Eubank: Calzaghe/Froch/Benn were LUCKY

On fight night, money flooded in for Calzaghe as they had been hyping the fight and showing his dominance to get to the point he was. You can even hear the crowd go almost as nuts for him as they did for Eubank which was unheralded at the time.

You can go review Ring Magazine's piece in 2007 about Calzaghe's ten years of dominance at SMW which discusses the fact that he was an underdog versus Eubank

 

"Nonsense" that has been printed in Ring Magazine, within Calzaghe biography and within actual bets made on the night?

Did you even bet on the fight?

 

Versus an obscure reference around "Some bookies have Calzaghe as favorite" in commentary from the UK fight team? Cmon now.

Many fights back then (prior to things such as the internet, centralised books and other such things) meant you could go to one book and get odds on someone to win the fight and go across town and get the same odds on that person to lose the fight - hedge betting, one of the things that caused a centralised book system with most bookies feeding into the same knowledge set and not trying to "compete"

 

This guy always changes his story about everything, recently in an interview he said Benn hit him the hardest.

 

Exactly my point, he squarks a different story every time he's interviewed and can't be trusted when he talks about "oh I was injured for that fight, I would have won if not for that"

There are many conflicting stories that Eubank has told but at the time, in the press conferences and through interviews with media like BBC, he described Calzaghe's strength as unbelievable and that he had never been hit so hard in a fight as he was when he got knocked down in the first.

He also commented on Calzaghe carrying power late into the fight, with the punch causing Eubank to touch his gloves to the canvas in Round 10 also rating high on the scale.

Since, Eubank has done interviews stating that Benn hit harder than even Carl Thompson at Cruiserweight but of course he'll do that, it suits his purpose to prop a fighter he beat, over one he could not.

 

I've given you multiple references, including interviews, biographies, the actual edition of Ring Magazine which discussed it.

What have you given me, other than a throw away statement made that "Some bookies favor Calzaghe" ?

 

Oh please, you're just annoyed that your revisionist history doesn't stack up in reality.