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.
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.
