How good was Eubank ?

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

:think 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

 

Good post.:good

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

Not bad!

 

Good skills, best punch was his uppercut, awkward style, his best attribute was his iron chin. Dealt better against sluggers than boxers who were more skilled than him. Hypes up his douchebag son too much, never taught him humility I guess.

 

Well I think all the posts above have just about covered it.
The biggest single thing though that stops me picking him against the top fighters is simply his output.
It obviously suggests a stamina issue, but if he could have just improved his work rate by 10-15% it would make all the difference.
All the fundamentals were there plus the toughness and a granite chin.

 

Good ,but not great he fought a lot of handpicked poor challengers and struggled with some of them whilst avoiding Nunn,Toney, and Jones. He loses to all three you named imo.I may be biased because I cant abide the up his own ass, self opinionated, egomaniac,or his son.