having debate with my friend. he says eubanks was bigger i said hatton hit hard also tough stamina+chin+power but i think he is right he is too small what do you think?
hatton was a light welter who found fighting at welter too hard by his own admittance. eubank was a big super middle who even had a title fight at cruiser.
He's on another thread which is discussing Earnie Shavers power and asked "Who is Shavers?" He then claims to be some kind of boxing historian!
yes i did not hear of ernie shavers but i am more interested in 1940s boxers,, my great uncle saw robinson and jack fight when he was in america and got me interested. ricky hatton i think would be a good matchup for eubanks as he is quicker but i still think he would lose but not by ko like my friend says.
Rockymarmite is another moron troll most likely Tommo/Glover again the whole purpose of this stupid thread is a thinly veiled attempt to justify 'size' in boxing. why todays fighters are better because theyre bigger
wait i like old boxers. i like ricky hatton and hopkins and toney but i like old boxers. 1930s 40s etc and they had more fights more experience = better
Interesting fight at 147 for the Hatton who fought Collazo against the 1984 Eubank who fought Mark Breland.