Chris Eubank V James Toney

I adore Eubank, he's a true eccentric and was a brave, brilliant and honourable champion, but I just think the 91-94 middleweight pre-Jones version of Toney was a special fighter. There's no way Eubank could be stopped in those days, so I say Toney by close but certainly clear UD.

 

Did he have his jodpurs stolen???

I like how he was bankrupt but never sold his beast of a truck

160 I like Eubank

168 Toney would win

In my opinion....which means very little

 

Toney on points. Eubanks was like a piece of iron in the ring - but the counterpunching wizardry of James Toney would have cast a spell on the British champion.

 

Toney was far better at 160 than he was at 168 though. I know that may seem illogical given Toney's career-long weight battles, but if you've seen all of his fights you must agree he was better at 160. Then again, Eubank was better at 160 than he was at 168 too, so fair enough if you think Eubank could do it. Eubank was a brilliant middleweight.

 

I based my pick on Eubank's ability to take shots at MW cos he was a machine at 160 and so long as he was active.....he could win, that said he was rarely active for the full 12 rounds unless it was forced upon him, which I don't think it would be against a slick skillful guy like Toney

I think I said a few weeks ago that if they fought each other 12 times it would finish 6-6.....so I'm not 100% decided


How about at Cruiser when Eubank fought Thompson???

 

The Toney that beat Jirov would beat any cruiserweight since Evander Holyfield in the mid-late 80s IMO. And I even include David Haye in that, and I'm a big big fan of Haye. Eubank performed valiantly in those 2 fights, but the fact is he was facing an aged WBO champion who was never really a top top class fighter. Jirov was the best cruiserweight in the world at the time Toney fought him, and Toney beat him well. Eubank lost twice.

IMO, Eubank has a better chance at 160 than he does at smw or cruiser. 160 Eubank was better h2h than Calzaghe or Hatton or Hamed I think. Not as good as Lennox Lewis at heavy, but the next best British boxer h2h of the last 20 or so years.

 

Even when he fought at 168 against Calzaghe in that crossroads fight he looked more than decent.....he's one of my favourite boxers but I always feel he was rather lazy and the first Watson 'win' still annoys me

He's in the GB top 5 of the last 20 years for sure but I like Hamed more for fighting in the USA more than once......Calzaghe and Eubank is tough....the Benn victories are probably better than Calzaghe's best wins but he had more than one contentious win and a few too many losses.....

 

He only beat Benn once remember. For reasons I have neither the time nor the energy to go into (have written on the subject too often, too many "uppity essays"!), I do not rate Hamed very highly.

I just started a thread (with poll) in the British about our Eubank-Calzaghe question, I'd be interested what the British enthusiasts thought on that one.

 

Eubank was definitely guilty of being lazy and admiring his work instead of following it up....great fighter though....globally under appreciated

 

My mistake, I blame triedness......but the draw was as good as a win for him that night....very lucky to keep the belt

dislike for Hamed....mainly cos of his personality and unorthodox style....topped with the Barrera defeat????

There are plenty of reasons to dislike him....but I guess I was one of the guys who liked him....I got really into boxing by following the Prince