Are Nigel Benn and Chris Eubank Hall Of Fame Worthy?

???which win is better than mcclellan??
Simple question

 

In terms of historical significance, Ruiz and Toney.

Some would argue Hopkins.

Are you seriously suggesting that Benn has a better resume than Jones?

 

Benn-McClellan will be looked at in 100 years as far more special than Jones-Toney or Jones-Ruiz..... Toney who was near-dead (losing 60-70lbs in 4 weeks) and Ruiz who was pure bore....

 

Barkley, McClellan, DeWitt and Sims were far, far more proven than Hopkins in '93 was at the time Benn fought them (and knocked them out). Benn also clearly beat a prime Eubank in '93.

 

Lets not get carried away.

60-70 pounds in 4 weeks?

No chance!

It was around 45 in 6 weeks.

According to Jackie Kallen, he was more than confident of beating Roy, then afterwards said he'd got cold etc.

But in my opinion, it wouldn't have made any difference if he'd have been a 100%. Also, he never mentioned anything about rematching Roy down the line at a higher weight etc. Considering that Toney has such a huge mouth, that to me speaks volumes. He didn't want to mess with Roy again.

The only times he mentioned a rematch, is when he was put on the spot by journalists, and when Roy was past his best. But the time to mention it, was in the post fight interview. But he didn't.

 

He was 222lbs about 4-5 weeks out, and on a drip in hospital the night before the fight to keep him alive.

Toney was better than Jones, both in tip-top shape. Jones has yet to show me anything to top the skills Toney showed in the Barkley fight.

 

This is absolutely absurd!!!atsch

Toney was better than Jones? are you on drugs?

Well, you did say Benn and Eubank were Hall of Fame worthy as much as anyone except Ali, that is pretty crazy too.

 

Clearly, Toney was better than Jones.

Jones had no clue how to box

 

You guy are all dumbass kids, who think because boxers are American they automatically become hall of famers, and any Brits have to be carefully considered. Eubank and Benn would destroy most of America's top SMWs.

 

Leaving Benn and Eubank to one side, which other British fighters do you feel have been unfairly left out?

There is a clear American bias with the IBHOF, but I don't think it's British fighters that feel the main brunt of that.

 

Bro stop smokin that ****.

 

atberry, you are really making me question your sanity..

Roy Jones was on a completely different level to James Toney, Roy made him look like an amateur, and I don't want to hear weight excuses, Toney was not the better man, and his skills couldn't carry him in that one.

Remembering the clueless look on Toney's face when Roy would hit him and not be where Toney thought he was.

And Roy may have not been conventional, but to say he had no clue how to box? wow

 

Toney was clearly a class above Jones when you look at the McCallum fights alone - a shot McCallum is level-pegging with Jones for many rounds and Toney bettered a peak McCallum twice. In his prime he found a way to win against Nunn and a peak Reggie Johnson (Jones fought a shot Reggie Johnson) - Jones went down like a sack of spuds against Tarver, and wasn't able to get up and win, and was made to look like a fool against Montell Griffin, before giving up the WBC belt instead of facing a shot Nunn, knowing he would probably not be able to find a way to win.

Barkley, DeWitt and Prince Charles Williams were superior to Thornton and Sosa. Tim Littles was leagues better than Antoine Byrd, and better than Griffin. A peak Nunn was leagues better than a shot Hill, Harding or Tarver. And get this - a peak McCallum was leagues better than a dead Toney!

Average Eric Harding did real good with Jones and Griffin put a bit of a schooling on him. Even Thornton and Malinga made Jones look silly with their snug defenses. Come on.

Toney at his peak landed every punch and every combination in the book against Barkley while making Iran miss 99% of his shots. He knocked out Littles and Prince Charles, completely dominated Doug DeWitt 5x more convincingly than a peak Tommy Hearns did, and landed more right hands on a peak McCallum than Jones did a shot one.

Just fu-ck off.

 

I understand these 'speed and reflexes' arguments, and they are convincing - but only if you minimize factors other than athleticism. Boxing is more a game of skill and intangibles than power and speed. If it wasn't, then other sports' athletes who have God-given talent would fare much better in the ring. The fact is that they don't.

The argument of those who are dazzled by the speed and power of Jones relies on things other than what makes real greatness - things like skill, quality of competition, and how a fighter reacts to real adversity. Toney cannot match the hand speed of Jones, but in these categories - which I argue are more important in boxing - he trounces Jones. And that would make all the difference in the world in my book if the two of them fought at their bests.

Most fans and analysts overstate the skill of guys like Muhammad Ali and Jones. I cannot count how many times I have heard the glorification of Jones' skill when it is actually talent that they are watching. For example, pulling back from a punch is technically unsound and is risky because if I see that you like to rely on reflexes and lean away from a shot, I can feint a shot and as you pull back, I am stepping in with an overhand. Talent is flashy and skill is easy to overlook, but one is better than the other.

Watch any of Roy's fights and when he is cornered and the opponent (usually just that - an opponent) is close and on him, he looked utterly bewildered - stretching his neck, turning his head, even closing his eyes!

 

The ****?