"To me, Sam is a domestic level fighter. I don't say that disparagingly, I say that as fact. "What can he do? I've outboxed the best boxers of the world's contenders in Holmes, Malinga and Essett. I've outfought the best fighters of the world's contenders in Rocchigiani, Watson and Benn. "There's nothing Sammy can show me, being a domestic level fighter. I've been equal best in the world in the best divisions since 1990 - not the very best, only equal best. "Mr Storey has only competed at domesticated level. So nothing suggests he's a threat to me, apart from the fact he's (a) southpaw. But I will put on a show." "I've had 49 fights and nobody has knocked me out, not even the world's hardest pound-for-pound punchers, so I don't see Joe doing it. "It's nasty and savage in the trenches and that's where I'm taking him." "I've looked at his (Calzaghe's) record and I don't recognize one name, so I question if he's even going to live with me. "I think he might - he has a great stoppage record so he can obviously bang, he has a great amateur record so he can obviously box, and he's (a) southpaw. "I'll give him three rounds then I'll look to knock him out."
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXDSMuGLO-s[/ame] [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4uvmHquZYA[/ame]
Kinda biting off his nose dispite his face here, with these comments about Sam Storey. All hes doing is exposing his reign for what it was, 90% cherry-picked opponents. Sam Storey was a decent,honest pro, with as much right to challenge the (least respected of the lot,at the time) WBO champion Eubank as half (or more) than his other challengers. Calzahges too.
Very true, although the fact he was so active around this time could be used in his defence (the quality of some opposition, not the decisions!) As while he was fighting bums he did also fight Rocchigiani, Benn, Wharton and Collins within a period of about 18 months, which would be considered a fairly decent resume by todays standards
The only reason he fought so often is the 10mill contract with Sky, plus his level of opposition. If he was fighting 'live' ones on aregular basis theres no way he would have fought as often
Eubank is what is good but also what is bad about boxing. Great memorable nights, incredible wars, fantastic hype but then there is the catastrophic injuries, dodgy decisions and poor defences.
I think the dodgy decision was against Dan Schommer. The other so-called dodgy ones I don't see as being dodgy at all, none of them. Infact, I thought Eubank was on the victim end of dodgy judging against Malinga, Close (I), Wharton and Collins (I).
He had plenty of gift decisions (Benn 2 being the most bogus), but Collins I he surely won. Never understood that decision.