Calzaghe fans pimp the Eubank win
Collapse
-
Comment
-
YES WE HAVE.
And not only do my eyes not lie, neither do the facts.Comment
-
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
-
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?
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
-
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?
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
-
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.
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
-
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
-
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
Comment