Such a shame Michael Watson doesnt get as much credit as Eubank snr he was so better

I think you're right, actually. Watson was probably the best of the three (though Eubank beat him fairly, and tragically, in their second fight).

Objectively, we cannot rate him on what he would have achieved (a lot, I think) in the game had his career not been so sadly cut short, and his life so cruelly affected, by a fluke punch.

 

Well, Benn and Eubank have to be ranked higher than Watson, I'd agree with that, because they were able to live out their prime fighting years, whereas Watson was cut down early in his (it's easy to forget that Chris and Mike weren't yet 27 when they fought). Nigel and Chris had fuller careers and just got more done, although it has to be said Eubank trod a lot of water and his legacy depends quite a lot on that Benn win.

Eubank did win the Watson rematch fairly, I also agree with that. He did nothing wrong, but rather showed tremendous character to dig deep and find a response to the peril he was in on the brink of being overwhelmed. The circumstances that conspired against Mike were beyond Chris' control. I wouldn't even call the punch a fluke, because he very deliberately mustered everything he had left in him at that moment and put it all into a well selected shot which was intended to save his skin and succeeded in doing so. He can only only be awarded credit for that, that's the kind of stuff greatness is made of.

The fluke was Michael's brainstem connecting with that rope. Horribly bad luck for Watson. And bad luck for Chris, too, in the longterm, albeit to a much less direct and severe extent, as the remainder of his career might have suffered less by simply losing that fight than it did as a consequence of the trauma that befell Mike.

 

I think Watson was the better fighter. He deserved the decision first time, and he kicked Chris' ass for almost the entirety of a fight the second time. I can't penalize Chris for Watson's misfortune, though - he somehow pulled a win out of the bag, and earns credit for that. Considering his state in the 11th, it's miraculous he didn't end the night with a first stoppage defeat on his record, let alone somehow finding a way to add a W to his ledger.

In résumé terms, Chris had a full career and Mike didn't. On a British ATG list, we're obliged to rank him higher. It's perfectly fair to believe Watson would've gone on to have a greater career than both Chris and Nigel if not for one mighty arrow from outrageous fortune, though. I believe that myself.

 

Amazing performance, and the bold is a great point. That's actually a further testament to Mike's quality, that he set out to do it more emphatically the second time around, to eliminate any room for interpretive license on the part of the judges, adjusted his plans accordingly and was just about to make it happen until that bizarre plot twist.

Actually, what happened to Mike is doubly sad, in that it overshadowed his performance to this day because the fight (like the Benn-McClellan bout) was tucked away uncelebrated like a dirty secret.

 

Eubank was very good at what he did, and an iron man, but there was a stylistic groove he was stuck in for most of his career. Mike was much more skilled and dimensional. One of my favorite fighters, and I always thought it a shame that there wasn't more conversation about him on boxing forums (with threads limited to British posters in British subforums). He's a noble figure, deserves a wider appreciation, both for his fighting and his character.

 

I agree with you that Watson was the better fighter of the two - but I think you aee reading the first fight, at least, wrongly.

In the first fight, Watson was better and deserved to win. But he didn't 'school' Eubank, or anything like it. It was close enough, though most people (myself included) felt Watson should have won.

In the second fight, yes, Watson was clearly the better man on the night. Much better. And yet, under every convention of the fight game, he clearly and unarguably lost the fight.

Objectively, what is left?

Watson was, at best, one apiece with Eubank.

Would he have won a rematch? Very, very likely he would. But he didn't because, tragically for him, he couldn't.

 

Elegantly put - I can't really add much to that.

 

Great comments guys.


Anyone want to give their opinion on what may have happened in the following fights:


Watson vs Graham

Watson vs Collins

Watson vs Calzaghe