Are Nigel Benn and Chris Eubank Hall Of Fame Worthy?

this:deal

 

Eubank for sure, case could be made for Benn. His win over Barkley I think is overrated, but the McClellan win was epic. I vote yes for both.

 

Based on some of the fighters they have inducted previously in recent years I see no reason why both should not have been inducted already. But there tends to be a bias towards overseas fighters who did not fight in the US regularly.

Virgil Hill was inducted but Dariuz Michalczewski has not been despite having a long reign as champion similar to Hill and also beat Hill when they fought. DM also won a cruiser weight title just like Hill. Both had very similar careers, only difference is Hill fought in the US while DM fought in Europe where he was making bigger money than Hill was in the US.

Both Benn and Eubank defined an era for many boxing fans like myself. Much like Gatti Benn gave us some very memorable fights, the 2 wars against Eubank, the infamous McClellan win and the demolition of Barkley.

Eubank had a very long reign and made many successful defences which of course means there will be some meaningless wins. But he had enough big wins against Benn, Watson and Rochigianni . Even his losing efforts against Calzaghe and Thompson were very memorable. Yes he had a few controversial decisions but so did Foreman and Chavez who were both inducted.

 

Two of the most iconic UK fighters in memory.

Of course they are bloody HOF material.

Absolutely blasphemous to even question it.

 

Yes, I don't think that's a relevant question there, B, he had supreme natural talent.:good

 

The problem with inducting fighters by measuring them against the worst inductees is that it further dilutes the credibility of the Hall. There are always going to be a few unworthy fighters slipping through the net, but it creates a double whammy if those undeserving candidates become the new benchmark.

The argument also works both ways. Even if there are worse fighters than Benn and Eubank in the HOF, there are better fighters who haven't been inducted who should get a place before them.

Fully agree. DM should be in without question, and the only reason he isn't is because he was born in Poland and fought almost exclusively in Germany.

I think they defined an era for all British fight fans of a certain age, myself included. However, this doesn't mean their achievements are all HOF worthy, unless you are following the Gatti precedent.

Successful defences of what exactly? Eubank held a quarter of the world championship, and to most impartial observers was never regarded as the best fighter in any division he fought in. He has zero wins over HOF fighters, and his unbeaten streak benefitted from a big slice of fortune. The key difference between Eubank and some great fighters who had controversial wins is that so much of Eubank's legacy is based on the unbeaten streak. His quality of wins and achievements do not stack up, and he doesn't get plus points for dominance because he was extremely lucky to keep his "0" as long as he did.

The only credible argument for Benn and Eubank is if you take the modern definition of the word "fame" literally, rather than using the original meaning of the word and stay true to what Halls of Fame were intended to represent. That's really a separate argument in itself though.

 

Momus I agree with you, I also dislike the diluted credibility of the Hall of Fame, personally I would only have truly great fighters inducted, not just long reigning title holders (not undisputed and unified champions) or fighters who got in due to their fame and popularity rather than actual legacy. But my opinion means little so I just went with the criteria the Hall of Fame seems to be setting with inductees like Gatti.

 

Of course they aren't worthy. Stop being absurd.

 

What a ****ing *****. I normally don't respond to ignorant pieces of ****, but here it goes....

Which victories of Roy's do you think would have been losses if not for steriods? I responded to the poster who asked if he would have been in the HOF without juicing.. I believe Roy would have beat Toney, Hopkins, Ruiz, Tarver without juicing, if in fact he was for all of them, which you can't prove either.

Prime Roy didn't really have those tough close fights like Mosley vs. Oscar where you could make a case for steroids being the difference in that one.

Roy Jones natural ability was one of the greatest ever, morons like yourself act as if he was some kind of Nazi lab experiment. Steroids did not make him the fighter he was, they surely didn't help some of his opponents either who have been caught jucied to the gills.

 

Oh for ****'s sake...

 

I would say so yes.

 

Absolutely

Great fighters who beat good fighters, 2 weight world champs.

Besides Calzaghe, tell me one SMW with a better resume than Eubank? Anyone that says Froch or Ward really wont know what they are going on about

 

Jones's total outclassing of James Toney is better than anything on Eubank's entire resume let alone his SMW one.

 

I am sure we will see both Benn and Eubank in the HOF at some point. Hard for me to argue that they are not worthy.

 

Complete rubbish.
Do you think Toney did much at SMW?
look at the level Toney was fighting at, when SMW champ

1993 he wins the title from iran barkley a fighter who years earlier was blown away by nigel benn in 1 round and pummelled to a loss by a shot roberto duran barkley went onto lose 11 out of 25 fights following this fight and never beat anyone who was remotely good in doing so,the guy was so desperate he was even plying his trade as a HW in the late 90's against the likes of berbick and they say this era is a joke

govonor chambers a guy with a career record of 9 wins 7 losses, all 3 fights prior to toney were ko losses!

ricky thomas: won 11 lost 14,the 4 fights he had prior to toney all losses!

glenn thomas:won 29 lost 8, lost to roy jones prior to toney and finished his career with a first round ko loss to jeff lacy.

danny garcia: won 30 lost 22, was coming off losses to chris pyatt (a steve collins victim) lamar parks etc

larry prather: won 19 lost 24,lost his last 5 fights prior to the toney fight even losing to nicky piper

tony thornton: won 37 lost 7,lost to chris eubank a year earlier.

anthony hembrick: won 31 lost 8,lost to maske prior to toney and orlin norris a year earlier.

tim littles: won 27 lost 3,maybe one of his better wins,had fought mainly bums with the exception of a close UD over frankie liles,went onto lose to frankie liles in a 2nd contest following the toney fight.

vinsom durham: won 21 lost 37 enough said.

charles williams: won 37 lost 7 drew 3,lost to maske prior to toney.

This content is protected

and finally the Jones fight and, That was Jones big SMW victory where Toney was alledgedly weight weakend, other than that Jones didnt do much at SMW.

Eubank and Benn though had some good genuine SMW victories

Look to cut it short
Out of Eubanks 18 WBO SMW title fights 14 of those fights were against fighters who were, had been or became top 10 SMWs. One was a unification and another was against the undefeated former IBF SMW champ (relinquished his title). In fact 6 of the fighters he faced had been or became world champs

Benn did more than Jones or Toney overall at SMW also

Both HOF worthy