Eubank Sr has a pop at YOU!

Chris Eubank Sr on Critics, Jr, Benn, Froch, Toney and Hamed and more


Eubank on Benn III critique:

I read the forums and I read the comments, though it's a minority of a few dozen fans.

Five years ago, I was schooling Chad 'Bad' Dawson quite easily in full-contact sparring in Vegas.

I still keep fit, I'm 48, and I see Bernard Hopkins in his 50s doing it. Nigel Benn hasn't fought for 20 years, I doubt he's sparred for 20 years, in fact I doubt he even sparred 20 years ago. His constitution would not have improved with old age.

It's a concrete victory. If I came back it would be for myself, because I miss the excitement and challenge of absorbing a punch that should render a man unconscious, and my motivation is now to break Floyd Mayweather's one-night earnings record. He set that standard and I want to smash it and I believe we can.

The stumbling block is Nigel not accepting 60/40 in my favour.


Eubank on Jr's focus:

We're preparing for the Gennady Golovkin fight, our thoughts are centered around Mr Golovkin. We are working on moves and techniques to out-maneuver him. We're already getting ready for him.

Again, I read comments online, and that will just make the victory more bitter-sweet for Christopher and I.


Eubank on Froch:

Carl Froch is a warrior and a gentleman, I have the utmost respect and like for Carl, he was the ironman. He was a tremendously fit and strong athlete, who never shied from a challenge from 25 to 35, and was always the last man standing or finishing on top, be it England, America or Europe, wherever and whoever.

He made his statement. And he's a genuinely lovely guy. But my era was totally different; required to fight every one and a half to two months against absolutely starving North and South Americans, a Nigel Benn who's power and aggression was incomparable and a Michael Watson in our second fight who had lightweight pace with heavyweight strength, or your Whartons who could absorb everything and keep steaming in til the end of the 12th, leaving you urinating blood.


Eubank on James Toney:

Toney was technically about as solid as any fighter you would wish to observe. He was poetic with his inside defensive evasions into choppy head counters, his subtle switching from head to body and so on.

But there was also a very dark edge about him. He was a very angry, very fearless young man. He would punch with bad intentions.

And I would never have dodged this or any man, but thankfully he was never mandatory contender for my title, and I can say thankfully in hindsight because I might be in worse health today had the fight occurred.

As far as who would win? Physically, I would've worked on maneuvering around him, and psychologically I would've worked on getting beneath the mans skin to try to throw him off technically. The truth is I don't know. It would've been very close and extremely hard for both.

Though he may of came in in poor condition, doing the weight wrong or what not. Who knows? We don't know. You, the aficianado, can only but speculate.


Eubank on Hamed:

Naz had a lot of talent, a lot of natural speed. I don't think he lost hunger, I think he started being on the wrong end of the punches and didn't like it.

It's about taking it as well as giving it, for lasting respect, because they tend to remember your last fight and the course tends to go like this: rave reviews on the way up, which we all had, then the championship victory and reign, then the losses, then the beatings.

It's if you can accept and embrace the losses and beatings as well as you accepted and embraced the hype and glory.

He was Herol Graham-schooled with pound-for-pound power, and full of youth and innocence and vigor. His achievements speak for themselves, but he doesn't get the lasting respect he could have because he didn't complete his journey.

 

The North Americans Froch fought were very highly paid in the Super Six (as was Froch), not as tough or desperate as a Thornton, Giminez or Lindell. They were pawing matches compared to Eubank and opposition.