Calzaghe fans pimp the Eubank win

Collapse
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • !! Anorak
    • Aug 2025
    • 4,530
    • 10,899
    • 0

    #41
    Originally posted by checkmania
    Will Brits stop thinking everyone is against their fighters. If a trend continues then it must honestly be true. British fighters for the most part have been overrated and usually do get exposed. The world doesnt hate your fighters just to hate them. John L Sullivan is like your greatest fighter.
    It's not that, it's just that a LOT of US posters think if they haven't seen a fighter on showtime or HBO they must automatically be ****. I'm not saying they're great, note... there's grey areas.

    Comment

    • IMDAZED
      Fair but Firm
      Franchise Champion - 20,000+ posts
      • May 2006
      • 42644
      • 1,134
      • 1,770
      • 67,152

      #42
      Originally posted by !! Anorak
      I reckon it is, actually. A lot of mediocre Fat Yanks seem to get in, seriously.

      If The Bank was a Yank (A Yank Bank) then I truly believe he'd be a lot higher regarded.

      Oh, I'm not suggesting that Joe Blow fought a prime Bank btw.
      This just about sums it up.

      Comment

      • IMDAZED
        Fair but Firm
        Franchise Champion - 20,000+ posts
        • May 2006
        • 42644
        • 1,134
        • 1,770
        • 67,152

        #43
        Originally posted by !! Anorak
        It's not that, it's just that a LOT of US posters think if they haven't seen a fighter on showtime or HBO they must automatically be ****. I'm not saying they're great, note... there's grey areas.
        That's great and all but you're talking to guys who have watched these fighters for many years. So please spare us the lame, "you never seen him fight before."

        YES WE HAVE.

        And not only do my eyes not lie, neither do the facts.

        Comment

        • !! Anorak
          • Aug 2025
          • 4,530
          • 10,899
          • 0

          #44
          Originally posted by IMDAZED
          This just about sums it up.
          In what way? If you've got something to say, say it.

          Comment

          • !! Anorak
            • Aug 2025
            • 4,530
            • 10,899
            • 0

            #45
            Originally posted by IMDAZED
            That's great and all but you're talking to guys who have watched these fighters for many years. So please spare us the lame, "you never seen him fight before."

            YES WE HAVE.

            And not only do my eyes not lie, neither do the facts.
            The fact is, 80% of the posters on this forum don't know ****. Most of them have only been watching boxing for a maximum of 2 years, most of them are uneducated (not just in the sport, but in all walks of life) and can't string two sentences together.

            You personally may claim to have seen fights, and I'll accept that, but that doesn't go for the majority.

            and what "facts"? What are your Bank Facts?

            Comment

            • abadger
              Real Talk
              Super Champion - 5,000-10,000 posts
              • Nov 2007
              • 6259
              • 242
              • 139
              • 13,256

              #46
              Originally posted by IMDAZED
              So? Eubank was far bigger than Hops and showed it by moving to cruiser next. So maybe head to head he wins but pound for pound he was LEAGUES behind.

              Hopkins is an all-time great and future Hall of Famer. Chris Eubank was a good fighter in his prime.

              But here you go again with your political "yeah he was better than him but not that much better."

              Come on, man. The Taylor win over Hops was heavily hyped for a reason--even though it wasn't much of a win (or one at all). The Calzaghe CLEAR victory over Eubank was IGNORED for a reason--mainly because everyone knew Eubank was done and, besides, when did Eubank become great?
              When I suggested that 1997 Eubank might beat the Hopkins that lost to Taylor, I meant pound for pound. As for 'better but not that much better', that is just me trying to be honest and realistic about boxers. Calzaghe's win over Eubank is extremely analogous to Taylor's over Hopkins, and I don't recall it being 'ignored' here in the UK, it made his name, which he let slip with some sub-par subsequent performances, and also affection for Eubank meant he wasn't taken to heart, a bit like Tarver after Jones.

              Again, here in the UK Eubank is widely regarded as a great boxer, he had some excellent wins over world class opposition in Benn and Watson who are arguably better than anyone Hopkins faced in his career other than Jones. Guys like Eastman and Joppy for example were not in their class, De La Hoya WAS too small and Trinidad, well lets not go there today, except than to say that all of that British trio would have had an excellent chance against him.

              You have one side of the story, I have the other.

              Comment

              • IMDAZED
                Fair but Firm
                Franchise Champion - 20,000+ posts
                • May 2006
                • 42644
                • 1,134
                • 1,770
                • 67,152

                #47
                Originally posted by !! Anorak
                The fact is, 80% of the posters on this forum don't know ****. Most of them have only been watching boxing for a maximum of 2 years, most of them are uneducated (not just in the sport, but in all walks of life) and can't string two sentences together.

                You personally may claim to have seen fights, and I'll accept that, but that doesn't go for the majority.

                and what "facts"? What are your Bank Facts?
                I don't care what 80% of the posters know or don't. I'm well aware most are uninformed and it appears to me you are one of them.

                Your notion that the Hall of Fame is biased for Americans is just dumb and proof that some of you would say or do anything to hype up these fighters. There's a reason why Chris Eubank isn't considered great so how much more a Chris Eubank who was past his prime? And we're supposed to compare him to ****ing Bernard Hopkins?

                Absolute DELUSION.

                Comment

                • IMDAZED
                  Fair but Firm
                  Franchise Champion - 20,000+ posts
                  • May 2006
                  • 42644
                  • 1,134
                  • 1,770
                  • 67,152

                  #48
                  Originally posted by abadger
                  When I suggested that 1997 Eubank might beat the Hopkins that lost to Taylor, I meant pound for pound. As for 'better but not that much better', that is just me trying to be honest and realistic about boxers. Calzaghe's win over Eubank is extremely analogous to Taylor's over Hopkins, and I don't recall it being 'ignored' here in the UK, it made his name, which he let slip with some sub-par subsequent performances, and also affection for Eubank meant he wasn't taken to heart, a bit like Tarver after Jones.

                  Again, here in the UK Eubank is widely regarded as a great boxer, he had some excellent wins over world class opposition in Benn and Watson who are arguably better than anyone Hopkins faced in his career other than Jones. Guys like Eastman and Joppy for example were not in their class, De La Hoya WAS too small and Trinidad, well lets not go there today, except than to say that all of that British trio would have had an excellent chance against him.

                  You have one side of the story, I have the other.
                  Unfortunately, just like the US, the UK doesn't equal the world. So while he may be one of Britain's greatest fighters, he wasn't one of the world's, like say...a Bernard Hopkins. An even prime version was worse.

                  But I love how you kinda ducked my post. You yourself said Hopkins was better pound for pound. You can try to create an out like you always do ("it's not that big a difference") but this tells me you know you're just going all out to protect your hero.

                  The win over Eubank wasn't even that big a win for Joe in the UK, maybe just Wales. There's a reason for that too. Now in 2008, it's gotten bigger according to you.

                  Sure.

                  Comment

                  • ALT-Assassin
                    Banned
                    Platinum Champion - 1,000-5,000 posts
                    • Jun 2008
                    • 1931
                    • 55
                    • 17
                    • 2,123

                    #49
                    Originally posted by IMDAZED
                    I don't care what 80% of the posters know or don't. I'm well aware most are uninformed and it appears to me you are one of them.

                    Your notion that the Hall of Fame is biased for Americans is just dumb and proof that some of you would say or do anything to hype up these fighters. There's a reason why Chris Eubank isn't considered great so how much more a Chris Eubank who was past his prime? And we're supposed to compare him to ****ing Bernard Hopkins?

                    Absolute DELUSION.
                    Be quiet you biased Yankie Doodle Dandy,hot dog headed,obese monguloid

                    Comment

                    • Ryn0
                      Undisputed Champion
                      Unified Champion - 10,00-20,000 posts
                      • Feb 2007
                      • 11139
                      • 310
                      • 269
                      • 20,767

                      #50
                      Originally posted by checkmania
                      Will Brits stop thinking everyone is against their fighters. If a trend continues then it must honestly be true. British fighters for the most part have been overrated and usually do get exposed. The world doesnt hate your fighters just to hate them.
                      It's true with any country the US proberbly has the most fighters "exposed" but they have alot more fighters than any other country so they have alot of fighters to "fall back on" the smaller countries aren't so lucky.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      TOP