Eubank: Benn/Graham were better than Nunn/McCallum!

But what if McCallum knew what u know and decided 2 box Eubanks like he did with Toney and Eubanks had 2 come 4ward ?

 

atberry is talking shite in this thread....worse than ever.

 

Not in my opinion. Mike was another level.

 

Personally, I think Eubank would give McCallum a tough time of it. It'd last the distance, no doubt, and Eubank's odd style would result in him getting some good shots in and win a couple of rounds, but McCallum was a busier, and better technically speaking, fighter and would wrack up the points to win by decision.

 

Eubank struggled with Watson, after Mike had beaten him comfortably, and Mike was also passed his peak by then.

Mike at his best was on another level.

There's no way Eubank could have knocked out even a passed his peak 90's version of Mike, in 5 rounds.

He was dreaming.

 

I don't doubt that.

I think it would be a very tough fight, and I've got a ton of respect for Eubank's abilities.

But there's no way in my opinion, that he'd have stopped Mike in 5 rounds.

Eubank was great! But Mike at his best in the 80's, was just a better fighter in my opinion.

 

Mike never had an ounce of trouble with Watson, past peak.

Eubank was troubled, and the decision was controversial at the time. That's why a rematch was needed.

 

Eubank would get schooled silly by McCallum, The End

 

Mike wasn't troubled at all. He was just a league above Watson, without being disrespectful.

A lot of people thought that Watson beat Eubank.

 

I believe I see your point.

I do not use the term 'all-time'. For me being considered great today, does not mean you will tomorrow. But I did put the proviso in that roughly (at the moment) on average every four years a great fighter is created. So there are roughly 40 great fighters now because Queensberry rules has been around since the 1850's. So in another 160 years, if the sport remains as popular as it has done over the last century and a half, then there will be roughly 80 great fighters.

My point is although greatness is clearly subjective, I try to use a framework to help explain my judgements.

 

They were both great fighters, and styles make fights.

Eubank may have had an easier time with one of Mike's opponents than Mike did, and vice versa.

I just think that when they were both at their best, Mike was better.

Eubank was a great fighter, and I think he's underrated by many.

I think if they'd have fought, it would have been one of Mike's toughest fights.

I respect your opinion.

I was only arguing with regards to Eubank's comments that it wouldn't go 5 rounds.

I don't know in what context it was said, but it surprised me, and I don't agree in anyway.