1990-1991 Middleweight Chris Eubank: Best Of British?

He defended the WBO belt often against sub-standard contenders during a time when the governing body were even more worthless than they are today. Wonderful.

Doesn't in concern you that most of Eubank's toughest opponents came straight from being European champ? That's what these fighters were - European championship quality.

 

Tell that to all the Eubanks fans.

 

Actually, you're right about Graham not having good technique - that was something I noticed myself. Then again, neither did Eubank.

Take for instance, his right hand. He generally has two varieties of it. One is a compact overhand right that he throws when inside, and the other is a horrible looping overhand right that he extends and that almost always ends with him horribly off-balance. He can move out of the pocket quickly, but he's terribly slow getting in there.

There's an exception to this mind, and that's when he's finishing someone. For all his flaws he was a great finisher.

 

Of course not. Don't be flippant.

When judging a fighter, it's important to look at them against varying styles. In the space of two years a fighter may only fight one specific style or a couple of different styles which both suit him. Look at Manny Pacquiao. When you look at his 2010, he fought two guys who were both completely suited to him so even though he looked great, but it isn't enough when judging him as a complete fighter. For that, you'd need to go back to the Cotto bout or whatever, or draw reference to other fights in his career. A two year span isn't always going to be enough unless the fighter faces different styles and I don't think Eubank did. He showed weaknesses before and after that, after he was green or before he was old, that show that the two year period you mention, isn't conclusive.

 

Hang on a minute Einstein, hadn't Watson, Malinga, Jarvis, Essett, Giminez and Wharton recently fought for one of the other three world titles and wouldn't Thornton, Giminez fight for one of the other three titles near-future? Weren't Benn and Rocchigiani undefeated world champions at the weight in two of the three other bodies? And Holmes a recent world champion at the weight in one of the other three bodies?

I can't excuse the opponents on SKY like Amaral, Storey (ffs), Schommer and Godoy and Barratuebena - disgraceful. Stretch and Close II were good money-spinners atleast, pre-SKY.

 

Obviously I'm not on about Benn and Rocchigiani. And I don't think much of giving a fighter who just lost a title shot another one, especially if they were undeserving in the first place (Yep, I'm talking about Gimenez Ferreyra, I don't care how tough he was). I'll give you Thornton, he deserved his ranking at the time and his performance probably deserved a shot at a different title, even if it did prove he wasn't up to it.

 

Thornton was ranked #1 by everyone

 

Independent Rankings from April 1992

April 1992
1)Iran Barkley (IBF)
2)Darrin Van Horn
3)Victor Cordoba (WBA)
4)Lindell Holmes
5)Michael Nunn
6)Mauro Galvano (WBC)
7)Chris Eubank (WBO)
8)Christophe Tiozzo
9)Tony Thornton
10)Ron Essett

It's hugely unlikely that he was ranked number 1 with all the governing bodies....and how weak was this weight class? Wow.

 

You are having a laugh, the word ability and the name Chris Eubank dont go together, Eubank was a very good champion, he had an an awkward style, a granite chin and a great will to win but was a very limited boxer skill wise.

His worse trait was he would often throw a big punch that if he missed with it he would fall over onto the floor or into his opponent, this happened all the time it was embarassing.
He would fail to take a step forward and throw a big punch, instead he would stay with his legs apart and parrallel throw a haymaker and if it did not land he would fall over often onto the floor.
He didnt bob and weave well, he wasnt the fastest on his feet, his combinations usually only lasted for two or three punches, for a champion he was hopeless style wise, his abilities if that is the right word was not boxing technique but heart and desire, will to win and toughness, he was very hard and physically tough.
There is more to boxing than being a slick technician and Eubank obviously was a top boxer and a good champion but he was a very very poor boxing technician ability wise.

 

OMG, Calzaghe was a slick fast combination puncher back in the day who took his opponents out with style before he damaged his hands mid career.
When a green Calzaghe fought an old Eubank to win Calzaghes first World title, Joe won 118-110, 118-109 and 116-111 on the scorecards, because Calzaghe was a slickster fighting a tough hard but unskilled boxer in Eubank, Eubank deserved credit for hearing the final bell in that fight after being knocked down, was it once or twice ?

Ability wise Calzaghe is light years ahead of Eubank.

 

:rofl:rofl

:rofl:rofl


Joe is a couple yards ahead of David Starie, Robin Reid, and Sven Ottke.

 

Calzaghe never ever lost to a Yank fancy that.

 

I can't think of another fighter who had 9-10 great battles that were huge fights...

Watson x 2, Benn x 2, Rocchigiani, Calzaghe, Wharton, Thompson I, Collins I...