I ask this as someone posted on another thread that Eubank never fought on the world stage, even though he fought Watson, Benn, Calzaghe etc etc
it must be another name for america, a bit like " the world series " even though nobody else plays rounders after you get to 11 years old.
eubank v benn had a uk tv audience of 17,000,000 and a live gate of 40,000 cannot get much more high profile than that.
I think they mean that you fight the best in your division from other countries around the world( mainly America). Benn went to America and fought Barkley, DeWitt etc. whereas eubanks only fought people in the UK and Ireland.
Eubank fought lots of fights in the US early in his career. Does that mean RJJ never fought on the world stage?
So was Pavlik V Taylor a world stage fight? 2 americans in america. What was it? 10,000 attendence? Not much ''world'' to it at all.
What is it with you and your obsession with the number of attendees at a given bout. What's your point? Everytime a big fight is even mentioned you go ranting on and on about how it needs to take place somewhere other than the US because the stadiums are larger or the cities are bigger...get off it already.
ok, forget the attendence, Pavlik V Taylor 2 americans fighting in america - is this the world stage? how is it more 'world stage' than Eubank V Benn in England?
Your basing this off the beliefs of an individual who in his own right feels Eubank vs Benn was not the world stage for his own particular reasons. Maybe he was not able to see the fight live because it did not broadcast here in the states? I pretty sure Pavlik vs Taylor II was a much more accessible fight for the Euro audience.
Eubank fought in Germany, Scotland, South Africa, Ireland, United Arab Emirates and Egypt. But of course he only fought in America at the start of his carear. Poor lad never got to travel the 'world'
Pavlik / Taylor 2 was fought in front of 7,000 people in a half empty MGM. In front of a few hundred thousand on tv. Eubank / Benn 2 had 40,000 in attendance live and 17m watching in the UK alone. It's pretty simple to work out which fight got more coverage.
No, I think "world-stage" depends more on the signifigance of the fight who's fighting and most importantly the fights veiwing availibility. I guess its a combonation. But yes I will admit many Americans do feel the world stage consists of taking on an American fighter on American soil. The fact that you may not recognize the US as being the optimum stage to showcase your talents for the world to see is merely your personal opinion it doent take away the fact that many people around the world still consider the US a top media source heaven for ultimate exposure. I guess its a matter of personal opinion and or preference.