Tweet
I think Eubank was a great fighter - superb skills and technically efficient. In my opinion the 3rd best supermiddleweight of the 1990s behind Roy Jones and James Toney.
However - in the midst of Juy Juy's excellent posts it shud be remembered that Eubank was on the correct side of a lot of close and often incorrect decisions....here is an example of sumting i read recently - it was voted the 3rd most controversial scorecard since the 1980s....any1 see this fight?
3. Chris Eubank vs. Mauricio Amaral
Judges: Torben Seeman Hansen, Cesar Ramos & Ismael W. Fernandez. The three blind mice congregated to award the decision to Eubank despite the champion's worst ever showing. No one knows what they were up to during fight time, maybe they were playing bingo on their scorecards? Whatever it was, it certainly wasn't this fight they were watching.
Eubank, defending his WBO Super-Middleweight title for the 11th time, hardly threw a punch in anger all night and was easily outfought and outboxed by this unknown Brazilian, who I, and many others felt won this fight by a wide margin.
Britain's grip on the WBO belt has been in operation for a long while now. In the organisation's early days, it seemed that only the UK and Kronk gym wanted anything to do with this ugly new addition to the alphabet boys. The WBO was like Zeppo Marx, not really part of any the major scenes, just 'there'. But 'Zeppo' appears to be indebted to British boxing and therefore was, and still is, afraid to upset Messrs Warren, and in this case, Barry Hearn.
After this debacle, Eubank picked up a few more million in meaningless title defences, while the extremely unlucky Amaral secured a shot at the WBA title the following year but was easily outpoint by American Frank Liles. Amaral then soon faded into the obscurity from whence he came. But on the night in question he beat Chris Eubank...and quite easily too I must add.
However - in the midst of Juy Juy's excellent posts it shud be remembered that Eubank was on the correct side of a lot of close and often incorrect decisions....here is an example of sumting i read recently - it was voted the 3rd most controversial scorecard since the 1980s....any1 see this fight?
3. Chris Eubank vs. Mauricio Amaral
Judges: Torben Seeman Hansen, Cesar Ramos & Ismael W. Fernandez. The three blind mice congregated to award the decision to Eubank despite the champion's worst ever showing. No one knows what they were up to during fight time, maybe they were playing bingo on their scorecards? Whatever it was, it certainly wasn't this fight they were watching.
Eubank, defending his WBO Super-Middleweight title for the 11th time, hardly threw a punch in anger all night and was easily outfought and outboxed by this unknown Brazilian, who I, and many others felt won this fight by a wide margin.
Britain's grip on the WBO belt has been in operation for a long while now. In the organisation's early days, it seemed that only the UK and Kronk gym wanted anything to do with this ugly new addition to the alphabet boys. The WBO was like Zeppo Marx, not really part of any the major scenes, just 'there'. But 'Zeppo' appears to be indebted to British boxing and therefore was, and still is, afraid to upset Messrs Warren, and in this case, Barry Hearn.
After this debacle, Eubank picked up a few more million in meaningless title defences, while the extremely unlucky Amaral secured a shot at the WBA title the following year but was easily outpoint by American Frank Liles. Amaral then soon faded into the obscurity from whence he came. But on the night in question he beat Chris Eubank...and quite easily too I must add.
Comment