Printable View
pre calzaghe era there were some great boxers in the middleweight div.
benn was WC,eubank beat benn, they fought to a draw in the second bout (controversial ppl thought benn won that fight) watson had a great win against benn and was winning the 2nd fight against eubank(before the tragic accident) but he never achieved the heights of his adversaries, and eubank never lost to either of them. so in your opinion who do you think was the best?
Welcome to the forum. Have the Obligatory Wacko Welcome Wagon :coolclick:Quote:
Originally Posted by cymru_am_byth
I honestly believe that Hopkins & Jones Jr would have beaten them all back iin the day.
impossible to say wacko many thought mc'clennan was gonna beat benn and he was the dominant middleweight at that time in the US that is , but could you imagine jones / eubank that would of been interesting, for me eubank beat jones because he was so unothoradox ,had a great punch and chin , jones beats benn and jones edges watson, cant really speak for bernard not seen many of his earlier fights ;D. lol
Sorry about the late :coolclick:Quote:
Originally Posted by cymru_am_byth
Another post & alcohol took over...these things happen.
Yeah...you are correct...it is impossible to say...but I alway scompared them fight for fightEubank/Benn/Jones & Jones always looked faster, more accurate, & the slickest of the group...& I aint just sayin that because Ima Yank.
To me, & Hopkins is my favorite, I think that he woulda outslicked em all including Jones had they have fought at the correct times.
Jones vs Hopkins has always been a controversial fight for me...just like Jones Tarver I...I know everyone hates me for it...but Tarver won that first fight.
How. Jones won at least 7, more like 8 rounds... and he was beating up on Tarver for the 12th to absolutely seal the win.. Tarver did a good job at trying to steal rounds but you can't just fight for 20 seconds if the other guy has been even remotely active for the majority of the round.. And how was Jones Hopkins contraversial for you, btw.... You can't tell me Hopkins deserved anything more than he got...Quote:
Originally Posted by wacko3205
CC my thoughts exactly, and add Toney to that list. Nothing against European fighters, but they haven't produced anybody as good as those three as of yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by wacko3205
Exactly...they look good beating on each other but for the most part the competition is over here......minus the ITALIAN DRAGON of course...although he not doing it over here either...
I agree about this one... Tarver lost against Roy easily in the first fight for me easy fight to judge... Jones landed more clean shots, and gutted it out moreso than Tarver did especially considering him comming down in weight.Quote:
Originally Posted by p4pking
Eubank was the best, look at the results of their fights, its that simple really.
watson may well have been beating Chris in the second fight but Chris showed what a fighter he is by finding the big punch when he needed it.
Its a shame Michael was injured not just for him but for Chris's career, it stalled, he lost something, the finishing touch and the desire.
He wan a load of fights later but just burnt out look at his record going in to the first Collins fight
http://www.boxrec.com/boxer_display.php?boxer_id=000804
That there is a fighter ;D
I think personally if you are talking that era then steve collins deserves a mention too
Benn in terms of achievement, he's number two behind Roy Jones for all-time super-middleweight rankings
(1- Roy Jones Jr, 2- Nigel Benn, 3- James Toney, 4- Joe Calzaghe, 5- Steve Collins). Benn won world titles overseas at different weights and defended them against Iran Barkley and Gerald McClellan.
Eubank in terms of potential though, that guy could of done sooo much more with himself. Eubank could of been fighter of the decade if he wanted to be. He gives Toney fits and takes the decision if he's prepared properly, but would of only won the first four rounds against Jones.
As for Hopkins, he wouldn't of had much hope against Nunn, Benn, Eubank, Toney, McClellan, two-handed Jones (Jones fought him with one arm). Hopkins certainly would of been a big underdog had he fought any of them back then.
Of the three Eubank wins due to the head to head meetings, though as wwatt said, Benn did accomplish more. IMO Eubank was the most talented, but he did have a tendency to be lazy, and come down to his opponents level, even before the Watson tragedy.
RJJ at his best would have beaten them all, probably stopping Benn and Watson. However IMO out of all the guys RJJ fought in the 90s Eubank would have given him more problems than any, except possibly a late 90s version of B hop.
Such a shame the US SMW's never fought the UK
If you think that Jones won 8 rounds then the judges were way the fwock off with their scores huh?Quote:
Originally Posted by p4pking
Tarver was the agressor in that fight from pretty much the start on & Jones was taken completely out of his game & never got back in it.
Jones Hopkins?
This is one of those fights that I say you should watch the damned thing with the sound off. Most of the shots that Jones caught Hops with were lauded as bombs by the commentators & what Hopkins connected with were disregaurded.
That was one of the most tactical fights that Hopkins has ever been in...same goes for Roy. I'm not saying that HOpkins won...I'm saying it's a lot more closely matched of a fight than fans were led to believe.
Watched that fight many many times & the majority of the fight was scored on Roy's ability to get the fwock away from HOpkins...just my opinion.
I loved the fight...I just don't think that it was as career damning as the speakers tried to paint it out as.
In answer to the thread title...I posted this on another similar topic about Steve Collins few weeks back
What Collins lacked in skill and natural ability he made up for with guts, work rate and strategy. I think he was fortunate to be peaking around the same time as his rivals were on the slide. He is known as the guy that twice beat Eubank and Benn, but I think this gives a far inflated idea of his place in the nineties mix of Super Middles.
I give him great credit for out thinking, out working and out muscling Eubank, and although Chris was past his best, he was not over the hill by any stretch and still had a lot to offer. I suspect that any time after 91 a Prime Collins would have don the the same to Eubank, not cause I think he is a better fighter, cause I don't, I just think that he would always have to high of a work rate for post Watson Eubank!
Benn however was shot to bits, when he fought Collins and in fairness was shot to bits from the minute the McClelland fight ended - I think Collins would always have taken Benn's power at any time, so prime for prime it's a pick em. I'd lean towards Benn, if he boxed how he did circa 92-94 rather than sluggin it out!!
I would pick Calzaghe to beat all 3 of them at any time and I have said that for years!!!! A 1990 Eubank would've been the biggest test for Calzghe in my opinion.
So to rank them all I would say:
1.) 2006 Joe Calzaghe
2.) 1990 Chris Eubank
3.) 1994 Nigel Benn
4.) 1995 Steve Collins
Wacko what time period do you think Hopkins could beat Roy? I really can't beating any RJJ pre-comming down from heavyweight... Jones was smarter, faster, stronger, and unpredictable in the ring... People say he had a bad technique in terms of a traditional boxer... well I say when he was at his best he capatalized more of his assets by fighting his style then he ever could have fighting traditionally.
Eubank wasn't shot at all going into the Collins fight, he put in his best career performance against Wharton and said he was going to finally start boxing again!!
It was 'Mind Games at Mill Street' that beat Eubank ;)
if that was the case Watt, then he should of beaten Collins in the rematch