Was are your thoughts on Chris Eubank's style? American Elites would have beat him

i feel the same

 

First, I have to wonder why you even bothered to ask what people think about Eubank's style when you've clearly made up your mind that he was second rate anyway, and throwing in a shot at the "Brits" for rating one of their own highly - as if you Yanks dont do the same to your own fighters as well, even when they've proven less than elite - kind of makes me think this is a bit of a wind up.

Second, Eubank was never the best boxer as Michael Watson showed. Out of the three significant names in Britian in that weight area in the early 1990's, Benn was the worst boxer and Eubank was only one place ahead of him and both of them were inferior boxers to Watson. However Eubank achieved his success through perseverance, toughness and power. He could take the best shots his opponents could dish out, he could survive a thorough beating right from start to finish and had the power to hurt his opponents badly enough to stop them.

As for how he would do against the "Fab 3";

Eubank is certain he would have lost to Jones while Jones said that Eubank was the only fighter who would have given him trouble in his prime and my opinion is that Jones would have beat him by UD and relatively easilly

Toney had serious weight management problem at that level and, just like Eubank, lacked consistancy and didn't always turn up in his best condition. Their styles might have cancelled each other out since both preferred it when their opponent came to them rather than when they had to go forward, or they might have gotten involved in a tear up. Personally, I could see the fight going either way depending on which version of which fighter turned up, and if it was best verse best I'd give Toney the edge because he was more of a down-to-business fighter than the posturing Eubank and was more of an active fighter.

As for Hopkins, I think old-man Hopkins would be too cagey and would spoil the fight so badly that Eubank wouldn't be able to get going and so would win by UD, but physical-prime Hopkins would have a more competitive time of it. Again, I'd favor Hopkins to win but the young Hopkins wouldn't have an easy time of it.

 

There was no fab 3 it was toney and roy. Bhop was a bum. Calzaghe beat bhop, roy and eubanks....he would booty spank toney as well. Deal with it punk.

 

@ MAJR; excellent post. Its just another Brit bashing post from the author. Eubank was a quality operator, and yes RJJ recognised this.

 

Eubank was so tough, certainly none of the Americans would be able to hurt him unduly. Defensively clever too and he could hit like a jackhammer. Too often he chose to soak up punishment.

He didn't possess the skill to beat jones and Hopkins but he might find a way and its certainly not clear cut.

His biggest problem was he would be too lazy and give away too many rounds to Jones and Bhop.

 

The Benn, Eubanks and Roy Jones Jr can be answered with the name Thulane Malinga. Thulane Malinga was no joke, he was eff good really. When Thulane however fought Roy Jones Jr he got made to look like a nobody by Roy Jones.

 

Very unrythmic and awkward, pulling out of range a lot and stepping in with jabs. The right hand, leaning in with it is the way Hopkins throws the right hand too you berk! Difference being, Eubank didn't land with the head half the time!

Defensively Eubank was near-impeccable, very rarely hit cleanly and even more rare to see him hit with 2-3 shots on the turn - when you look carefully.

He could catch jabs in his open right glove at breakneck speed as easily as catching a ball thrown by a child, and block left hooks very well with the open right glove cupped to the side of his forehead, while serenely relaxed. He would evade jabs by moving his head just a fraction of an inch! And was so poker-faced when punches were coming at him - by comparison, Roy Jones would be turning his neck, looking away and even closing his eyes!

I thought he had a wonderful bob-and-weave and a wonderful left hook to the body but used neither very often, and an uppercut thrown from the sternum that jerked your head up - though he never seemed to follow-up with the right hand that was crying out to be thrown behind it!

Chris Eubank had the ability, but Didn't use it effectively or consistently - occasionally throwing a lazy, long, loopy right hand instead of anchoring his feet or leaping in, for instance, or lazily crossing his legs when coming forward. Maybe, if he fought these very best Americans like Toney and Nunn, maybe he WOULD have used his obvious ability effectively and consistently? Who knows.

Flashy feet, flashy flurries, to catch judges eyes - smart posing/strutting to catch breathers (that admittedly he did need, poor stamina due to poor weight-making). I guess he was limited in a way.

What was consistent was his defensive elusiveness and offensive unreadableness.

 

Sugar Boy looked equally ordinary against Eubank.

 

Eubank fought in the slick European style that fighters outside of Europe just cannot seem to work out, only other fighters from Europe who even if they dont adopt the style know how to counter it.
Eubank I think would have beaten Jones and Toney. Just look at their SMW resumes and Eubank is head and shoulder above

 

Eubank had nothing like the rigid, rhythmic European style. Hands held at stomach-height, fighting from a crouch; he was American-trained.

 

I agree, he fought in the slick European style

 

Eubank had a very lazy style always just doing the bare minimum to win a fight....always used to frustrate the hell out of me as he always seemed to be coasting in 3rd gear and had another 2 or 3 gears in the tank...

Was he as good as RJJ, probably not....but had one of the best chins of all time for a british fighter and had decent power all the way through to round 12....

I think he could of achieved more if he had a different attiuide

 

What slick European style is this?

 

Rather than me go through a long answer, have a look at this below

http://www.boxingforum24.com/showthread.php?t=485126