McClellan vs Eubank

Discussion in 'World Boxing Forum' started by emallini, Jun 8, 2010.


  1. emallini

    emallini Boxing Junkie banned Full Member

    11,274
    2,538
    Mar 16, 2008
    Who would have won
     
  2. Imperial1

    Imperial1 VIP Member Full Member

    54,515
    121
    Jan 3, 2007
    I'd go with Eubank
     
  3. pretty boy

    pretty boy Well-Known Member Full Member

    1,621
    2
    Jun 30, 2009
    Mcclelland. He had him badly hurt in the first round but i think he was fuked before the end of the fight and it kept getting worse. U cud see him change all of a sudden after the first round, sumthin was wrong.
     
  4. Scottish

    Scottish Khan(t) take a punch Full Member

    2,728
    70
    Mar 10, 2010
    What are you talking about man, McClellan has never fought Eubank so how could he have hurt him badly in the first round, that was Benn you drunk paddy.
     
  5. boxefan

    boxefan Member Full Member

    122
    0
    Sep 29, 2009
    You know exactly what he is talking about. Why don't you simply remind him that the fight he is talking about was with Benn, instead of trying to be smart?
     
  6. atberry

    atberry Boxing Junkie banned Full Member

    9,548
    19
    Sep 30, 2009
    I think McClellan's overarm rights would be effective against Eubank, who liked to dip and lean, though they wouldn't catch him cleanly. But if it came to standing off and boxing, Eubank was looser and deceptively rangier with better defensive reflexes, better lateral foot movement.

    It would come down to standing off and boxing, because the pace would have to slow at some point if McClellan started off fast, which he may have not anyway.

    Eubank on points is most likely.