The Eubank Snr myth

Wharton was a better fighter that night v Eubank than any super-middleweight challenger of Jones, Calzaghe or Ward in their defences, flat-out from first bell whereas he froze against Benn til the sixth, and took such a beating from Eubank he could never quite be the same

 

This content is protected

 

Frampton v Warrington? Taylor v progais?

 

Not ridiculously huge punches/damage. That's the beauty of the middleweights I guess, not out cold like heavies or phone booth volume of lighter weights.

 

Eubank was the goods. No doubt about it. If anything he deserves more respect than he gets. Think peoples minds are clouded because hes not really well liked nowadays. But in his day he was a seriously hard man. You dont beat nigel benn and watson if your not.

I still say it was much harder back then than it is nowadays. You look at say froch s resume around british level to get to the americans or world ranked guys and your mostly looking at part time fighters etc. Guys that are pretty basic in terms of skill. Then you,ve got eubank fighting benn and watson just to be the best in britain. Even lesser guys on eubsnks resume all had very good skillsets. Nowadays you look at some guys and are quite impressed if they have a good jab or one has good footwork or another can hook off the jab etc. Back then you had guys thst could do all 3 and still be seen as average guys.

Find it astonishing anyone csn watch eubank v benn and think either of them are overated or get more respect than they should.

 

Watching Carl Froch for instance, I never seen him double a hook, bob and weave, catch a jab or throw a sharp combination. Ever.

The difference in skill is so vast from them days to nowadays. The proof is a near 50 year old Hopkins from that era doing push-ups between rounds against modern fighter Pascal, and schooling him.

 

Lol...… I'm all for the sweet science but if you didn't enjoy that fight then your following the wrong sport

 

So what... there's also seeing something beautiful about seeing a fighter overcome serious amount of adversity and go on to win a fight.

Froch showed he could win a fight behind a jab.... but who cared. Thousands if not more got enjoyment out when he had tear ups and put it on the lines against Pascal, Jermain Taylor, Kessler x2, Groves, Bute etc he was a throwback.

I couldn't give a **** if Froch didn't prance around behind a jab looking for the perfect shot, he provided entertainment time and time again.

 

You've never watched the Eubank v Benn fights yet you call yourself a boxing fan.... ok

 

His personality was greater than his ability.

 

This content is protected

 

I find it hard to trash someone who beat
Benn
Watson x 2
Undefeated Rocchigiani
Malinga
Some real top tier fighters right there.
Eubank was a tough as they come awkward but when it all came together he was top class.

Would Eubank, Benn and Watson struggled against someone like Jones Jnr- course they would - everyone did but they still had huge meaningful fights on the world stage. It's probably a quirk of the times that all 3 were British and at the top of the division around the same time. When has that happened since?

 

Didn't lose until his 44th fight with eight-figure pounds in his bank (hideous money back then), altered the way fighter and manager/promoter did business. Fought the top 10 contenders and mandatories, as frequently and well traveled as Joe Louis and Ray Robinson but in the 90s.

If anyone mastered and changed boxing it was him.

 

One person attended the "Eubanks life matters" rally this weekend.

 

How can anyone respect any person who earns £20m + and spunks the lot.

Hamed kept all his wealth, Eubank was a fool.