Would a Eubank Jr win be better for boxing?

[D-MiZe]

He oppositon isn't good full stop.

European level, domestic level, his oppositon isn't good.

Nothing to do with Eubank.

You don't automatically assume world level, so comparing an opponent to the top 10 in that division isn't fair. In the bigger picture, the likes of Bakhtov isn't a good opponent but for a 9-fight novice, it is.

What you're trying to say is a good opponent is someone who is a contender for a world championship belt. Thus a good opponent at any level below that does not exist. That's nonsense.

How good the opponent is, is entirely dependent on how good the other fighter is. How is that so hard to understand.

[M Bison]

Why are people trying to say Saunders hasn't fought anyone good?
Either follow the division or don't, its really that simple.

[Box-Office]

Can you think of any fighters at European/domestic level with a resume as good as Saunders'? Frankie Gavin is the only one I can think of off the top of my head.

He's beaten the best domestic opposition available. I'd fancy Ryder to beat Eubank Jr too.

Joshua is fighting good opposition for the level he's at now. How good the opposition is relies a lot on where that fighter is. If Saunders was a contender/world champion would his opposition be good? Hell no.

No kidding. I've said it so many times that for a non-Olympic medalist prospect he has done remarkably well. I mean how often you see guys taking on young prospects like themselves? It is always some faded former belt holder or a guy who was once good enough to fight for a title some centuries ago.

[IronDanHamza]

You don't automatically assume world level, so comparing an opponent to the top 10 in that division isn't fair. In the bigger picture, the likes of Bakhtov isn't a good opponent but for a 9-fight novice, it is.

What you're trying to say is a good opponent is someone who is a contender for a world championship belt. Thus a good opponent at any level below that does not exist. That's nonsense.

How good the opponent is, is entirely dependent on how good the other fighter is. How is that so hard to understand.

Not really.

How good your opposition is is whether you've fought good fighters or not. Saunders hasn't.

Very simple.

I didn't say anything about assuming world level, everyone starts somewhere, majority start at the bottom and work their way up, naturally.

It doesn't mean just because they've been figiting at a low
Level and haven't reached word level yet that they have faced "good opposition"

Saunders best win is John Ryder. That is not good opposition.

[LacedUp]

Why are people trying to say Saunders hasn't fought anyone good?
Either follow the division or don't, its really that simple.

I suppose he's fought good level in comparison with Eubank jr, in fact, that would be an understatement.

However, it's not like he's smashed up the domestic scene or even fought anyone in the top 20 for that matte - not really good opposition in a division that isn't exactly known for being deep at the moment..

[Box-Office]

What does it matter he's fought undefeated prospects? Is that supposed to mean something?

Fact is, his opposition up to now has been poor.

You know that is not much of a rebuttal. I mention specific names and how good it is and you go back to square one "huh what? when?" questions.

"Is that supposed to mean something?"

Yes it does cuz he is fighting young lions like himself who are trying to be go the whole way and not part time butcher or some faded "once upon a time belt holder" seeking a last pay check.


Poor?

Please show me another prospect/active fighter who has fought the type of opponents Saunders has for their learning fights.

[IronDanHamza]

I suppose he's fought good level in comparison with Eubank jr, in fact, that would be an understatement.

However, it's not like he's smashed up the domestic scene or even fought anyone in the top 20 for that matte - not really good opposition in a division that isn't exactly known for being deep at the moment..

Exactly How is his oppositon good? His best win is John Ryder.

Obviously he's fought better opposition than Eubank. That's not been disputed and has been stated several times.

[Box-Office]

Exactly How is his oppositon good? His best win is John Ryder.

Obviously he's fought better opposition than Eubank. That's not been disputed and has been stated several times.

The emphasis is on learning fights.

[IronDanHamza]

You know that is not much of a rebuttal. I mention specific names and how good it is and you go back to square one "huh what? when?" questions.

"Is that supposed to mean something?"

Yes it does cuz he is fighting young lions like himself who are trying to be go the whole way and not part time butcher or some faded "once upon a time belt holder" seeking a last pay check.


Poor?

Please show me another prospect/active fighter who has fought the type of opponents Saunders has for their learning fights.

Your theory doesn't need a rebuttal it's a completely ridiculous notion to start with.

He's fought undefeated fighters. And? Are they good fighters?

Just because you can name them doesn't make them good fighters or equate to good opposition.

Well the vast majority of fighters who are going through "learning stages" dont face good opposition either. Much like Saunders.

[IronDanHamza]

The emphasis is on learning fights.

Well like I just pointed out the vast majority of fighters in their "learning stage" don't face good opposition either.

Saunders is no different in that regard.