Froch vs Eubank?

Froch has definitely fought more of the higher-rated supermiddles of his time compared to Eubank, but i think overall Eubank probably still fought the better fighters if we include the bouts with Benn and Watson at middle.

The past years at supermiddle have been very competitive and entertaining, but more because you had a lot of decent fighters on a similar level.G

If we look at both fighters best wins, guys like Kessler when Froch fought him, or jermaine Taylor aren't better than Eubank's better defences against Malinga, Watson, Thornton, Rocchigiani etc

Bute, Pascal, Groves, Dirrell....all very flawed fighters.Not really any better than a Henry Wharton.

I would look at how each match up against the other stylistically, instead of doing the opposition thing here, and in that respect i think Eubank has the edge.

Froch is slow of foot and often hand too.He's not the kind of the fighter that is going to pressure at a quick, steady pace and take advantage of Eubank's dubious stamina.

Nor is he the kind of cautious mover or textbook minimalist that would force Eubank to lead\come forward throughout and take advantage of his huge flaw in being..well, among the worst ever very good world class fighter at doing that.

Instead Froch wins through his toughness, good power and awkward delivery while trading at ring-centre..assuming he can't outbox the opponent with his decent long jab and ranginess, which i can't see here.Eubank is no Abraham.

Eubank on the other hand is pretty comfortable against awkward, unorthodox punches and slips all sorts of shots well and is very comfortable being the counterpuncher in a ring-centre fight, or making a slow footed fighter that likes to trade plod forward.

Take both at 168 best form, and i see Eubank as too sharp a counterpuncher, too quick and elusive to be outpointed by Froch.Accurate straight punchers with very good jabbing ability like Watson, Rocky and Malinga had real trouble landing anything flush on Eubank in that sort of fight and i don't see Carl's telegraphed shots doing too well.

Then if he tries to abandon fencing, walk Eubank down and up the tempo a bit? imo he's too much of a plodder to really pin down Eubank or set the pace needed to tire him out.I've never seen him really able to throw consistent quality punches against a mobile opponent that was any good.Even Taylor was able to matador him comfortably(a far inferior mover and backfoot fighter to Eubank) until he tired.

I think if he presses the issue it'll end up in a Wharton sort of fight, where he just gets steadily countered and turned.Not easy, but very clear for Eubank.

btw, i thought Eubank was clearly undersized at Cruiser against the cat.he more or less countered Carl to death in the first half of those fights, then Thompson just steamrolled him physically.175 would have been ideal for weight drainer Eubank, but unfortunately we never saw him spend any time there.Those cruiser fights were a BAD idea in retrospect, whereas at 175 he could have had another 3-5 years left as a very good fighter imo.

 

Never said he was, but he fights at world level. Eubank was a great talent, but he didn't fight the best fighters of his era.

I does. I picked Eubank to win, as I said I think his size and strenght would trouble Froch. But I don't see how you can claim that Eubank was a level above, when and how did he prove that?

 

That's how I feel about Froch; he is deceptively effective.

 

I didn't say it.

 

If both guys came prepared its a 50/50 fight, neither one of these guy's gets stopped but i lean toward Froch due to his aggression and higher workrate, this is not the fight to lay personal possessions on...

They are both better than Benn, and not as good as Andre Ward.

 

water weight. Froch has no water retention because he always eats clean and stays lean, no yo-yo'ing. He has a large frame yet light bone structure.

 

Didn't mean to imply that you did, my mistake. But when I stated that Eubank wasnt the best supermiddle in the world it was in response to other people claiming he was a level above Froch.

 

Eubank was clearly the best super-middle in the world from 1991 til James Toney moved up in '93.

 

Nunn looked poor at the weight, Van Horn was a coward against Barkley and Barkley looked poor at the weight, too.

 

For the record, Toney's performance against Barkley is probably the best display of skill I've ever seen in a boxing ring.

 

That is not clear at all. Chris was only the wbo champ, and didnt face any top level guys. Watson was talanted but was ko'd the one time he faced a world class opponent. Who else did he face to prove he was the man at the weight? Nunn was the lineal champ and clearly the more acomplished fighter.

Eubank is a bit of an enigma to me. He looked so good at times but could also be lazy and lose to fighters I thought he should beat. His opposition was really subpar alot of the times too, and the one time he faced a true world class fighter in Calzhage he was already passed it in my opinion so I don't think it is possible to draw any conclusions on how good he was from that.

 

Surely world title holders are truly world-class? Benn, Rocchi, Malinga, Holmes were all world champions before, during or after Eubank fought them and multi-times champions. Thornton in his prime only lost to the best lb4lb fighters. And Essett clearly beat Galvano for the WBC. For me Eubank dealt with Watson in their first fight more impressively than all-time top-20 (at his peak) McCallum did in the first five rounds; Watson landed countless rights against Mike but couldn't even touch Eubank with a jab.

 

Eubanks sudden strength loss after five rounds in that first Watson fight was due to losing his record 19lb in four days and fighting a few hours after weighing in!