Very good or great? Volume 4: Chris Eubank

Wow, you're almost as anal as IntentionalButt with your organization. Props? Yeah... props :err:good

 

one of the many, many, many protected and overhyped muppits of boxings last 30 - 40 years!

pretender - good fighter at best if he fought in the land of the greats!

 

Very good. Lacks a signature win to push him above to the best of the best, and really, lacked the skillset.

Damn good fighter on his day though.

Even though he was past it by that point, watching the Calzaghe fight kind of illustrates it for me-He could be out sped, outboxed, and out punched by truly great opposition. If he was an ATG, he'd have found a way to make the Calzaghe fight less one-sided, and would have probably found a way to repeat his first win against Benn rather than arguably lose the rematch.

Such things separate the very best from the best of the rest.

 

Very good. He deserves mad respect for the two Thompson clashes.

 

Depends what we are going on: An all time great Brit; an Excellent borderline European great; a classic Marmite fighter in the history of the entire sport.

 

id class him as a great as i cant see anyone having an easy time with him at his peak.

 

Very good.

 

In some ways he is great, he'd a living legend for 1 thing, in some ways only very good, his resume isn't that deep but his signature wins are probably better than some greats best wins

Well he beat Benn who beat 3 of the best in the 'land of the greats'

Eubank was protected but so was Dempsey, Zale, Patterson and many other greats in 1 way or another

atsch yes he was very much past it, very weight drained fighting on very short notice

 

Eubank was unbeatable in his prime ......................................... (with Puerto Rican judges)

 

He had the best record in boxing by far in terms of numbers. So many outstanding performances......
the first fight with Nigel Benn where he showed incredible boxing skill, leading off combinations with speed and accuracy from the opening seconds of the fight and skimming every centimetre of the ring canvas over nine rounds..
the first fight with Michael Watson where he again showed incredible boxing skill, amazing sense of timing/positioning and avoiding punches by millimetres with poker face, & getting through more clean head shots than Benn and McCallum combined through Watson's tight tucked defense..
and the Watson rematch - that uppercut!
Rocchigiani in his backyard for composure and dexterity like nothing you saw...
thought he boxed out his skin against marauding tight T.Thornton early on and got in more clean head shots than Toney over 12 or Jones over 3...also got in more clean shots against the tucked Malinga than anyone did incl Jones...

So he had ability - nailed.

He had appeal of course - the numbers (figures, finances, fight schedule).

He overcame adversity - Watson rematch, Benn's power, Thompson's size.

The record - nailed (numbers).

The resume - only potential strike against him. How highly do we rate Nigel Benn (period.), Michael Watson's potential or Graciano Rocchigiani's stock...

I thought he beat Steve Collins quite clearly in their first fight, but the fact he failed to beat him in the second fight and put it right probably prevents him entering into boxing greatness...

His rematch with Watson, period, is legend though....

He was very good and is a legend...

 

He had ability that was clear, but how are we defining greatness? Surely not on ability alone. I think fighting the best, beating the best, avenging losses - that's great.

He did though have very good longevity, great activity and overcame adversity, so it is a tricky one...

 

How can you even compare that? Jones knocked them both out, Eubank didn't.

Regarding the thread, Eubank was very good, just a couple wins off from being great.

 

Jones had a lot more natural punching power than Eubank of course