Chris Eubank Sr vs Bennie Briscoe At MW

Its interesting that some will talk about the guys Eubank struggled with but completely ignore that Briscoe not only struggled with but lost to: Luis Vinales, Joe Shaw, Jaurez DeLima, a very green Rondon, etc. I love Briscoe but the guy was beatable, especially by a tough guy who gave him lateral movement. Was a prime Eubank any worse than a nearly shot Griffith fighting above his best weight and winning only about half his fights? I think not. I actually think Eubank would have been a terrible matchup for Briscoe. He was very strong, hit hard, was durable, had heart, and moved well. Not the type of guy you want for Briscoe. Those guys typical made Bennie look like he had lead feet. Eubank fought up or down to his level of competition but he would have found a way to beat Briscoe and think it would have been easier than some here predict.

 

I think guys from that era, fighting every other month or so, can be more easily excused for not always performing at their best.
Eubank was A-side fighter from the moment He won a belt from Benn. He was given a date earlier than his opponents a lot of times, usually had at least favorable judging. It's a bit different for that reason, in my view.

I'm not as familiar with Briscoe - but I strongly believe that Tony Thorton beat Eubank, as well as Benn in a rematch with more tactical approach - Eubank was notoriously lazy and prone to getting outworked, so my instinct here is to pick Briscoe on most nights, assuming neutral ground.

 

Look at their records. Eubank wasnt fighting any less frequently than Briscoe.

 

You're right, Thank You. I knew Eubank was active, but He was fighting 4-5 times a year through his title reign(s). That's more than I thought, very busy schedule indeed.
Maybe that's a reason for some of his more lackluster performances - and maybe I'm underrating him indeed.

 

So was Eubank.

 

Eubank beat a lot of guys in Briscoe's class. Briscoe lost to a lot of guys far worse than Eubank. Did Briscoe ever beat anyone as good as Eubank? I dont think so.

 

How about young Eddie Mustafa Muhammad? I didnt' see that fight, but it always "stood out" to me on Briscoe's record.
Was He still raw back then? I think prime for prime - Eddie was significantly better than Eubank.

 

Muhammad, and Griffin and Monzon were certainly better than anything Eubank beat and Briscoe had a draw with both.

 

Eddie Mustafa Muhammad was just 15 fights into 60 fight career when he fought Briscoe who had nearly 70 fights. Muhammad had been 10 rounds just three times (going 1-1-1) in those fights and had lost to Radames Cabrera, drew with Max Cohen, and had been dropped twice hard by Mario Rosa. He clearly wasnt the same Eddie that would win a title five years later. Even as green as Muhammad was in that fight Briscoe only beat him on a one round swing. And frankly Im not so sure Eddie was better than Eubank. You want to talk about Eubank running hot and cold but Eddie was the poster child for showing up out of shape, disinterested, and giving uninspired performances.

 

Muhammad was not clearly better than Eubank even in his prime and when he fought Briscoe he wasnt anywhere near his prime. GRIFFITH (not Griffin) was not better than a prime Eubank when he fought Briscoe either. Names mean nothing without context. As for the Monzon fight, in Argentina at the time if the points spread was within a certain degree fights were automatically called a draw. A fighter had to have a significant advantage in the points to be declared a winner. This is why you see so many draws on the records of fighters from Argentina during the 1960s. So youve named three fighters who Briscoe fought five fights against and his record in those fights was 1-2-2 (two of those fights, Monzon 1 and Gregory, were when both fighters were not yet at their peak, 2 more (Griffith) were when the fighter was well past his prime and Im supposed to think hes some solid favorite over a prime Eubank?? No.

 

Eddie most certainly was clearly better than Eubank at his best.

 

I completely agree...but Klompy will never admit when he's wrong.

 

Even if you believe that (and I dont) are you going to sit here and argue that Eddie was at his best when he faced Briscoe?? After all, that was why his name was brought up in the first place. Again, just looking at names on a record with no context is pointless. If you want to argue that the middleweight Eddie Gregory who lost to Cabrera, drew with Cohen, and was dropped hard twice by Rosa and was only 15 fights into his career was as good as a prime Eubank then we can end this discussion because thats an asinine statement.

 

2 years (to the day) later I agree. Eubank would win. I’m not happy about it…but yeah, I think he wins

 

You made the statement Eddie wasn't clearly better than Eubank at his best. I disagreed as did another.

I made no comment about Eddie being at his best when he fought Briscoe.