How Technically Good Was Chris Eubank

He did things very much his own way from what he learnt in the US gyms. He developed a style that worked for him, a lot of it was awkwardness. There is no right or wrong, there is only the way that works.

I wouldn't say he's a technician of any kind because when you talk of technicians you want to be referring to a guy that does the fundamentals extremely well, textbook almost. The sort of guy you wouldn't mind showing a rank novice to learn some of the basics from. You wouldn't teach a beginner the stuff Eubank does neccessarily because he get might get sparked.

Mike McCallum was a true technician in its purest form.

 

He had certain awkward moves but technically he was okay. He became great on intangiables more than technically.

 

I thought defensivley he was great... His range and style was great...

He was a great fighter who did everything his own way...:yep

How he made the weight for so long was amazing, although in his book his method of making the weight was very grim...:yep

Eubank was huge at the weight, it was a great era for British Boxing...:good

 

eubank was a strong technical stylist, but more in the loose style of the Panamanian\Cuban greats, rather the more typically classic boxer-puncher approach you will see from Many mexican, American and to a lesser extent Euro fighters.

A lot of his defensive work was very correct, and executed at a very high level of proficiency...top-notch upperbodymovent.


Again with footwork when on the backfoot and pivoting, and offensively he was also mostly close to the established way of doing things.Anyone wanting to know how to throw proper uppercuts from any position could do worse than watch him fight.

That said, he also had a few notable flaws, as well as the typical unorthodox quirks that worked for him, which you'll see from most world class fighters.In other words he wasn't someone doing everything by the book all the time like a Ricardo Lopez.

He didn't have good footwork or balance while punching, when being forced to become the consistent aggressor.This was his main technical flaw.

Often cuffed a bit with the leftr-hook and could be lazy and wing his punches, epsecially a ridiculous looking overhand right, though he was just as capable of tighening things up and being very sharp with the right.

Also because he was a good defensive fighter with top reflexes and trust in his chin, he would sometimes just lean and sway sway from punches like Herol Graham or Nunn..something that will get less talented fighters knocked out.

 

Very simply:

Excellent jab, very good lateral movement. Didn't have a huge variety of punches and he moved forward like an elephant. Oh yes, and his overhand right often was terribly slow and sloppy.

 

Not technically good enough to beat steve collins.

 

in terms of throwing shots I'd say he his punches were all very text book. His footwork was unusual though, similar to bally dancing almost. His head movement was good and he could fight well both from the outside and inside.

 

A very hard, tough man.
And a nice guy

 

Sometimes the hardest punches Chris took were the slaps from Ronnie!!!

 

He had a very individual style of fighting which is none surprising considering his ring personae

 

So-so.

His punching was at times very very good, good wave of movement from toe to knuckle - esp in earlier fights against plodders on a stoppage run. Against better fighters as champ, he had to mix in sneakier, less technical blows just to land and score and the hardest blows were more desperate, less technical than the shots he'd unload on the punchbags coming up. He clearly had very good mechanics of boxing if you watch his early bouts like Logan, Smith, Contreras.

I liked his sneaky overhand right punch that he liked to bring in occasionally, leaning and dipping in with the right hand, similar to Hopkins. Benn and Watson stayed up from it, but were soon stopped thereafter - that punch set them up I believe; Eubank wouldn't have won those fights without it! Jarvis, Storey and Barratuebena went down like a sack of spuds from it. The sturdy Lindell Holmes, somehow stayed up and lasted out.

I also liked his short right uppercut, blasted up completely untelegraphed. Big Ray Close went down like a sack of spuds from it I remember.

But in terms of balance and movement, he was odd. Fine on the backfoot (ring generalship masterful and lateral movement impressive), but really quite awful on the frontfoot. He didn't seem to know how to cut off the ring or close the gap down, or be able. His reflexes were some of the best, defensively he was fine. But he was far from textbook in his stance or his general approach.

He was often too robotic, prone to punching singularly and had a tendency to slap the hook; but against Benn (1) and Wharton his combinations just flowed, almost like I haven't seen combinations flow.