Chris Eubank is superior to Hopkins but because he is British no one will admit it

[The Old LefHook]

Eubanks was more entertaining in the ring, no one doubts that, as Ho'kins was indeed a universal bore within the squared circle.

He was still an awfully fine boxer, though, whose unpleasant style shut opponents' offenses down. He would not experience that many problems shutting Eubanks down, who was a very good fighter himself, because Eubanks shut himself down for lethargic pauses in almost every round.

There is no evidence Eubanks had a better chin--none. Being KO'd by a cruiserweight is not evidence for a better chin.

I am no Ho'kins fan, believe me. I feel he would have been whipped soundly at any stage by Calzaghe, who I am not a great fan of, either, because he played the safe game of weak opponents to defend worthless trinkets for most of his career, as Ho'kins himself did. He simply had the speed to outwork Ho'kins IMO.

[yngwie]

I believe that Eubank is more skilled and talented than Hopkins, but if doesn't get the respect is because he never fought the best opposition, and even he knows that.

[The Old LefHook]

I believe that Eubank is more skilled and talented than Hopkins, but if doesn't get the respect is because he never fought the best opposition, and even he knows that.

What allows you to see that his skill was superior to that of Hopkins when the man did not fight top opposition? Everyone looks good with opponents a level under them.

The legacy of Hopkins is all about skill. He is no athletic bundle of fast twitch fibers. What you mean by talent no doubt comes down to fast twitch fibers. Either that, or cute posing.

[LacedUp]

If both were in their prime, it would be a good competitive fight.

[LacedUp]

Eubank wasn't a great fighter. He could never hang with the best of his time.
He came into first Nigel Benn fight as unknown quality and Benn, who couldn't have known at the time how great chin Chris had and how mentally strong he was - fought horrible fight going for the kill. Not taking credit from Eubank for that, as it was brave preformance, but in their rematch when Benn(undersized super middleweight) came in there knowing Chri's qualities and fought to win on points, he barely lost a round imo and they made it stupid draw probably to let Barry Hearn keep both Chris and Nigel under his contract(Barry made agreement with Don King that both winner and loser will be promoted by Don going forward).
He edged Watson with some luck in their first time and took battering in their rematch. Amazing come-back, of course, but Watson wasn't elite fighter himself.
After that he hanged to his title for years but probably half of his fights could've gone either way with some straight up robberies(Thornton beat him up), and other half was against C level guys.
Then he run into Collins, who came up just short against elite guys like McCallum, Reggie and Kalambay(a bit unlucky here), but was level above Eubank and lost maybe 3 rounds in two fights combined.
Yes Eubank moved up to Cruiserweight and had two brave outings - but
A) Weight limit was 190 at the time.
B) Carl Thompson was exctiting, dangerous and brave fighter, but on European, not World Level.

No one can quesion Eubank's heart, mental toughess, strength and chin, but he was very limited in many areas - he wouldn't have won a round against prime Hopkins imo. Just levels. Eubank is to Hopkins what Ottke is to Roy Jones Jr.

You take massive amount of credit away from Eubank who was a big big underdog against Benn - Coincidentally one of the best of his time and definitely the most dangerous at the time - and then say you don't take credit away.

But that's what you did. It's not Eubank's fault if Benn underestimated him, which by all accounts he didn't.

[New England]

im british , eubank fought twice at cruiser vs carl thompson (who ko'd haye at 40 ) on the back of 2 losses to collins and a loss at 168 to calzaghe for a wbo title i think , but thompson was then kod in 4 by jonny nelson , two great scraps and eubank showed bravery , but was a lazy fighter who couldnt fight 3 minutes a round and was leagues below jones , toney etc , but he did have a granite chin , heart and balls of steel so i wouldnt completely rule him out... but toney and bhop had chins to match and were far slicker , jones at 160 beat both of them lol

jones and toney was at 168, but jones beats him at any weight as long as he's in his prime. if they foughrt when they'd deteriorated i'd pick toney. his style is better suited for that, and he had a great chin.

[LacedUp]

One thing that we all should remember when talking about Eubank, is that he really only had 1 great all around performance. Maybe 2 if you include the second Benn fight.

The absolute best Eubank i.e. 1990 vs Benn, Eubank would have been competitive with Hopkins I think. But Hopkins showed greatness in far more many fights than Eubank did

[yngwie]

What allows you to see that his skill was superior to that of Hopkins when the man did not fight top opposition? Everyone looks good with opponents a level under them.

The legacy of Hopkins is all about skill. He is no athletic bundle of fast twitch fibers. What you mean by talent no doubt comes down to fast twitch fibers. Either that, or cute posing.

He was a great counter puncher, with power, great chin, fast hands, great footwork and awesome working on angles, that things are hard to teach and learn and showed them even against low quality fighters, is hard.

[LacedUp]

I meant to say I'm not taking credit for the toughness and grit he showed in that fight but yeah - I indeed take some credit from that win in terms of judging his "greatness" as the second fight showed that with right game-plan, Benn was superior of the two imo and the lack of knowledge of Eubank's qualities made him fight the way he fought.
He pulled off a miracle in rematch against Watson, but let's be honest - it makes him a great fighter about as much as winning lottery ticket makes you great businessmen.
A lot of fighters were able to pull of upsets over better fighters than them within circumstances. It doesn't take anything away from how great the win was, but when you judge how good he was, you have to look at circumstances too.
Eubank could never deal with smart pressure - Thornton, Benn II, Watson II and Collins II - those guys just closed the gap behind reasonable tight defence in those fights and outworked Eubank easily. Rocchigiani, Close and Malinga could've easily gotten nod over him as well.
He just wasn't that good overall - he had some special qualities but too many flaws to hang with truly elite fighters. Comparing him to Hopkins is in my view, bizzare.

That's just not true.

Neither were the same fighter after that, and even then it's not like Benn schooled Eubank. He might have won by a round.

Overall Eubank clearly did better in their two fights.

[The Old LefHook]

He was certainly the best statue impersonator and mechanical robot impersonator ever to step into the ring. I do not think I am going to get any arguments on this point.