Would a Eubank Jr win be better for boxing?

[IronDanHamza]

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.

I'm not asking for more.

He's done everything right so far.

Still hasn't fought good opposition though.

[Box-Office]

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

Blandamura was coming off of a win over Marcos Nader who himself was 18-0 prospect before taking on Saunders to defend his EBU belt.

If you don't mind have a look at post #84.

[IronDanHamza]

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.

I have no idea who'd I'd say has fought better.

The vast majority at his level also haven't fought good opposition.

[IronDanHamza]

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.

And once upon a time Froch hadn't fought good opposition either.

[IronDanHamza]

Blandamura was coming off of a win over Marcos Nader who himself was 18-0 prospect before taking on Saunders to defend his EBU belt.

If you don't mind have a look at post #84.

Why do you put so much stock Into undefeated records?

Do you think Wilder's opposition is good?

He's fought a beaten a few undefeated fighters aswell.

[LacedUp]

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.

No response to this post?

Plenty of guys have fought much much better opposition.

[Dirk Diggler UK]

I'm not asking for more.

He's done everything right so far.

Still hasn't fought good opposition though.

I think I get what you mean but it just sounds harsh. You could make the same statement about someone like Eubank Jr but it's clear they've operated at a different level.

It's all relative. Chris Algieri wasn't a good opponent for Pacquiao but he'd probably be a good opponent for someone like Broner.

[D-MiZe]

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.

What constitutes a good fighter?

It's their boxing ability.

If Fighter A and Fighter B both have good boxing ability, then from either perspective - it's a good opponent. Along comes Fighter C who has excellent boxing ability and takes on the winner of the fight between A&B (winner was Fighter A).

When the fight is announced, fans aren't happy as Fighter C has fought much better opposition to Fighter A, despite Fighter A being a competent boxer. Inevitably, Fighter C is just too good and beats Fighter A comfortably.

So, what is a good opponent?

It's a fighter who's close to their opponent's ability. Does it matter how good the fighters are? No. It's entirely dependent on the two fighters in question. Tyler Goodjohn was a good opponent for Ricky Boylan, despite that being a clash at domestic level.

That is what is meant when people say Saunders has fought good opposition. The problem with Saunders' opposition is that it's largely untested elsewhere.

I put some stock in how a fighter looks against other good, competent fighters. I understand you can see how good someone is even if they're fighting a punching bag, just by feints, footwork, handspeed etc. But there is still some doubt as to whether they can do these things against better opposition.

Have you seen Ryder outside of his fight against BJS?

It's entirely possible from my reasoning that Saunders may very well be utter dogshit if these fighters that make good opponents are also dogshit but I don't believe that is the case.

How do you determine what a good fighter is?

That's what I was getting at with the 'You don't automatically assume world level'. If Klitschko is excellent, does that make someone like Takam good? Could you give me an example and name a good opponent for a fighter who isn't at world level?

[LacedUp]

I think I get what you mean but it just sounds harsh. You could make the same statement about someone like Eubank Jr but it's clear they've operated at a different level.

It's all relative. Chris Algieri wasn't a good opponent for Pacquiao but he'd probably be a good opponent for someone like Broner.

I don't think anyone is claiming Eubank jr fought good opposition and certainly not in comparison to BJS.

But BJS hasn't really fought any good fighters, other than Ryder, who some people rate, I don't really.

Box-office talks about 'learning fights'. I'm trying to understand what that means, because I've ever only seen BJS in with heavily over matched opponents aside from Ryder.

[IronDanHamza]

I think I get what you mean but it just sounds harsh. You could make the same statement about someone like Eubank Jr but it's clear they've operated at a different level.

It's all relative. Chris Algieri wasn't a good opponent for Pacquiao but he'd probably be a good opponent for someone like Broner.

Eubank's opposition IS woeful that isn't even debatable.

Saunders opposition is decent.

I would say Algeri would be a decent win at best. Obviously elite level guys like Pacquiao and Mayweather it differs.