Would a Eubank Jr win be better for boxing?

[LacedUp]

The emphasis is on learning fights.

Other than Ryder and maybe Blackwell, which fights have been learning fights for him?

[alexguiness]

I think the easiest way to handle this particular point is to compare the two fighters opposition in terms of win / loss record, rounds boxed and total number of fights at pro level.

BJS has faced a higher caliber of opponent.

Eubank Jnr has his place in the fight because he has an unbeaten record and the media / public demand.

Eubank Jnr has 'jumped the queue' in terms of getting a title shot, but if he beats BJS then it hard to argue against his legitimacy.

It is fair to say that Eubank has proved very little about his ability/potential apart from what he and his father say in the media.

It is a huge test for him on Saturday, but even if he loses he will get another shot - the 'star' value is just too much for the promoters to shy away from.

It is a very tough weight division, if Eubank is successful then it will be because he IS the real deal.

We will see on Saturday.

[Dirk Diggler UK]

Saunders' opposition has been pretty good relative to where he is in his career and how many fights he's had.

I think it's harsh to say "he's fought no one good" because it's a blanket statement that can easily apply to Eubank Jr or others with the same amount of fights who have fought much worse opposition.

[Box-Office]

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" for face good opposition either. Much like Saunders.

Of course they are.

Fletcher went on to box for what it's worth a version of a title and fighting Geale next.

Sullivan is back in winning column and is still a prospect.

Ryder has not lost a bout since losing his 0 and won the WBO Intercontinental title ie still a prospect.

Yet to see how the Blandamura fellow does.

Now I'm not certainly implying that them achieving things after that loss adds to Saunders' legacy (Calzaghe fans logic), but the fact that not only were those guys undefeated prospects they have proven to be such even after.

By mentioning names I meant that you'd get in to specifics of those guys.

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.

Saunders is definitely different, because otherwise you would've answered my question and shown me a prospect that has done better.

[IronDanHamza]

Of course they are.

Fletcher went on to box for what it's worth a version of a title and fighting Geale next.

Sullivan is back in winning column and is still a prospect.

Ryder has not lost a bout since losing his 0 and won the WBO Intercontinental title ie still a prospect.

Yet to see how the Blandamura fellow does.

Now I'm not certainly implying that them achieving things after that loss adds to Saunders' legacy (Calzaghe fans logic), but the fact that not only were those guys undefeated prospects they have proven to be such even after.

By mentioning names I meant that you'd get in to specifics of those guys.





Saunders is definitely different, because otherwise you would've answered my question and shown me a prospect that has done better.

I'm not dis*****g they're decent fighters.

But regardless of the level his opposition simply is not good.

Good for his level, sure. Not good in general.

No Saunders isn't different. I also didn't say anyone at his level has fought better I said most at his level also haven't fought good opposition. That's normal.

[Box-Office]

Saunders' opposition has been pretty good relative to where he is in his career and how many fights he's had.

I think it's harsh to say "he's fought no one good" because it's a blanket statement that can easily apply to Eubank Jr or others with the same amount of fights who have fought much worse opposition.

Show me another guy who has fought the quality Saunders has for learning fights? is my question to these people.

Saunders is like Froch, no medal or excessive press coverage, but slowly and steadily will get there.

[LacedUp]

Show me another guy who has fought the quality Saunders has for learning fights? is my question to these people.

Saunders is like Froch, no medal or excessive press coverage, but slowly and steadily will get there.

What exactly do you mean when you say 'learning fights' ? He's 20-0, I think we can name a few good fighters at 20-0 who's fought better opposition than he has.

For example, his friend Tyson Fury. Same age, turned pro at the same time.

[Dirk Diggler UK]

Show me another guy who has fought the quality Saunders has for learning fights? is my question to these people.

Saunders is like Froch, no medal or excessive press coverage, but slowly and steadily will get there.

Personally I don't rate him that highly because I've never really been impressed with any of his performances.

I don't think you can ask for much more in terms of how his career has progressed in terms of titles and opposition. He's won British, Commonwealth and European beating some decent guys along the way.

[IronDanHamza]

Saunders' opposition has been pretty good relative to where he is in his career and how many fights he's had.

I think it's harsh to say "he's fought no one good" because it's a blanket statement that can easily apply to Eubank Jr or others with the same amount of fights who have fought much worse opposition.

So who has he fought that's good?

It's not been bad, I didnt say his opposition was bad. It's decent.

It's definitely not good. His next fight should be for a world title and what's the best guess at the highest ranked fighter he's fought.

And again I'm not comparing his opposition to anyone else. I'm stating his opposition level isn't good, because it's not.

[Box-Office]

I'm not dis*****g they're decent fighters.

But regardless of the level his opposition simply is not good.

Good for his level, sure. Not good in general.

No Saunders isn't different. I also didn't say anyone at his level has fought better I said most at his level also haven't fought good opposition. That's normal.

No you didn't, but it was just a question as I wanted to get an idea of what you would consider better than Saunders. That's all.