I've always thought of him as a pretty devastatiing puncher, perhaps because of the sad events o the second Watson fight but his record almost makes him look feather fisted. 45 wins, 23 ko's is quite a modest ratio... I know after the Watson fight he was apparently reluctant to go for the k.o and not many of his fights from there on finished that way...but even before the Watson fight his first 5 fights were won by decision... I know a record only tells part of the story...but have I overrated Eubank's punching power or did his power develop late or something? Thanks, Ryan.
He could punch but tended to throw awkward single shots and use his feet to stay out of range most of the time and win fights that way.
Eubank was a unique fighter, but i loved him. Him and Naz are probably the two most enduring British boxers to me.
In the last round of Calzaghe vs Euabank.. Calzaghe was out on his feet, in the dieing seconds. Euabank just like Calzaghe lean on him, he was'nt even clinching.... Eubank could of stepped back, and ended it with a uppercut.. But never..?
I watched Eubank throughout his career and he always gave me the impression he was reluctant to go for the KO unless it was absolutely inevitable, or completely neccesary. That why IMHO you can split his fights into two categories: Brilliantly exciting or boring dirge.
A couple of great Eubank performances that get often overlooked due to the epics with Benn, Watson, etc are his victory over Graciano Rhoccigiani in Germany and his performance against Henry Wharton. Wharton's shiner in that fight looked like something out of a cartoon!
He wasn't a devastating puncher, but he was a physically strong guy and he could hurt you with one punch if he put a lot into it. The simple answer is that sometimes he didn't, and he would concentrate on pot-shotting and boxing rather than unloading combinations.