Rank these top brits

Well......

Benn's style didn't really make for a long career - whilst Eubank's following the second Watson fight did.

Not taking anything at all away from Steve Collins, but even he would admit that he wouldn't have beaten either of them had they been in their prime - great bloke and good fighter that he was.

It could be argued that Benn beat Eubank in the rematch - I certainly think so having watched it again, and would have loved a rubber match.

Could be worth throwing Herol Graham into the mix.......

Talent - huge
Skills - huge
Legacy - next to nothing

 

Resume:
Lewis
Hamed
Benn
Calzaghe
Hatton
Eubank






Overall Talent:
Hamed
Calzaghe
Lewis
Benn
Hatton
Eubank






Legacy:
Lewis
Calzaghe
Hamed
Benn
Hatton
Eubank

 

Resume:
Lewis
Calzaghe
Eubank
Hatton
Hamed
Benn

Overall Talent:
Calzaghe
Lewis
Benn
Hatton
Eubank
Hamed

Legacy:
Lewis
Calzaghe
Benn
Hatton
Eubank
Hamed

 

Fair enought if that's your view.

The loses to Collins at the end of Benn's career were obviously because he was gone - he knew it, and retired. If any fighter carries on they are sooner or later they are going to pick up losses; does that somehow lesson what they did before - maybe it does, but perhaps shouldn't do.

Another point, on Eubank beating Benn: For example - Tarver beat Roy Jones - does that mean he has a better resume then Roy - no it doesn't.

 

I don't see how anyone can put Eubank's resume anywhere higher than bottom. Ditto with legacy. And overall talent. Also, people underestimate Hamed's resume, and this comes from someone who HATES Hamed.

 

I don't see how ANYBODY can put Eubank below Hatton for overall talent. Why are we talking like Eubank was some caveman type? He was very skilled and talented.

Hatton is the least talented by a distance. He can not box. He is a brawler that relies on physical elements. This was made absolutely clear at welterweight where his strength was no longer working for him and he had to actually box.

 

I agree:good

Pretty much irrefutable I would say.

 

Eubank had a complete and total inability to fight off the front foot and his moving going forward was poor. He seldom put fluent combos together (until late on in his career) and I put his lack of work rate down to a lack of stamina. Hatton is a better pure boxer than people give him credit for (and he's second bottom of my list)

 

How is he better than what we give him credit for?

His entire gameplan is to rush in, hold, make angles to punch to the body and wait til the ref breaks them up. Every ****er he throws is a hook, there is little variety, and a lot of holding. Maybe I'm missing something regarding his skillset to give him credit for, but thats what I see every time.

Eubank is a counterpuncher, he doesn't want to come forward just as Hatton can't go backwards, and in the end he never got hit as much as Hatton. Technically he is far more skilled, physically maybe not, power about equal (although I'd go for Eubank early in his career), and ring IQ certainly goes to Eubank.

 

Technically it's marginal - Hatton can box if he wanted to, as witnessed versus Ben Tackie. Power definitely goes to Hatton, ring IQ goes to Eubank (it's the ONLY real strength of his - apart from his chin). But Hatton's WHOLE offensive arsenal is superior to Eubanks apart from Eubank's chronically underused jab.

Eubank couldn't fight going forward at all, if his opponent didn't go chasing him, he was completely and totally lost. Hatton is a B grade fighter against all types of fighters, while Eubank was A- against powerful brawlers and a C grade fighter against any other type of fighter. Seriously, name two genuinely good performance against a fighter that was not a brawler....

 

Also, remember how Eubank, and a old as hell Eubank at that gave Carl Thompson a lot of trouble at cruiserweight. Two weights and a lot of lbs above where he started.

Whereas prime Hatton when he moved up just 7lbs went life and death with a guy he was expected to beat easily, and knocked out by Mayweather who hadn't knocked anybody out for ages.

This is indicative of the respective boxing skill the two have. Physical attributes are negated up in weight, and Hatton couldn't deal with it. Eubank has more pure boxing skill by a mile.

 

You make it sound as if Carl Thompson was a brilliant fighter - he wasn't. He was a hard-punching offensive fighter with a dodgy chin and a great heart. Nothing more. Therefore made for a version of Eubank who had declined far less than people like to imagine.

Eubank was a far better defensive fighter than Hatton, granted. But Thompson was yet another brawler. When I look at it, Eubank looks more and more protected. Oh yes, and I must inform you that Eubank lost those fights. Hatton beat Collazo, who is surely a better overall fighter than Thompson ever was. He was lucky, and took a beating, but he won. I'm not denying that Hatton was very seriously over-reliant on his physical strength at 140.

BTW you still haven't answered my question in my previous post....