'91 Chris Eubank vs '93 Bernard Hopkins @ 160

there is no way either of these guys get k.o'd, especially by the other.

I'd say, at that point, Eubank PTS.

 

Hopkins EASILY. People overrate Eubank so much it hurts.

 

Hopkins

 

Hopkins in a clear UD

 

No way does hop stop eubank :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl


You obviously don't know anything about chris eubank atsch


Eubanks had a granite jaw :deal

 

If Nigel Benn could hardly put a dent in him, in two fights, Hopkins wouldn't either.

 

Eubank on points. Hops was still green in his overall game at that point.

 

It's a tough fight to score, your taking a prime Eubank against a pre-prime Hop. I think it's got SD written all over it.

 

This is a tough one to call...I just think that Eubank was a monster before the ill-fated Michael Watson fight.

By the way, no one gets KO'd in this one..I can't remember either fighter getting close to being KO'd ever!

 

I can see you are londoner. I am also not American.

Usually Americans tend to underestimate European fighters, but in this thread we have something else. We have a European fighter being overrated against an American.

Eubank was good, and although the English absolutely loved this period, it was a quike weak period where SMW was very new and not recognized by most countries. The UK was basically the only country that fully embrazed the division at that time. That gave a lot of title fights between english fighters and a host of UK fighters were the best in the division in the 'world'. Obviously brits feel strongly that this was a glorious period and I can relate to that. However, in objective terms Hopkins is a better fighter and would win 9 out of 10 fights.