Yeah Watson was unlucky in they first fight not to win. But has Gooners!!! said Eubank did seem to have a knack of winning close decisions. Good point about Watson though, makes you wonder what his career might have turned out like if it was'nt tragically cut short. The McCallum fight hurt him a bit too. In all of Eubanks big fights he definatley performed well though win, lose or draw. Something which has to be considered when putting him up against Froch. Definatley quicker than Froch, with sharp straight counter punches. Could be a major factor. Eubanks chin was one of the best ever, it goes without saying.
Nigel Benn vs Chris Eubank I, is bigger than all of Carl Froch's fight put together. Chris Eubank was not lucky to win the second Michael Watson fight, he never gave up fighting and turned the fight around. What happened in that second fight was a tragedy, but Chris Eubank never gave up and sparked Michael Watson. Chris Eubank has beaten better fighters than Carl Froch. End of debate.
Yeah, infact I think Steve Collins said, on live and dangerous, that he felt the McCallum fight is what did the damage to Watson.
Pascal, Dirrell, Taylor, Reid and Magee are far superior than anyone Eubank has beaten other than Benn (who's probably inferior to Pascal), Rocchigiani (who is inferior to all the above but Magee), and Watson (who is around the same level as Pascal). Eubank's resume, considering the acclaim he wrongly gets, was well and truly ****. End of debate? - go slap yourself fool. Oh yes, my congratulations to Eubank for getting dominated against a fighter who may well have had a pre-existing brain injury. Good work!
Who's the bigger fighter...? Carl Froch or Chris Eubank. Chris Eubank has fought and won bigger fights. Nigel Benn is better than every single fighter Carl Froch has ever faced, that cancels everything out. Chris Eubank is a legend, Carl Froch is not. End of Debate.
How ****ing moronic are you exactly? How about we celebrate the legends that are Buster Douglas and Anthony Mundine as they won "big fights". If you're gonna make a frankly, massively incorrect statement, you better be providing some evidence. So convince me that Benn is better than either Pascal or Kessler. Seriously you imbecile, go fist yourself. Wtf happened to natural selection anyway?
Eubanks fights with Benn and Watson, and then his past his peak displays against Collins, Calzaghe and Thompson make him more than worthy of the acclaim he gets. Let's not forget how badly the Watson tragedy effected Eubank during his prime years. Saying his resume is **** is just silly man. Just the Benn and Watson fights alone make this statement redundant. Some fighters don't even have one fight like these to call upon. I could mention a few modern names, especially in the h/weight division.
You've got to be ****ing kidding me! The majority of Eubanks half-decent performances came after the Watson fight. Benn and Watson were good fighters, but it doesn't make a top resume. Noone is saying that Eubank was a protected fighter, but..... actually, you know what, I am saying that.
Well that's your opinion even though i feel it's tainted with a hint of dislike for Eubank. But the fights i mentioned and the courage Eubank showed in them, like i say a lot of fighters don't even have one fight like this. Yeah he could of had a few more big fights, but i think in his career he showed enough to be worthy of the plaudits he gets.