Alan Minter v Chris Eubank

I think Minter could beat Eubank. I think he's getting a little bit underated on here. Wouldn't pick Benn or Watson over him confidently either.

 

i don't know why minter is under-rated on her either.there are the same snide comments about jim watt and maurice hope who were also champs at the same time period.

 

Also good fighters. Particularly Hope.

Minter takes a close pts dec. Not the most graceful of fighters but (as Ring magazine once described him) he was a "smart boxer with a stiff punch". I can see him punishing Eubank after avoiding some of those amatuerish overhandrights he tended to throw.
I can see Eubank landing some hard head shots though, but he just wasn't consistant enough during a fight to win.

 

The thing i find with Eubank is that though he had some excellent tools, his weaknesses in one or two specific areas were glaring enough that you can imagine almost any very good world level middle getting the better of him in these hypothetical matchups...yet imo he WAS capable of stepping up his game at crucial moments and often seemed to bedoing just enough without extending himself.

A tough fighter to get a hold on, for these kind of threads.

 

Good analysis .
Eubanks achilles heel,, imo, was lack of work rate,he liked to fight at his own pace,make him scrap for 3 minutes of each round ,and EVERY round,as Benn did,he had the heart ,but not the drive,abetted by the WBO and TV he made a fortune , but often took the easy options.

 

This is one of the worst posts i've seen on this forum.
Do you even know what a 'paper champ' is?
Moron.

 

Eubank thought his win over Watson in their 2nd fight made him the main man in boxing, that's how he justified the 'they have to go out of their way to fight me' stuff regarding Nunn, Toney, McCallum, Roy Jones etc. To this day he maintains Watson was unbeatable that night.

 

Eubank back then was saying none of them were perfect - Nunn already knocked out by Toney, Toney getting lucky against Tiberi, and McCallum 'brought nothing to the table'... he thought he was the perfect one, in his head. There was more call for him in Britain to fight Graham or Benn, in Europe to fight Rocchigiani or Benn, in America he wasn't that known.

I think he beat a much better Watson at 160 than McCallum did, Watson had been out for a year prior to McCallum and it showed (whereas McCallum had a great warm-up against Steve Collins), but he had good warm-ups prior to Eubank (including an annihilation of Errol Christie, Eubank's main sparring partner). And he looked marvellous in the first half of that original Watson bout, didn't take a punch in the opening round and found his range and timing perfectly in the 2nd round before opening up more in the 4th and 5th, shaking Watson up that early. McCallum wasn't getting through with those kind of head shots that early and Benn wasn't coming close.

 

Eubank always stepped up his game against decent opposition

and even if he was losing, didn't he once say he was "the master of brinkmanship"?

Eubank, late knockout!

 

Eubank for me. I can see him doing the boxing, landing hard rights, and gritting it out in this fight, certainly he has the chin.

 

Eubank had more finess and speed than Minter, so I gotta go with Eubank..........

I just watched my tape of Hagler hammering Minter from '80... Minter was strong but not very skilled, and he cut like wet toilet paper....

Minter is NOT a great ex-champ at all........ NO!!

MR.BILL

 

Yeah, because Hagler is a real mug to get beaten up against.

I'd watch a lot more of Minter against other contenders before dismissing him as not very skilled.He was a good technician.