-
Re: Eubank Sr. the REASON...
What Eubank can take from this is he has all the natural tools, attributes and ability to improve with experience. He hurt Saunders frequently, no one else has but thats not saying much as Saunders hasn't done much himself yet. He took some flush shots and was never really hurt. Saunders is fooling himself he had Cjris on wobbly legs in the second.
Eubank can get better. He's gone from fighting journeymen to fighting the defending British, Commonwealth and European champ and one judge had him a winner.
Saunders will also benefit from this. Hopefully he wins the WBO and hopefully Warren sniffs the big money rematch before Saunders fucks it up by losing to someone else and we get a rematch. Chrishas more room for improvement. If he had started putting the punches together and the pressure 5 rounds earlier I believe there would be no debate now because Saunders would have been stopped.
Don't forget this was a fitter, better prepared fighter than those mythical, amazing, british, undefeated fighters faced;D
-
Re: Eubank Sr. the REASON...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ross
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ross
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dark Lord Al
Eubank didn't win .
The End.
One judge thought he did.
I was thinking about split decisions last night. If one judge thinks you have won its unfair that you get a loss.
Calzaghe-Hopkins was a SD. Who won?
Eubank didn't need to crawl around on the floor looking for respite. Hopkins didn't finish the fight knocking Calzaghe all over the shop. Hopkins was fighting in front of his countrymen in his country.
That didn't matter to the judge that scored it for Hopkins. So by your rationale it's unfair that Hopkins lost to Calzaghe. You set the criteria not me. Fact.
What I'm saying is Eubank actually looked like he was winning. Hopkins didn't.
-
Re: Eubank Sr. the REASON...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ross
What Eubank can take from this is he has all the natural tools, attributes and ability to improve with experience. He hurt Saunders frequently, no one else has but thats not saying much as Saunders hasn't done much himself yet. He took some flush shots and was never really hurt. Saunders is fooling himself he had Cjris on wobbly legs in the second.
Eubank can get better. He's gone from fighting journeymen to fighting the defending British, Commonwealth and European champ and one judge had him a winner.
Saunders will also benefit from this. Hopefully he wins the WBO and hopefully Warren sniffs the big money rematch before Saunders fucks it up by losing to someone else and we get a rematch. Chrishas more room for improvement. If he had started putting the punches together and the pressure 5 rounds earlier I believe there would be no debate now because Saunders would have been stopped.
Don't forget this was a fitter, better prepared fighter than those mythical, amazing, british, undefeated fighters faced;D
So what were his tactics and reasons then for not putting pressure on him earlier ?
-
Re: Eubank Sr. the REASON...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dark Lord Al
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ross
What Eubank can take from this is he has all the natural tools, attributes and ability to improve with experience. He hurt Saunders frequently, no one else has but thats not saying much as Saunders hasn't done much himself yet. He took some flush shots and was never really hurt. Saunders is fooling himself he had Cjris on wobbly legs in the second.
Eubank can get better. He's gone from fighting journeymen to fighting the defending British, Commonwealth and European champ and one judge had him a winner.
Saunders will also benefit from this. Hopefully he wins the WBO and hopefully Warren sniffs the big money rematch before Saunders fucks it up by losing to someone else and we get a rematch. Chrishas more room for improvement. If he had started putting the punches together and the pressure 5 rounds earlier I believe there would be no debate now because Saunders would have been stopped.
Don't forget this was a fitter, better prepared fighter than those mythical, amazing, british, undefeated fighters faced;D
So what were his tactics and reasons then for not putting pressure on him earlier ?
Im not sure. I was frustrated watching those first few rounds. I think he thought he would take him out easy. Saunders was very cautious. Its credit to Eubank that he adapted and chased Saunders down and had him rattling all over the shop nearly stopping him in the 12th when all the experts logic said Eubanks stamina would be shit and Saunders would be top notch because some british level fighters extended him.;D
Eubank will learn now to just let the punches go and work rather than try and load up.
-
Re: Eubank Sr. the REASON...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ross
What Eubank can take from this is he has all the natural tools, attributes and ability to improve with experience. He hurt Saunders frequently, no one else has but thats not saying much as Saunders hasn't done much himself yet. He took some flush shots and was never really hurt. Saunders is fooling himself he had Cjris on wobbly legs in the second.
Eubank can get better. He's gone from fighting journeymen to fighting the defending British, Commonwealth and European champ and one judge had him a winner.
Saunders will also benefit from this. Hopefully he wins the WBO and hopefully Warren sniffs the big money rematch before Saunders fucks it up by losing to someone else and we get a rematch. Chrishas more room for improvement. If he had started putting the punches together and the pressure 5 rounds earlier I believe there would be no debate now because Saunders would have been stopped.
Don't forget this was a fitter, better prepared fighter than those mythical, amazing, british, undefeated fighters faced;D
Lol yea I seen that interview were Saunders says he wobbled eubank in the 2nd. I don't know how he managed to keep a straight face chatting that pish
-
Re: Eubank Sr. the REASON...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ross
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ross
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ross
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dark Lord Al
Eubank didn't win .
The End.
One judge thought he did.
I was thinking about split decisions last night. If one judge thinks you have won its unfair that you get a loss.
Calzaghe-Hopkins was a SD. Who won?
Eubank didn't need to crawl around on the floor looking for respite. Hopkins didn't finish the fight knocking Calzaghe all over the shop. Hopkins was fighting in front of his countrymen in his country.
That didn't matter to the judge that scored it for Hopkins. So by your rationale it's unfair that Hopkins lost to Calzaghe. You set the criteria not me. Fact.
What I'm saying is Eubank actually looked like he was winning. Hopkins didn't.
Hopkins looked like he was winning to that judge. Eubank jr didn't look like he was winning to the judges that scored it against him.
You need to rethink this one.
-
Re: Eubank Sr. the REASON...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ross
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ross
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ross
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dark Lord Al
Eubank didn't win .
The End.
One judge thought he did.
I was thinking about split decisions last night. If one judge thinks you have won its unfair that you get a loss.
Calzaghe-Hopkins was a SD. Who won?
Eubank didn't need to crawl around on the floor looking for respite. Hopkins didn't finish the fight knocking Calzaghe all over the shop. Hopkins was fighting in front of his countrymen in his country.
That didn't matter to the judge that scored it for Hopkins. So by your rationale it's unfair that Hopkins lost to Calzaghe. You set the criteria not me. Fact.
What I'm saying is Eubank actually looked like he was winning. Hopkins didn't.
Hopkins looked like he was winning to that judge. Eubank jr didn't look like he was winning to the judges that scored it against him.
You need to rethink this one.
Yep, you win a fight by crawling round on the floor;D
You hate Eubank. Iv seen it in your posts over the past few weeks. I bet its given you an itchy ass hole just knowing one judge thought he won;D
-
Re: Eubank Sr. the REASON...
Many people thought John Ryder beat Saunders. That's what jr needs now, to prove himself against the British/Irish guys that Billy Joe beat on the way up - Spike O'Sullivan or John Ryder would be great fights for him after he's got his confidence back with a few "gimmes."
-
Re: Eubank Sr. the REASON...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Many people thought John Ryder beat Saunders. That's what jr needs now, to prove himself against the British/Irish guys that Billy Joe beat on the way up - Spike O'Sullivan or John Ryder would be great fights for him after he's got his confidence back with a few "gimmes."
Are you confusing Eubank with someone else?
Confidence builders?
He's just battered about the British, Commonwealth and European champion. He gave him a much tougher fight than anyone he's already faced, finished the fight stronger and actually had a judge declare him the winner.
If anything, this fight will have been a confidence booster. He may have had reservations of how he'd cope over 12. He nows knows he can do it better than some champions.
Its Saunders that will now need a confidence booster. How can he challenge and beat a world title holder if he struggles so badly after his special training camp and being in the best shape of his life with a novice who's fought no one and not been to the Olympics?
;D
-
Re: Eubank Sr. the REASON...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Silkeyjoe
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Beanflicker
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Greenbeanz
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Beanflicker
It's so weird being on a British boxing forum because these names get thrown around like they're relevant haha.
Being on a British forum they are relevant you massive Canadian tool.
Hey, if your country gets this excited about two guys who aren't even top 20 in their divisions, good for you guys. ;D
Relevant? Yeah, I guess if have nothing else to hang onto. I'm not really convinced that GGG, Cotto, Quillin, or hell, even Jermain Taylor are shaking in their boots because of these two bums.
This is just
stupid. What country's fans dont get excited when two of their prospects fight?
This is forum fishing.
(Trolling for bites).
-
Re: Eubank Sr. the REASON...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ross
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dark Lord Al
Eubank didn't win .
The End.
One judge thought he did.
I was thinking about split decisions last night. If one judge thinks you have won its unfair that you get a loss.
Calzaghe-Hopkins was a SD. Who won?
Hopkins, obviously, bloody judges cost me money!!!!!!!
-
Re: Eubank Sr. the REASON...
If I was a conspiracy theorist! Who had been living on Mars for the last two months, and seen none of the pre-fight bullshit................
I may think that the EU's knew exactly what the strength and power advantage they had was, and they ended up with
1. a nailed on guarantee for a rematch with a bloke they know they can beat
2. An official/unofficial ranking that can get the close to a 'world' title shot
All because someone told the boy to start at 11 o clock instead of 8
This losss is no loss to the EU's
-
Re: Eubank Sr. the REASON...
ross - I hate Eubank jr so much that - in this very thread i've said that a draw was possible, even though virtually everyone else thought he lost, and that Jr would win a rematch.
I don't think Hopkins beat Calzaghe. I was using it as an example to show why your theory about split decisions was stupid. And you've proved it straight away. The fighter you supported - Eubank jr - didn't deserve to lose because it was SD. But Calzaghe, the fighter you supported against Hopkins, deserved his SD win because you don't agree with the judge that scored against him. Can't you see how silly that is?
Put this in your pipe - Jimmy Tibbs has never trained a fighter to beat one Ronnie Davies trains (you didn't even know the fights but I know at least three). Billy Joe is too small. Eubank's lack of experience doesn't matter because he batters "world-class" sparring partners. Trot.
-
Re: Eubank Sr. the REASON...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
ross - I hate Eubank jr so much that - in this very thread i've said that a draw was possible, even though virtually everyone else thought he lost, and that Jr would win a rematch.
I don't think Hopkins beat Calzaghe. I was using it as an example to show why your theory about split decisions was stupid. And you've proved it straight away. The fighter you supported - Eubank jr - didn't deserve to lose because it was SD. But Calzaghe, the fighter you supported against Hopkins, deserved his SD win because you don't agree with the judge that scored against him. Can't you see how silly that is?
Put this in your pipe - Jimmy Tibbs has never trained a fighter to beat one Ronnie Davies trains (you didn't even know the fights but I know at least three). Billy Joe is too small. Eubank's lack of experience doesn't matter because he batters "world-class" sparring partners. Trot.
Fenster, as always, is the voice of reason.
-
Re: Eubank Sr. the REASON...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
ross - I hate Eubank jr so much that - in this very thread i've said that a draw was possible, even though virtually everyone else thought he lost, and that Jr would win a rematch.
I don't think Hopkins beat Calzaghe. I was using it as an example to show why your theory about split decisions was stupid. And you've proved it straight away. The fighter you supported - Eubank jr - didn't deserve to lose because it was SD. But Calzaghe, the fighter you supported against Hopkins, deserved his SD win because you don't agree with the judge that scored against him. Can't you see how silly that is?
Put this in your pipe - Jimmy Tibbs has never trained a fighter to beat one Ronnie Davies trains (you didn't even know the fights but I know at least three). Billy Joe is too small. Eubank's lack of experience doesn't matter because he batters "world-class" sparring partners. Trot.
Fen,
Seems like we're opposites.
I normally win money on boxing and your prediction record is atrocious.
You hate the Eu's, for reasons you have not shared with us, I hate Calzaghe, because he cancelled a fight with Glen Johnson at late notice because he had ' a bad back' the real reason is that he was banged up on a saturday night for bashing his then wife.
Glen Johnson is a quality fighter, he lost £100k in travel and training expenses because of Calzaghes bad back, he then went on to beat an ageing Roy Jones, before Calslappy did.
So, we all have our own biases in fights, for various reasons.
Nevertheless I agree with you, we cant argue sensiblly that EU was a winner, only that he turned up late!
-
Re: Eubank Sr. the REASON...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
even though virtually everyone else thought he lost.
What I find strange is how everyone thought Saunders won but for some strange reason no one can pick a round Saunders dominated in, not 1 single round.
-
Re: Eubank Sr. the REASON...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ross
Eubank won.
Its such a shame he has to live with a loss now but if they do rematch Chris will start where he left off. More relaxed and letting his hands go in combinations.
Saunders maybe won two rounds after the 4th. He lost the 5th and 6th and 12th for sure. It should have been a draw if anything.
I had it a draw, and I thought it was as clear a draw as you could score.
Eubank quite simply could have dominated nearly ever round, had he not forgotten about rounds 1-5.
As soon as he pressured Saunders, little Billy Joe looked lost like he was about to go every time and I show Saunders more respect now for his chin.
I agree that Chris will regret that fight but I have no doubt that a rematch would be a one sided affair provided he remembers he's in a fight early.
-
Saunders did enough in the first half to only need a late round to win ;)
I though Eubank could rough him up very early and bully him but he simply didn't and a lot of people posting in this thread are only remembering the latter rounds.
Yes Eubank was pressing forward but
He was hardly landing punches consistently, yeah he landed a few uppercuts but Saunders was never in trouble and was fiting back with good punches.
No case for a draw imo.... BJS clearly won that.
Eubank snr needs to fuck off out of his boys corner too... telling him to relax and keep doing what your doing when infact your doing fuck all and losing round after round.
I think the occasion and pressure got to Eubank too but if he can up his work rate then maybe he has a decent future.
-
Re: Eubank Sr. the REASON...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
smashup
Saunders did enough in the first half to only need a late round to win ;)
I though Eubank could rough him up very early and bully him but he simply didn't and a lot of people posting in this thread are only remembering the latter rounds.
Yes Eubank was pressing forward but
He was hardly landing punches consistently, yeah he landed a few uppercuts but Saunders was never in trouble and was fiting back with good punches.
No case for a draw imo.... BJS clearly won that.
Eubank snr needs to fuck off out of his boys corner too... telling him to relax and keep doing what your doing when infact your doing fuck all and losing round after round.
I think the occasion and pressure got to Eubank too but if he can up his work rate then maybe he has a decent future.
So what exactly did bjs do the 1st half of the fight ? Cause after watching the fight 2 times now he didn't win 1 single round convincingly, please please tell me what round he clearly won ? I agree he nicked most of the 1st 5 rounds but that's exactly what he did he just nicked them. I think you listening to those shocking commentators a bit to much. I think it was the start of the 4th round eubank snapped bjs head right back with a jab and the commentators didn't even acknowledge it lol
-
Re: Eubank Sr. the REASON...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
g3org3
Quote:
Originally Posted by
smashup
Saunders did enough in the first half to only need a late round to win ;)
I though Eubank could rough him up very early and bully him but he simply didn't and a lot of people posting in this thread are only remembering the latter rounds.
Yes Eubank was pressing forward but
He was hardly landing punches consistently, yeah he landed a few uppercuts but Saunders was never in trouble and was fiting back with good punches.
No case for a draw imo.... BJS clearly won that.
Eubank snr needs to fuck off out of his boys corner too... telling him to relax and keep doing what your doing when infact your doing fuck all and losing round after round.
I think the occasion and pressure got to Eubank too but if he can up his work rate then maybe he has a decent future.
So what exactly did bjs do the 1st half of the fight ? Cause after watching the fight 2 times now he didn't win 1 single round convincingly, please please tell me what round he clearly won ? I agree he nicked most of the 1st 5 rounds but that's exactly what he did he just nicked them. I think you listening to those shocking commentators a bit to much. I think it was the start of the 4th round eubank snapped bjs head right back with a jab and the commentators didn't even acknowledge it lol
Yeah he nicked them. The first 5. You only need to nick them though.
But that is one of the reasons why most people that had BJS winning by a round (like me) are saying they'd back Eubank in a rematch.
-
Re: Eubank Sr. the REASON...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
nuggetdotcom
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
ross - I hate Eubank jr so much that - in this very thread i've said that a draw was possible, even though virtually everyone else thought he lost, and that Jr would win a rematch.
I don't think Hopkins beat Calzaghe. I was using it as an example to show why your theory about split decisions was stupid. And you've proved it straight away. The fighter you supported - Eubank jr - didn't deserve to lose because it was SD. But Calzaghe, the fighter you supported against Hopkins, deserved his SD win because you don't agree with the judge that scored against him. Can't you see how silly that is?
Put this in your pipe - Jimmy Tibbs has never trained a fighter to beat one Ronnie Davies trains (you didn't even know the fights but I know at least three). Billy Joe is too small. Eubank's lack of experience doesn't matter because he batters "world-class" sparring partners. Trot.
Fen,
Seems like we're opposites.
I normally win money on boxing and your prediction record is atrocious.
You hate the Eu's, for reasons you have not shared with us, I hate Calzaghe, because he cancelled a fight with Glen Johnson at late notice because he had ' a bad back' the real reason is that he was banged up on a saturday night for bashing his then wife.
Glen Johnson is a quality fighter, he lost £100k in travel and training expenses because of Calzaghes bad back, he then went on to beat an ageing Roy Jones, before Calslappy did.
So, we all have our own biases in fights, for various reasons.
Nevertheless I agree with you, we cant argue sensiblly that EU was a winner, only that he turned up late!
Come again?
You win money on boxing?
Fenster's prediction record is rubbish?
Calzaghe? Johnson? Roy? Bad Backs? Bashed up wives?
Lets start again with - what gives you the impression that I hate Eubank or his son? I've never said anything other than snr was a great fighter and jr is a top prospect.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
g3org3
Quote:
Originally Posted by
smashup
Saunders did enough in the first half to only need a late round to win ;)
I though Eubank could rough him up very early and bully him but he simply didn't and a lot of people posting in this thread are only remembering the latter rounds.
Yes Eubank was pressing forward but
He was hardly landing punches consistently, yeah he landed a few uppercuts but Saunders was never in trouble and was fiting back with good punches.
No case for a draw imo.... BJS clearly won that.
Eubank snr needs to fuck off out of his boys corner too... telling him to relax and keep doing what your doing when infact your doing fuck all and losing round after round.
I think the occasion and pressure got to Eubank too but if he can up his work rate then maybe he has a decent future.
So what exactly did bjs do the 1st half of the fight ? Cause after watching the fight 2 times now he didn't win 1 single round convincingly, please please tell me what round he clearly won ? I agree he nicked most of the 1st 5 rounds but that's exactly what he did he just nicked them. I think you listening to those shocking commentators a bit to much. I think it was the start of the 4th round eubank snapped bjs head right back with a jab and the commentators didn't even acknowledge it lol
He jabbed and moved well and dominated Eubank in the opening rounds... that all you need to do to win rounds....... land punches ;)
Saunders did and Eubank didn't
Simple really
-
Re: Eubank Sr. the REASON...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
smashup
Quote:
Originally Posted by
g3org3
Quote:
Originally Posted by
smashup
Saunders did enough in the first half to only need a late round to win ;)
I though Eubank could rough him up very early and bully him but he simply didn't and a lot of people posting in this thread are only remembering the latter rounds.
Yes Eubank was pressing forward but
He was hardly landing punches consistently, yeah he landed a few uppercuts but Saunders was never in trouble and was fiting back with good punches.
No case for a draw imo.... BJS clearly won that.
Eubank snr needs to fuck off out of his boys corner too... telling him to relax and keep doing what your doing when infact your doing fuck all and losing round after round.
I think the occasion and pressure got to Eubank too but if he can up his work rate then maybe he has a decent future.
So what exactly did bjs do the 1st half of the fight ? Cause after watching the fight 2 times now he didn't win 1 single round convincingly, please please tell me what round he clearly won ? I agree he nicked most of the 1st 5 rounds but that's exactly what he did he just nicked them. I think you listening to those shocking commentators a bit to much. I think it was the start of the 4th round eubank snapped bjs head right back with a jab and the commentators didn't even acknowledge it lol
He jabbed and moved well and dominated Eubank in the opening rounds... that all you need to do to win rounds....... land punches ;)
Saunders did and Eubank didn't
Simple really
Lol we me and you clearly have different thoughts of dominating rounds, I seriously question your boxing nolage if you think that's dominating.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
g3org3
Quote:
Originally Posted by
smashup
Quote:
Originally Posted by
g3org3
Quote:
Originally Posted by
smashup
Saunders did enough in the first half to only need a late round to win ;)
I though Eubank could rough him up very early and bully him but he simply didn't and a lot of people posting in this thread are only remembering the latter rounds.
Yes Eubank was pressing forward but
He was hardly landing punches consistently, yeah he landed a few uppercuts but Saunders was never in trouble and was fiting back with good punches.
No case for a draw imo.... BJS clearly won that.
Eubank snr needs to fuck off out of his boys corner too... telling him to relax and keep doing what your doing when infact your doing fuck all and losing round after round.
I think the occasion and pressure got to Eubank too but if he can up his work rate then maybe he has a decent future.
So what exactly did bjs do the 1st half of the fight ? Cause after watching the fight 2 times now he didn't win 1 single round convincingly, please please tell me what round he clearly won ? I agree he nicked most of the 1st 5 rounds but that's exactly what he did he just nicked them. I think you listening to those shocking commentators a bit to much. I think it was the start of the 4th round eubank snapped bjs head right back with a jab and the commentators didn't even acknowledge it lol
He jabbed and moved well and dominated Eubank in the opening rounds... that all you need to do to win rounds....... land punches ;)
Saunders did and Eubank didn't
Simple really
Lol we me and you clearly have different thoughts of dominating rounds, I seriously question your boxing nolage if you think that's dominating.
You don't have to do a lot if your opponent hardly lands anything and does absolutely nothing to dominate rounds in the judges eyes.
This is exactly what happened in the first 5-6 rounds.
Not sure what fight you watched?
-
Re: Eubank Sr. the REASON...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
smashup
Quote:
Originally Posted by
g3org3
Quote:
Originally Posted by
smashup
Quote:
Originally Posted by
g3org3
Quote:
Originally Posted by
smashup
Saunders did enough in the first half to only need a late round to win ;)
I though Eubank could rough him up very early and bully him but he simply didn't and a lot of people posting in this thread are only remembering the latter rounds.
Yes Eubank was pressing forward but
He was hardly landing punches consistently, yeah he landed a few uppercuts but Saunders was never in trouble and was fiting back with good punches.
No case for a draw imo.... BJS clearly won that.
Eubank snr needs to fuck off out of his boys corner too... telling him to relax and keep doing what your doing when infact your doing fuck all and losing round after round.
I think the occasion and pressure got to Eubank too but if he can up his work rate then maybe he has a decent future.
So what exactly did bjs do the 1st half of the fight ? Cause after watching the fight 2 times now he didn't win 1 single round convincingly, please please tell me what round he clearly won ? I agree he nicked most of the 1st 5 rounds but that's exactly what he did he just nicked them. I think you listening to those shocking commentators a bit to much. I think it was the start of the 4th round eubank snapped bjs head right back with a jab and the commentators didn't even acknowledge it lol
He jabbed and moved well and dominated Eubank in the opening rounds... that all you need to do to win rounds....... land punches ;)
Saunders did and Eubank didn't
Simple really
Lol we me and you clearly have different thoughts of dominating rounds, I seriously question your boxing nolage if you think that's dominating.
You don't have to do a lot if your opponent hardly lands anything and does absolutely nothing to dominate rounds in the judges eyes.
This is exactly what happened in the first 5-6 rounds.
Not sure what fight you watched?
Well it was obviously a different fight to the 1 you seen. Fight I seen Saunders nicked 4 of the 1st 5 rounds and I mean really nicked them not a lot in any of them 2nd half eubank took his rounds clearly landed the bigger punches and landed more shots. For you to say bjs dominated the 1st half of the fight shows you can't score a fight or else your a big bjs fan.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
g3org3
Quote:
Originally Posted by
smashup
Quote:
Originally Posted by
g3org3
Quote:
Originally Posted by
smashup
Quote:
Originally Posted by
g3org3
Quote:
Originally Posted by
smashup
Saunders did enough in the first half to only need a late round to win ;)
I though Eubank could rough him up very early and bully him but he simply didn't and a lot of people posting in this thread are only remembering the latter rounds.
Yes Eubank was pressing forward but
He was hardly landing punches consistently, yeah he landed a few uppercuts but Saunders was never in trouble and was fiting back with good punches.
No case for a draw imo.... BJS clearly won that.
Eubank snr needs to fuck off out of his boys corner too... telling him to relax and keep doing what your doing when infact your doing fuck all and losing round after round.
I think the occasion and pressure got to Eubank too but if he can up his work rate then maybe he has a decent future.
So what exactly did bjs do the 1st half of the fight ? Cause after watching the fight 2 times now he didn't win 1 single round convincingly, please please tell me what round he clearly won ? I agree he nicked most of the 1st 5 rounds but that's exactly what he did he just nicked them. I think you listening to those shocking commentators a bit to much. I think it was the start of the 4th round eubank snapped bjs head right back with a jab and the commentators didn't even acknowledge it lol
He jabbed and moved well and dominated Eubank in the opening rounds... that all you need to do to win rounds....... land punches ;)
Saunders did and Eubank didn't
Simple really
Lol we me and you clearly have different thoughts of dominating rounds, I seriously question your boxing nolage if you think that's dominating.
You don't have to do a lot if your opponent hardly lands anything and does absolutely nothing to dominate rounds in the judges eyes.
This is exactly what happened in the first 5-6 rounds.
Not sure what fight you watched?
Well it was obviously a different fight to the 1 you seen. Fight I seen Saunders nicked 4 of the 1st 5 rounds and I mean really nicked them not a lot in any of them 2nd half eubank took his rounds clearly landed the bigger punches and landed more shots. For you to say bjs dominated the 1st half of the fight shows you can't score a fight or else your a big bjs fan.
Neither but I do score rounds to the guy who's busier and actually throwing and landing shots just like most people do.
-
Re: Eubank Sr. the REASON...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
g3org3
Quote:
Originally Posted by
smashup
Quote:
Originally Posted by
g3org3
Quote:
Originally Posted by
smashup
Quote:
Originally Posted by
g3org3
Quote:
Originally Posted by
smashup
Saunders did enough in the first half to only need a late round to win ;)
I though Eubank could rough him up very early and bully him but he simply didn't and a lot of people posting in this thread are only remembering the latter rounds.
Yes Eubank was pressing forward but
He was hardly landing punches consistently, yeah he landed a few uppercuts but Saunders was never in trouble and was fiting back with good punches.
No case for a draw imo.... BJS clearly won that.
Eubank snr needs to fuck off out of his boys corner too... telling him to relax and keep doing what your doing when infact your doing fuck all and losing round after round.
I think the occasion and pressure got to Eubank too but if he can up his work rate then maybe he has a decent future.
So what exactly did bjs do the 1st half of the fight ? Cause after watching the fight 2 times now he didn't win 1 single round convincingly, please please tell me what round he clearly won ? I agree he nicked most of the 1st 5 rounds but that's exactly what he did he just nicked them. I think you listening to those shocking commentators a bit to much. I think it was the start of the 4th round eubank snapped bjs head right back with a jab and the commentators didn't even acknowledge it lol
He jabbed and moved well and dominated Eubank in the opening rounds... that all you need to do to win rounds....... land punches ;)
Saunders did and Eubank didn't
Simple really
Lol we me and you clearly have different thoughts of dominating rounds, I seriously question your boxing nolage if you think that's dominating.
You don't have to do a lot if your opponent hardly lands anything and does absolutely nothing to dominate rounds in the judges eyes.
This is exactly what happened in the first 5-6 rounds.
Not sure what fight you watched?
Well it was obviously a different fight to the 1 you seen. Fight I seen Saunders nicked 4 of the 1st 5 rounds and I mean really nicked them not a lot in any of them 2nd half eubank took his rounds clearly landed the bigger punches and landed more shots. For you to say bjs dominated the 1st half of the fight shows you can't score a fight or else your a big bjs fan.
Eubank won his rounds clearer yes but as you know that makes no difference unless he forces a 10-8 which he didn't. For me, 7-5 to BJS with a plausible case for a draw.
-
Re: Eubank Sr. the REASON...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
g3org3
Quote:
Originally Posted by
smashup
Quote:
Originally Posted by
g3org3
Quote:
Originally Posted by
smashup
Quote:
Originally Posted by
g3org3
Quote:
Originally Posted by
smashup
Saunders did enough in the first half to only need a late round to win ;)
I though Eubank could rough him up very early and bully him but he simply didn't and a lot of people posting in this thread are only remembering the latter rounds.
Yes Eubank was pressing forward but
He was hardly landing punches consistently, yeah he landed a few uppercuts but Saunders was never in trouble and was fiting back with good punches.
No case for a draw imo.... BJS clearly won that.
Eubank snr needs to fuck off out of his boys corner too... telling him to relax and keep doing what your doing when infact your doing fuck all and losing round after round.
I think the occasion and pressure got to Eubank too but if he can up his work rate then maybe he has a decent future.
So what exactly did bjs do the 1st half of the fight ? Cause after watching the fight 2 times now he didn't win 1 single round convincingly, please please tell me what round he clearly won ? I agree he nicked most of the 1st 5 rounds but that's exactly what he did he just nicked them. I think you listening to those shocking commentators a bit to much. I think it was the start of the 4th round eubank snapped bjs head right back with a jab and the commentators didn't even acknowledge it lol
He jabbed and moved well and dominated Eubank in the opening rounds... that all you need to do to win rounds....... land punches ;)
Saunders did and Eubank didn't
Simple really
Lol we me and you clearly have different thoughts of dominating rounds, I seriously question your boxing nolage if you think that's dominating.
You don't have to do a lot if your opponent hardly lands anything and does absolutely nothing to dominate rounds in the judges eyes.
This is exactly what happened in the first 5-6 rounds.
Not sure what fight you watched?
Well it was obviously a different fight to the 1 you seen. Fight I seen Saunders nicked 4 of the 1st 5 rounds and I mean really nicked them not a lot in any of them 2nd half eubank took his rounds clearly landed the bigger punches and landed more shots. For you to say bjs dominated the 1st half of the fight shows you can't score afight or else your a big bjs fan.
Actually what you just wrote doesnt add up not how real scoring adds up.
You either win a round or you dont. Nicking a round doesnt even come into scoring,if you nick it by one clear shot you win that round,that is why the sport allows for defensive fighters styles and aggressive fighters styles.
Because one fighter dominated the first part softer and the other dominated the end harder doesnt count for shit either. Unless its a draw then the judges may look a touch more towards a more dominant fighter but not otherwise. The rounds in this fight were clear enough to be able to score all the clean unblocked untouched shots.
-
Re: Eubank Sr. the REASON...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
smashup
Quote:
Originally Posted by
g3org3
Quote:
Originally Posted by
smashup
Quote:
Originally Posted by
g3org3
Quote:
Originally Posted by
smashup
Quote:
Originally Posted by
g3org3
Quote:
Originally Posted by
smashup
Saunders did enough in the first half to only need a late round to win ;)
I though Eubank could rough him up very early and bully him but he simply didn't and a lot of people posting in this thread are only remembering the latter rounds.
Yes Eubank was pressing forward but
He was hardly landing punches consistently, yeah he landed a few uppercuts but Saunders was never in trouble and was fiting back with good punches.
No case for a draw imo.... BJS clearly won that.
Eubank snr needs to fuck off out of his boys corner too... telling him to relax and keep doing what your doing when infact your doing fuck all and losing round after round.
I think the occasion and pressure got to Eubank too but if he can up his work rate then maybe he has a decent future.
So what exactly did bjs do the 1st half of the fight ? Cause after watching the fight 2 times now he didn't win 1 single round convincingly, please please tell me what round he clearly won ? I agree he nicked most of the 1st 5 rounds but that's exactly what he did he just nicked them. I think you listening to those shocking commentators a bit to much. I think it was the start of the 4th round eubank snapped bjs head right back with a jab and the commentators didn't even acknowledge it lol
He jabbed and moved well and dominated Eubank in the opening rounds... that all you need to do to win rounds....... land punches ;)
Saunders did and Eubank didn't
Simple really
Lol we me and you clearly have different thoughts of dominating rounds, I seriously question your boxing nolage if you think that's dominating.
You don't have to do a lot if your opponent hardly lands anything and does absolutely nothing to dominate rounds in the judges eyes.
This is exactly what happened in the first 5-6 rounds.
Not sure what fight you watched?
Well it was obviously a different fight to the 1 you seen. Fight I seen Saunders nicked 4 of the 1st 5 rounds and I mean really nicked them not a lot in any of them 2nd half eubank took his rounds clearly landed the bigger punches and landed more shots. For you to say bjs dominated the 1st half of the fight shows you can't score a fight or else your a big bjs fan.
Neither but I do score rounds to the guy who's busier and actually throwing and landing shots just like most people do.
No you said bjs dominated the 1st half of the fight that's complete bull shit he didnt dominate 1 single round, what was bjs most dominating round ? The fight was close I agree I had eubank wining but it was very close I don't have a problem for people saying Saunders won a close fight but I do have a problem with people saying bjs dominated any round in that fight never mind the 1st 6 rounds it's laughable.
-
Re: Eubank Sr. the REASON...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Andre
Quote:
Originally Posted by
g3org3
Quote:
Originally Posted by
smashup
Quote:
Originally Posted by
g3org3
Quote:
Originally Posted by
smashup
Quote:
Originally Posted by
g3org3
Quote:
Originally Posted by
smashup
Saunders did enough in the first half to only need a late round to win ;)
I though Eubank could rough him up very early and bully him but he simply didn't and a lot of people posting in this thread are only remembering the latter rounds.
Yes Eubank was pressing forward but
He was hardly landing punches consistently, yeah he landed a few uppercuts but Saunders was never in trouble and was fiting back with good punches.
No case for a draw imo.... BJS clearly won that.
Eubank snr needs to fuck off out of his boys corner too... telling him to relax and keep doing what your doing when infact your doing fuck all and losing round after round.
I think the occasion and pressure got to Eubank too but if he can up his work rate then maybe he has a decent future.
So what exactly did bjs do the 1st half of the fight ? Cause after watching the fight 2 times now he didn't win 1 single round convincingly, please please tell me what round he clearly won ? I agree he nicked most of the 1st 5 rounds but that's exactly what he did he just nicked them. I think you listening to those shocking commentators a bit to much. I think it was the start of the 4th round eubank snapped bjs head right back with a jab and the commentators didn't even acknowledge it lol
He jabbed and moved well and dominated Eubank in the opening rounds... that all you need to do to win rounds....... land punches ;)
Saunders did and Eubank didn't
Simple really
Lol we me and you clearly have different thoughts of dominating rounds, I seriously question your boxing nolage if you think that's dominating.
You don't have to do a lot if your opponent hardly lands anything and does absolutely nothing to dominate rounds in the judges eyes.
This is exactly what happened in the first 5-6 rounds.
Not sure what fight you watched?
Well it was obviously a different fight to the 1 you seen. Fight I seen Saunders nicked 4 of the 1st 5 rounds and I mean really nicked them not a lot in any of them 2nd half eubank took his rounds clearly landed the bigger punches and landed more shots. For you to say bjs dominated the 1st half of the fight shows you can't score afight or else your a big bjs fan.
Actually what you just wrote doesnt add up not how real scoring adds up.
You either win a round or you dont. Nicking a round doesnt even come into scoring,if you nick it by one clear shot you win that round,that is why the sport allows for defensive fighters styles and aggressive fighters styles.
Because one fighter dominated the first part softer and the other dominated the end harder doesnt count for shit either. Unless its a draw then the judges may look a touch more towards a more dominant fighter but not otherwise. The rounds in this fight were clear enough to be able to score all the clean unblocked untouched shots.
What I said was the 1st 5 rounds were close nothing in them and bjs nicked them I scored 4 of the 1st 5 rounds for bjs but you could easily of had 1 or 2 10-10 rounds
-
Re: Eubank Sr. the REASON...
I could agree that Billy Joe dominated the first half with regard to amount of winning rounds but not dominating any single round. I watched the first round and even that could have gone to Eubank.
Maybe everyones perception of what Eubank was going to do didn't match how he fought the first few rounds because at time he out jabbed Billy, landed nice rights to the gut.
I definitely do no not believe Eubank should have a loss on his record for this now and a third of the judges agreed with me. One things for sure, Eubank has so much more scope to improve whereas Billy has been in boxing for a long time now and is as good as he's going to get.
Any rematch will be massive and Eubank wins!
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ross
Eubank won.
Its such a shame he has to live with a loss now but if they do rematch Chris will start where he left off. More relaxed and letting his hands go in combinations.
Saunders maybe won two rounds after the 4th. He lost the 5th and 6th and 12th for sure. It should have been a draw if anything.
Man, you are a strange one, everything you say about your favorites is now suspect. You can't be trusted!
-
Re: Eubank Sr. the REASON...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
beenKOed
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ross
Eubank won.
Its such a shame he has to live with a loss now but if they do rematch Chris will start where he left off. More relaxed and letting his hands go in combinations.
Saunders maybe won two rounds after the 4th. He lost the 5th and 6th and 12th for sure. It should have been a draw if anything.
Man, you are a strange one, everything you say about your favorites is now suspect. You can't be trusted!
What the fuck are you on about?
One of the judges gave it to Eubank and it was by a bigger margin than the others gave it to Saunders by.
-
Re: Eubank Sr. the REASON...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ross
Quote:
Originally Posted by
beenKOed
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ross
Eubank won.
Its such a shame he has to live with a loss now but if they do rematch Chris will start where he left off. More relaxed and letting his hands go in combinations.
Saunders maybe won two rounds after the 4th. He lost the 5th and 6th and 12th for sure. It should have been a draw if anything.
Man, you are a strange one, everything you say about your favorites is now suspect. You can't be trusted!
What the fuck are you on about?
One of the judges gave it to Eubank and it was by a bigger margin than the others gave it to Saunders by.
Doesn't matter if one judge gave Eubank every round the other two didn't agree . so he lost.
-
Re: Eubank Sr. the REASON...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by
nuggetdotcom
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
ross - I hate Eubank jr so much that - in this very thread i've said that a draw was possible, even though virtually everyone else thought he lost, and that Jr would win a rematch.
I don't think Hopkins beat Calzaghe. I was using it as an example to show why your theory about split decisions was stupid. And you've proved it straight away. The fighter you supported - Eubank jr - didn't deserve to lose because it was SD. But Calzaghe, the fighter you supported against Hopkins, deserved his SD win because you don't agree with the judge that scored against him. Can't you see how silly that is?
Put this in your pipe - Jimmy Tibbs has never trained a fighter to beat one Ronnie Davies trains (you didn't even know the fights but I know at least three). Billy Joe is too small. Eubank's lack of experience doesn't matter because he batters "world-class" sparring partners. Trot.
Fen,
Seems like we're opposites.
I normally win money on boxing and your prediction record is atrocious.
You hate the Eu's, for reasons you have not shared with us, I hate Calzaghe, because he cancelled a fight with Glen Johnson at late notice because he had ' a bad back' the real reason is that he was banged up on a saturday night for bashing his then wife.
Glen Johnson is a quality fighter, he lost £100k in travel and training expenses because of Calzaghes bad back, he then went on to beat an ageing Roy Jones, before Calslappy did.
So, we all have our own biases in fights, for various reasons.
Nevertheless I agree with you, we cant argue sensiblly that EU was a winner, only that he turned up late!
Come again?
You win money on boxing?
Fenster's prediction record is rubbish?
Calzaghe? Johnson? Roy? Bad Backs? Bashed up wives?
Lets start again with - what gives you the impression that I hate Eubank or his son? I've never said anything other than snr was a great fighter and jr is a top prospect.
Yeh. start again fen, I mistook you for a EU hater, my mistake too many posts and missing the detail. However you can deffo put me down as a calzaghe non beleiver, the wives thing is well known, ask sheffield
-
Re: Eubank Sr. the REASON...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dark Lord Al
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ross
Quote:
Originally Posted by
beenKOed
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ross
Eubank won.
Its such a shame he has to live with a loss now but if they do rematch Chris will start where he left off. More relaxed and letting his hands go in combinations.
Saunders maybe won two rounds after the 4th. He lost the 5th and 6th and 12th for sure. It should have been a draw if anything.
Man, you are a strange one, everything you say about your favorites is now suspect. You can't be trusted!
What the fuck are you on about?
One of the judges gave it to Eubank and it was by a bigger margin than the others gave it to Saunders by.
Doesn't matter if one judge gave Eubank every round the other two didn't agree . so he lost.
Well, put it this way, add all three scores together for each boxer and what are each boxers score?
343 a draw.
Although the way the scores are collected is different, this is how the scoring is tallied up in amateur. You dont have draws in amateur but you do in professional.
-
If that was an amateur fight the scoring would be different and Saunders would have won by a much wider margin.
-
Re: Eubank Sr. the REASON...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
nuggetdotcom
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by
nuggetdotcom
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
ross - I hate Eubank jr so much that - in this very thread i've said that a draw was possible, even though virtually everyone else thought he lost, and that Jr would win a rematch.
I don't think Hopkins beat Calzaghe. I was using it as an example to show why your theory about split decisions was stupid. And you've proved it straight away. The fighter you supported - Eubank jr - didn't deserve to lose because it was SD. But Calzaghe, the fighter you supported against Hopkins, deserved his SD win because you don't agree with the judge that scored against him. Can't you see how silly that is?
Put this in your pipe - Jimmy Tibbs has never trained a fighter to beat one Ronnie Davies trains (you didn't even know the fights but I know at least three). Billy Joe is too small. Eubank's lack of experience doesn't matter because he batters "world-class" sparring partners. Trot.
Fen,
Seems like we're opposites.
I normally win money on boxing and your prediction record is atrocious.
You hate the Eu's, for reasons you have not shared with us, I hate Calzaghe, because he cancelled a fight with Glen Johnson at late notice because he had ' a bad back' the real reason is that he was banged up on a saturday night for bashing his then wife.
Glen Johnson is a quality fighter, he lost £100k in travel and training expenses because of Calzaghes bad back, he then went on to beat an ageing Roy Jones, before Calslappy did.
So, we all have our own biases in fights, for various reasons.
Nevertheless I agree with you, we cant argue sensiblly that EU was a winner, only that he turned up late!
Come again?
You win money on boxing?
Fenster's prediction record is rubbish?
Calzaghe? Johnson? Roy? Bad Backs? Bashed up wives?
Lets start again with - what gives you the impression that I hate Eubank or his son? I've never said anything other than snr was a great fighter and jr is a top prospect.
Yeh. start again fen, I mistook you for a EU hater, my mistake too many posts and missing the detail. However you can deffo put me down as a calzaghe non beleiver, the wives thing is well known, ask sheffield
No problem. The only man on this planet I hate is myself.
-
Re: Eubank Sr. the REASON...
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ross
Quote:
Originally Posted by
beenKOed
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ross
Eubank won.
Its such a shame he has to live with a loss now but if they do rematch Chris will start where he left off. More relaxed and letting his hands go in combinations.
Saunders maybe won two rounds after the 4th. He lost the 5th and 6th and 12th for sure. It should have been a draw if anything.
Man, you are a strange one, everything you say about your favorites is now suspect. You can't be trusted!
What the fuck are you on about?
One of the judges gave it to Eubank and it was by a bigger margin than the others gave it to Saunders by.
That's what I'm talking about!
You will not or cannot accept the fact that your boy lost.
Six months from now or six years from now you will still be bitching about the way Jr., in your opinion, was robbed.
I can't deny that it was fun to watch you squirm for a while, but everything sensible on the subject has been said. IMO
