Eubank Overrated?

Dude, you just made a thread dedicated to Benn like a religious zealot and calling Eubank overrated, shut the **** up, you're enjoying bias right now, go recap.

 

Benn is more accomplished. I wouldn't argue against that, because I'm arguing a different point. Not who is more accomplished but that they are not far apart, and to praise the virtues of one and criticize and call the other overrated seems a bit strange to me. Not least because they are remembered as one in reality which tells its own story, they made each other in a lot of respects and that wouldn't happen if they were wide apart.

My own personal opinion is that Benn was slightly more accomplished and that Eubank was slightly the better fighter that had consistency issues. At his absolute best he was better, but he could dip a lot further at the same time. In my mind the difference between Eubank's talent and Benn's talent is like the difference between their achievements, there is little in it all round and I think they are generally considered in the same echelon.

 

Not really, its just a fact of life, isn't it? Some people go further than others with the same tools at their disposal. If there was a significant margin between them in either aspect it would be something I'd look at closely, but at the end of the day Eubank is still a very highly regarded boxer so we could hardly call him a waster.

The man in your avatar is an extreme example of completely wasting his talent, whereas with Eubank its more of a case of 'could have done more..' which is the same for so many others in this sport.

 

I'd defend Benn if you did things in reverse. That's just the way I see them, two peas in a pod.

The main disapointment for me is Eubank didn't fight Toney. I think of the two Eubank had a REAL shot to beat James Toney, and if he did he'd probably be universally regarded as a great fighter, rather than just a respected one.

 

No he isnt.

He was quite a bit past prime when he lost those fights, he actually gets credit for how he fought against Carl Thompson, if anything he improved his standing, tough tough guy.

 

He had two fights with Carl Thompson, the first was very close. He did better against a younger version of Carl Thompson than Haye did against an older one. Great boxer and entertainer.

 

Just imagine if Eubank had actually stepped in and finished Collins and Thompson in the first fights of these rivalries. He had both in big trouble, and pissed away his advantage by showing off. Add to that the stoppages of Benn and Watson in absolute classics, and Eubank would go down as an absolute legend of British boxing. I mean, he would have beaten more world class Brits than anyone else, I would think.

Eubank seemed to have poor stamina, an undisciplined style, but bags of talent and moments of real inspiration where he looked like he could rescue a lost cause.

Obviously, the terrible events after the Watson rematch perhaps took his killer instinct away. But it's not smart to let an opponent back into the fight, not when they're going to be the stronger man down the stretch.

 

I think people who know their boxing rate him fairly, just outside a top 10 british ATG list.

His solid chin and awkwardness means he ranks high H2H. Although to be honest his dislike of body shots and sometimes lackadaisical approach mean he's no Hagler/Monzon when it comes down to it.

Good fighter was Eubank, mentally shot after the Watson tragedy meant he slipped a bit but overall, a top 20 british fighter who wasn't an ATG, but certainly a formidable prescence who could bang when he wanted to. Not overrated IMO.

 

Yes, nearly as many gifts as Sven Ottke received. Some of the biggest joke decisions i've ever seen in my life happened in Eubank bouts (the Amaral and Schommer decisions were a disgrace to any sport). A fine fine fighter when pressured but terrible on the front foot, that stupid,looping wide-right hand he'd throw had a postcard on it it was so slow, culimanting in him nearly falling to the floor off-balance.