave can often look far more impressive on the surface than it is in de facto. There was an awful lot of unecessary posturing before letting rip with flashy 4's and 5's, but realistically how many of those punches landed? It's a simple task to look forcible when you don't have to worry about any form of retaliation from the opponent, which was what he was faced with.

I felt he should've got the guy out of there earlier, I really didn't believe him to be as durable as was made out. Seemed to me as soon as he took a few sustained punches he crumbled, when everything that came before landed on his arms. Eubank's body-punching wasn't very good - didn't turn with them or follow through at all - but it was still effective when he didn't neglect it. Whenever he went there he'd land, and inevitably drop the guy's hands, which makes me think his capacity for punishment wasn't anything to write home about. Guys like that are usually expected to have a solid high guard and an above average ability to absorb punches, to me the opponent seemed to be lacking in the latter, and thus wasn't even decent enough to provide an adequate learning curve. Even a fighter on his pro debut should have an opponent who can offer something, while at the same time providing no danger in terms of potentially causing the upset.

There's no way you can truely gauge how much potential someone has from a fight like that, this is a pretty extravagant knee-jerk reaction to a mostly style over substance performance IMO.

 

we are talking about paul smith here though. PAUL SMITH. not exactly a fearsome opponent for young eubank

 

But his Dad is Chris Eubank!!patsch:hey

 

How on earth did he show a "poor defence"? If you said we knew nothing about his defence you would right. But you've just thrown in a criticism to imply you have some great insight into what he did on a technical level and the reality is that you cannot judge someones defence until they are defending.

You cannot judge his defence based off work on a heavy bag and you cannot judge his defence in a fight where his opponent hardly threw a punch and when he did was made to miss. I think Eubank Jr might have been hit a total of 2 times in the right and not one punch was clean. He did slip the odd shot (of the 4 or 5 thrown a round) and moved his head fine.

Very true, it is also impossible to judge someones defence against an opponent who doesn't punch back.

Agreed and that is all fair.

 

All true and valid criticism.

Well he went the 6 rounds with Groves. I am guessing he is more prone to being stopped in fights where he goes for it and leaves himself more open. When he is in survival mode from the start it is more tricky. I also feel that Eubank did not want to get hit and wanted to look slick, which kind of leads to avoiding just standing on the pocket and blazing away.

If he had done that he probably would have got the lad out of there earlier but would probably also have taken a few and been made to look a bit wild.

Yeah true again. Something to work on no doubt.

Disagree. He went 6 with Groves on Groves' debut and has only really been stopped twice before by actual punches, one of which was Spada who is far more experienced and been in with Barker recently.

How many guys have a good debut opponent who they learn a lot from? Calzaghe fought a guy put there to be knocked over, Khan fought a lad who hasn't even fought since and had very few fights at the time. I mean I can't be arsed trawling through Boxrec to find loads of debut fights but it is difficult to get the balance right and on paper this lad was pretty durable, no real threat and had fought against another one of our very good fighters on his debut and taken him the 6 rounds and had only been blown away at a much higher level.

 

If he'd looked good, then yeah.

As it stands he clearly has a lot to learn, even to beat the likes of below-average Smith.

Not sold on Eubank Jr at all, but early days yet.

 

So how didn't he look good? I can't believe how much I am defending him as I thought he looked poor in the previous videos I saw from a good while back but he has come on a huge amount and it seems that the flip side to some people going wildly overboard is other people being overly critical.

I want you to watch it again and try to imagine you had never heard of him, there was no hype at all and it was just some new kid making his debut who had apparently been rated well by guys like Groves etc who had sparred with him.

Would you be saying he didn't look very good?

 

I lol'd.

If he's good he's good. THROW HIM IN THE DEEP END.

He's had one fight.

 

i keep hearing about eubank jnr fighting this guy and that guy? why is everyone trying to fast track this boy? he's not exactly some kind of phenom is he? give him time to progress.

 

It’s pretty sad when people over-rate and under-rate a prospect right after his first fight. I thought he looked like a well-trained one-fight novice. He had some good moments, some tactical missteps, and a lot of stuff to work on, which is true for every one fight novice!

Any talk of getting in for the British title now is just stupid. As long as he’s fighting regularly and taking on different sorts of opponents, that’s fine. Although, excluding the TV exposure, Mick has done an awful job of getting opponents for his men.