I see that the performance against Mcclellan is way. Does anyone not feel that the outcome of this fight would've been different had Mcclellan not get the bloodcot to his brain, or whatever preceded that? He seemed off for rounds, he couldn't put his gum shield on properly. He was never knocked down, only went down voluntarily. In fact, he got up as soon as he was counted out. Do we not see that the Mcclellan we saw that fight, wasn't the real him, well not for the majority of the fight. So beating up this lesser version of the man, isn't as much of an accomplishment? Or is it a case of crediting Benn for the heart and determination he put in to the fight, just by getting back in the ring after round 1?
No. Gerald had a devastating 1st round, but he also hurt Benn numerous times during the fight, even as late as the 8th round i believe. So the version we saw of him was not a lesser version, just not able to take Benns punches without suffering that dreadful outcome.
But how good was McClellan? We don't really know because he never went beyond one round. He looked slightly better against Sanderline Williams than Benn or Toney did, but was 50/50 with Julian Jackson in a battle of punchers where it came down to who had the best chin. If Benn got through that opening round, he was likely to hold his own.
I know that you love Chris Eubank with a passion, but stop trying to discredit Benn's performance vs McClellan. I've never been a Benn fan and have always prefered Eubank, but the effort that night against McClellan eclipses anything that either man (Benn or Eubank) would achieve on any other night in their careers for me. It was a truly astonishing display of balls and courage, and one of the best atmospheres you're ever likely to see in the sport. Shame about the tragic events after mind.
Nonsense -- Eubank's perfect, almost unbelievably hellacious uppercut on Watson after being battered for 11 rounds straight until dropped - and while badly dehydrated - eclipses anything I've ever seen in a boxing ring.
Eubank 2. Simply because he showed me he had improved and had become a better fighter than Eubank. The fact he was able to best Eubank, albeit without getting the decision, told me that Eubank and Watson simply exploited Benn's wreckless aggression which he'd developed from knocking everyone out. Once he'd learned from those mistakes he was a better fighter. Eubank got worse rather than better to. He simply exploited Benn at a point in his career where he thought he only needed one to win.
Eubank I because although he loses it's the worst beating he dishes out in his career. Eubank's the only guy who could have taken that and still get the KO.
The top three are Eubank, Benn and Toney. Nothing Ward, Jones or Calzaghe did at 168 can top the performances of Eubank-Watson II, Eubank-Rocchigiani, Benn-Eubank II, Benn-McClellan, Toney-Barkley and Toney-Littles, considering the quality of opposition. Eubank, Benn and Toney were a million times more active, too - real throwback stuff.
Bob Arum said to Benn in the ring after that fight (after Benn apologises to him), "I still think it was your best performance!"
Oh really? That's pretty cool. I know beating McClellan is a greater achievement and Eubank II is a better boxing clinic but he's never been meaner than in that fight.