Is Chris Eubank the best British boxer of all time?

[daggum]

chris eubank got so many gift decisions i think even sven ottke giggled.

[o0P4PBOXING0o]

I think Hopkins, even in his 40s and at LHW, was a better boxer than anyone Eubank beat. As for the rest of their resumes, it's a tough one. I'd say that Benn and Watson were probably better than Kessler and Lacy, though Kessler may win in a few weeks time and change that viewpoint. If you are considering belts won and defended that Calzaghe is ahead in that respect as well.

The Reid fight was close, but you could say the same thing about several Eubank wins where he was given decisions that many disagreed with, and against far lesser fighters than Robin Reid.

In a head to head I think Calzaghe's speed and workrate would always give Eubank problems. Chris liked to control the tempo and fight at his own pace, and so even at his best he would have problems with Calzaghe, Collins and Watson, though I agree that he was past-prime by the time he lost to Collins and Calzaghe.

Hopkins was still a very capable fighter but you've gotta look at his age and the fight itself. Some say Bernard still won despite throwing much less punches than he should and maye would have in his prime. I respect Calzaghe's accomplishments but like most people I dont think he would have beaten Jones and Hopkins in the 90's.

As for the belts thing, It's very simular. Both of them held 1 belt for a long time and defended it many times. Eubank I just feel Benn and Rocky were better fighters than anyone Calzaghe fought, It's all good mentioning names like Jones and Hopkins but when you look at their ages its not as impressive. Eubank did fight and beat these guys when they were on top of their game. Both of them had controversial fights but it was natural with Eubank, His fights were traditionally very hard to score.

I think prime for prime it would be a good fight, Everyone talks about Calzaghe's activity and it did give alot of people problems but Eubank dealt with Benn (A much more dangerous fighter than Calzaghe) so I dont see it to be like a deciding factor in the fight, Eubank had problems with Collins but that guy just had his number. He had the style to beat Eubank I feel, Kinda how Vernon Forrest did vs Mosley. Just knew how to deal with him.

[o0P4PBOXING0o]

chris eubank got so many gift decisions i think even sven ottke giggled.

****** comment. Eubank had an aukward style meaning his fights were hard to score but there wasnt any fights where you could say he clearly lost and got the decision that he shouldnt have. He got fights were you could make a case for the other guy winning but not clearly.

Sven Ottke was the exact opposite, He clearly lost the fight with Robin Reid and got a bull**** decision. That was one of the biggest robberies of all time and many people say this happened about 10 times with Ottke.

[ghost deini]

some names being overlooked here

Ken Buchanan
Barry McGuigan
Lloyd Honeyghan

[Clegg]

Hopkins was still a very capable fighter but you've gotta look at his age and the fight itself. Some say Bernard still won despite throwing much less punches than he should and maye would have in his prime. I respect Calzaghe's accomplishments but like most people I dont think he would have beaten Jones and Hopkins in the 90's.

I don't really care what "some say". Most say Calzaghe deserved it. You keep going on about "controversial" decisions. Calzaghe-Hopkins wasn't controversial. Calzaghe won, most people agreed with the decision. A bunch of Hopkins nuthuggers starting ****** threads on an internet forum is not controversial. Controversial would be headbutting your opponent in full view of the ref, knocking him out and busting up his face, and still not being DQ'd. Remember when Eubank did that? Now that was controversial...

It also doesn't matter whether or not you think Calzaghe beats prime Jones or prime Hopkins, as we're discussing resume rather than fantasy fights.

As for the belts thing, It's very simular. Both of them held 1 belt for a long time and defended it many times. Eubank I just feel Benn and Rocky were better fighters than anyone Calzaghe fought, It's all good mentioning names like Jones and Hopkins but when you look at their ages its not as impressive. Eubank did fight and beat these guys when they were on top of their game. Both of them had controversial fights but it was natural with Eubank, His fights were traditionally very hard to score.

I didn't mention Jones at all.

I don't care about Hopkins' age, I care about how good he was at the time. Hopkins was one of the very best boxers in the world, and was recognised as such by virtually everyone. That's what matters.

You keep going on about Calzaghe having 2 close decisions on his record, yet dismiss Eubank's close wins as "well it was natural". Whatever you mean by that, it doesn't matter. Eubank had more close, debatable wins, and he had them against lesser fighters. That is a fact.

I think prime for prime it would be a good fight, Everyone talks about Calzaghe's activity and it did give alot of people problems but Eubank dealt with Benn (A much more dangerous fighter than Calzaghe) so I dont see it to be like a deciding factor in the fight, Eubank had problems with Collins but that guy just had his number. He had the style to beat Eubank I feel, Kinda how Vernon Forrest did vs Mosley. Just knew how to deal with him.

If you think Collins had his number then you'd be hard pushed to think that Calzaghe didn't. Calzaghe was superior to Collins every aspect: work rate, movement, speed, power, technique, boxing IQ...Calzaghe dominated and scored two knockdowns, Collins took a couple of close decisions.

Saying that Eubank beating Benn means that Calzaghe's activity wouldn't be a key factor is simply illogical.

[HitmanHattonAY]

Ricky Hatton is in the top 4 Defo !!

Unified Light Welterweight champion and won a world title at Welterweight.

He has probably generated the most revenue aswell

[Chunk..]

I often wonder what would of happened if Watson made it to the end of the second Eubank fight? We could be sitting here throwing his name into the mix in this topic. I reckon Watson could have given Calzaghe a few problems, even though i've been lynched on here for saying such a thing. A lot of posters on here don't realise just how good Michael Watson was.

[daggum]

****** comment. Eubank had an aukward style meaning his fights were hard to score but there wasnt any fights where you could say he clearly lost and got the decision that he shouldnt have. He got fights were you could make a case for the other guy winning but not clearly.

Sven Ottke was the exact opposite, He clearly lost the fight with Robin Reid and got a bull**** decision. That was one of the biggest robberies of all time and many people say this happened about 10 times with Ottke.

how is it a ****** comment. ottke also had an awkward style where he was hard to hit but was usually more accurate than his opponent who appeared to outwork him but if you aren't hitting anything you aren't really working very hard. eubank clearly lost to schommer and amaral to go with about 6 or 7 other fights that were close but that he should have lost but he got the hometown decision to keep the big tv ratings flowing.

[o0P4PBOXING0o]

I don't really care what "some say". Most say Calzaghe deserved it. You keep going on about "controversial" decisions. Calzaghe-Hopkins wasn't controversial. Calzaghe won, most people agreed with the decision. A bunch of Hopkins nuthuggers starting ****** threads on an internet forum is not controversial. Controversial would be headbutting your opponent in full view of the ref, knocking him out and busting up his face, and still not being DQ'd. Remember when Eubank did that? Now that was controversial...

It also doesn't matter whether or not you think Calzaghe beats prime Jones or prime Hopkins, as we're discussing resume rather than fantasy fights.



I didn't mention Jones at all.

I don't care about Hopkins' age, I care about how good he was at the time. Hopkins was one of the very best boxers in the world, and was recognised as such by virtually everyone. That's what matters.

You keep going on about Calzaghe having 2 close decisions on his record, yet dismiss Eubank's close wins as "well it was natural". Whatever you mean by that, it doesn't matter. Eubank had more close, debatable wins, and he had them against lesser fighters. That is a fact.



If you think Collins had his number then you'd be hard pushed to think that Calzaghe didn't. Calzaghe was superior to Collins every aspect: work rate, movement, speed, power, technique, boxing IQ...Calzaghe dominated and scored two knockdowns, Collins took a couple of close decisions.

Saying that Eubank beating Benn means that Calzaghe's activity wouldn't be a key factor is simply illogical.

Wow. First of all when I was talking about Eubank having close decisions. I was talking about his style, His fights were traditionally hard to score and he didnt get gift decisions, Close fights but not gift decisions. I said this because somebody compared him to Sven Ottke. Who "won" fights that he CLEARLY lost. I did not even mention Calzaghe in this post, I was addressing a point about Eubank and Ottke.

How can you say Calzaghe clearly beat Hopkins? It was a split decision and if you are going by clean punches landed you would have to say Bernard won. Either way it was one of those fights were its what you prefer, The guy who throws more or the guy who lands more. The judges gave it to Calzaghe and I can see why but it was a debatable fight. That's all im saying, Calzaghe gets credit for beating Hopkins who was LHW champ at the time I think.

My point about activity was that Benn was very active against a prime Eubank in their first fight and got knocked out. Benn had serious KO power, Calzaghe whilst he did knock down an old weight drained Eubank was not half the puncher that Benn was. So Calzaghe's activity would have proberbly played into Eubank's hands. And you're saying Calzaghe was "superior to Collins in every aspect". That's complete bull****, You can't say that.

Calzaghe has better names on his resume but if you really know boxing you will look at who these guys beat and not their records, Also where they were at when they fought Calzaghe. Lets be serious, Calzaghe beat alot of guys who were untested and the big names on his record were all past prime.

Kessler could still prove he's a top fighter but if he loses to Froch then Calzaghe's legacy is worsened because he gave up his belt when Froch was his manditory.

[o0P4PBOXING0o]

how is it a ****** comment. ottke also had an awkward style where he was hard to hit but was usually more accurate than his opponent who appeared to outwork him but if you aren't hitting anything you aren't really working very hard. eubank clearly lost to schommer and amaral to go with about 6 or 7 other fights that were close but that he should have lost but he got the hometown decision to keep the big tv ratings flowing.

You can't compare him with Ottke.

Im sorry but its a flawed argument