Benn: "Calzaghe Would Have Beaten Myself, Leonard, Hagler, And Hearns"

I must save that quote for future reference

 

You should not be commenting on this fight as you clearly know nothing about it.

It is THE most overrated and misremembered win in recent boxing history.

Eubank had been in semi-retirement for 2 years following his second comprehensive defeat to Steve Collins.

In that 2 years, he fought two exhibition bouts, one in Africa and one in the Middle East or Asia, both against novice professionals with poor records, just as a money-making exercise. In his mind and in the popular view, his top level career was over.

The Ring had dropped him from the 168 top 10 entirely.

He was offered the Calzaghe fight on short notice, a couple of weeks. He was offered it because he was a big name who would create interest in Calzaghe's first title bout and with that, money. He was also viewed as a relatively safe option because (a) Collins had mastered him twice proving that Eubank was well past-prime and gunshy, and (b) he had been in semi-retirement for 2 years and in addition to the ring-rust, he would not have time to get up to absolute peak condition.


Eubank, being granite-tough, mentally strong and naturally talented, managed to make a real fight of it, but let's be truthful about what this fight was: hand-picked.

:deal

 

I love Benn, but he's often full of **** when it comes to the hyperbole of British fighters.

 

Forgot what a good fight that was.

 

Sorry, but I don't buy into all of the excuses that follow every fight. Any fighter that loses can find an excuse. Eubank was not retired, he was still fighting. So what if it was against lower competition for a couple fights? Collins hardly "mastered" Eubank as he won two razor thin decisions, with Eubank winning two fights by first round knockout in between.

I don't really go by what fans say about fighters being past it, shot ect... because boxing fans are fickle and love to write a fighter off after a loss.... or even a bad performance. Of course Ring Mag would have taken Eubank out of the top 10 at 168, Eubank hadn't been fighting at 168 for a couple years. Why would they have kept him there?

Realistically, Eubank was only 31 and Calzaghe beat him like nobody else up to that point. Not only that, but even a year AFTER Calzaghe manhandled him, Eubank STILL was able to move up to 190 lbs and give Carl Thompson a run for his money. Dropping Thompson and losing a very close decision.

 

These are mostly bigger fighters though?

I reckon Joe and RJJ are the two best Supermiddleweights of all time.

Let the insults commence...

 

Even with Benn being the bigger guy, I still think Leonard is a tougher fight for anyone than Benn... the gap in quality is too big.

 

Eubank was past his best at age 31 but Joe had never fought at that level before so all in all it was a good performance, he won at least 10 rds vs Chris, even the much bigger CWT Carl Thomson was nowhere near as dominant in Eubank`s next 2 fights.
Thomson wasnt anything special but was a big man & holds a KO victory over David Haye.

 

atsch

Age isnt the only factor in being old or shot in boxing and you know it, stop playing the role of dumbass because your not...Eubank's balance was horrible in that fight, not to mention that he was actually in training for a fight at 190 when he got a short notice call to fight Calzaghe...Eubank hadnt fought at the weight in some time as someone eles touched on.

 

He weighed 177 in his fight before Joe, and it wasn't even a big fight that he was cutting weight for. It isn't hard to lose water weight, trust me, I know. However, what else would you judge Eubank being shot on? His razor thin losses to Steve Collins, or his razor thin loss at 190 lbs against Carl Thompson a year after Calzaghe beat him?:huh How about Eubanks last fight against Thompson in which Eubank was ahead on all cards when the fight was stopped due to his eye swelling? Those aren't the markings of a shot fighter. Fighters can lose, and not look their best... even when they are not washed up or shot. Every once in a while, the person who beat them deserves a little bit of the credit.

 

It's not saying much if you Calzaghe would beat those smaller guys (and was fighting under different weigh-in rules anyway).

I mean it's like saying "Ricky Hatton beats Eusebio Pedroza", or "Diego Corrales beats Ruben Olivares". Well, so what? They're a couple divisions above them.

 

Calzaghe, using the same weigh-in procedure as Hagler, would have a two-division size advantage on Hagler.

There's nothing outrageous at saying that Hagler, who wasn't a big MW and cared little to venture above 160, wouldn't be able to overcome the size difference.

Hagler is certainly better/greater p4p, but you never know how a guy reacts when he moves up in weight like that.

With Hearns and Leonard, we have film of how they performed above 160 at least.