I run into this problem too, "explaining things" can easily be interpreted as "making excuses". At the same time, plenty of people do make excuses about why fighters lost. There's a fine line between the two. It really comes down to how credible the reasons are. There's poor excuses and then there's "excuses" you could say that really are based in fact and reality and explain why something happened.
I understand if he feels as though he was overrated. But everyone knows that he wasn’t the same fighter after the Watson rematch.
That was the referee's fault. Watch it. Watson didn't know where he was at the beginning of the last round, and couldn't defend himself. The fight should not have been allowed to continue. It's the referee who should feel bad about it. Same with Kovalev-Simikov and Griffith-Paret. And Watson did eventually recover. He's not dead like Simikov nor permanently mentally disabled like McClennan. If Eubank was so guilt-ridden, why did he raise his son to be a boxer? Eubank had 26 title fights, nearly all with home country advantage, mostly against very soft opposition. He lost five, and had two draws. Win over Nigel Benn - his only good win Headbutted for a win over Sherry from Canada, dodgy ref should have DQed Eubank. Gary Stretch a mediocre opponent Michael Watson another UK level opponent, Eubank got a gift decision in their first fight Thulani Malinga mediocre boxer who was robbed by Eubank's hometown judges John Jarvis mediocre, had been KOed in his previous fight Ron Essett another soft opponent Tony Thornton, Juan Carlos Gimenez, Lindell Holmes: bum of the month tour with home advantage Ray Close mediocre opponent, yet Eubank was held to a draw Nigel Benn again, a draw Mauricio Amaral, Sam Story, Dan Schommer, Henry Wharton: bum of the month tour #2 Then lost twice to Steve Collins, then to Joe Calzaghe, then twice to Carl Thompson Collins had previously had a world title fight against a top opponent in the USA, namely Mike McCallum. Eubank would never travel to the USA to defend his WBO belt, although I remember James Toney called him out.
I’m not disputing any of the above. But there was a visible difference in his fights afterwards. That’s common knowledge.
Sorry for the late reply. I just couldnt will myself to be bothered with some of these old debates, although that is not a reflection on your good self I am only SMW, not all title fights and in answer to what you wrote, Eubank has a fantastic SMW resume regardless of some of the performances, which are bound to not all be sterling when having so many so regularly Of course Eubank often had home advantage, he was the champion. Often the challengers travel to face the champ. Still Eubank didnt have home advantage when he went to Germany to face Rocchigiani. With what you have written, I am not sure you are familiar with the names at the time. So in brief Watson draw with WBC SMW champ Benn in a big unification Malinga a future WBC SMW champ Holmes a world rated former IBF SMW champ Thornton who after losing to Eubank was deemed suitable enough a world title challenger to SMW champs J Toney (a year later) and R Jones (3 years later) Jarvis and Essett were top decent SMWs when Eubank beat them As was Wharton Rocchigiani an undefeated relinquished IBF SMW champ Schommer all though hadnt any big wins was an undefeated fighter with many wins Gimenez was a decent contender at the time and deemed good enough to have chalenged for a SMW title previously and challenged again on at least 2 more occassions I can recall Of course the above is brief but gives an idea (in effect Eubank was WBO champ, drew with the WBC champ and beat the IBF champ)
Which means he boiled down to SMW Also he wasnt undefeated. I dont rate that win as good as Eubanks over undefeated Rocchigiani
Sorry for the late reply. I just couldnt will myself to be bothered with some of these old debates, although that is not a reflection on your good self Based on what? He had a short but good run at SMW and arguably scored one of the best if not the best win of the division