Eubank and Benn - Who Was Better?

Chris Eubank and Nigel Benns careers are intrinsically linked due to their famous rivalry and two classic fights which captured the nations attention in a way a domestic fight never could these days.

I tend to notice that whenever British ATG lists are offered, Benn is invariably ranked the higher of the two, despite being 0-1-1 against Eubank. No doubt this is due to his willingness to fight in the U.S and notable career victories over Barkley and McLellan, whereas Eubank stagnated somewhat fighting euro level opposition for easy paydays. 

I find it quite sad that such a talented fighter as Eubank is remembered nearly as much for quality performances in defeat (Collins, Calzaghe & Thompson) at the tail end of his career as he is for anything significant achieved in his prime. 

But what I'm asking here is not who you rank higher, but who was better. 

For me it has to be Eubank. He was more skilful, equally powerful, more evasive and with a better chin. I think if they fought 10 times Eubank would win the vast majority. Benn was a decent puncher but not decent enough to put a dent in Eubank who was a harder man and had a chin of stone, he could never win by stoppage. He also could never win by outboxing the more skilled, more savvy Eubank. Eubank proved he had it in him to stop Benn. He also twice beat Watson who knocked Benn out. Any win for Benn comes purely via higher workrate. I don't think it's a case of Eubank having Benns number, I just think he was a better boxer and harder man. 

So, forget who you rank higher based on records, who do you actually think was better?

Eubank

Eubank.

My, that's a tough one.

It might be a wee bit controversial, but I always felt that Benn was something of an over achiever, and I reckon just about everybody would say that Eubank was an under achiever. Eubank the more gifted and, as Sugar Boy says, the tougher man, but Benn's ambition and ' in your face ' attitude might level things up.

If sitting on the fence is prohibited I'll go with Eubank.

Just.

Benn did more but Eubank had far more talent

Based on his wins over Mclellan, Barkley and Malinga would have to have Benn the higher of the two

I was only young when I watched them on the telly, but I always remember Eubank seeming more clinical, a bit tighter, whereas Benn was a bit of a guts & glory type. In hindsight and with re-evaluation and re-viewing, I'd probably stick with those opinions.

For what it's worth, I have them equal 16th in my list of all-time British fighters. No sitting on the fence from me, dear me no!

I don't argue with anyone who wants to put either one a little higher than the other - there is a decent case either way. Benn's list of victims comfortably outshines that of Eubank. DeWitt, Barkley, Sims, McClellan are of a higher order than Watson x2 and Rocchigiani. On the other hand, of course, Eubank beat Benn first time round, and may have been a touch fortunate to get the draw second time round, but only a touch. We shouldn't forget that the second meeting came after Eubank's almost tragic fight with Watson, and I just don't think that Chris was the same fighter then.

Truth is that I don't think Eubank much liked the sport that he was so good at. He did the bare minimum most of the time, reserving his best only for when he felt genuinely threatened. People may argue that Benn conclusively proved his courage against McClellan, and he probably did, but it's hard to overlook completely his capitulations against Watson (to a jab) and Collins. Eubank was a warrior to the end of his career - his heart, even against the far bigger Thompson, was astonishing; his performance against Calzaghe fabulous for a man way past his prime.

If Eubank had been as much of an enthusiast for the sport as Benn, I think he might have cracked the all-time top 5 British fighters. Benn made the most of what he had, by contrast, and I can't ever see him belonging in an all-time Top 10. Level overall is fair enough, but if I had to pick between them, I'd probably have to choose Eubank.

captain carrantuohil: Truth is that I don't think Eubank much liked the sport that he was so good at. He did the bare minimum most of the time, reserving his best only for when he felt genuinely threatened
--------
That really was Eubanks problem - he was prone to fighting at the level of his opposition rather than to the limits of his own ability, which as you rightly say meant we saw the best of him when genuinely threatened but also meant that he lowered his game to a mediocre level when fighting sub standard opposition.

You make an excellent point in that, if only Eubank with his ability had Benns desire and passion to succeed, we'd be looking at a top 5 atg British fighter. Strange that, despite his obvious indifference to the sport and the tragedy that befell Watson in their fight, Eubank is encouraging his son into becoming a pro boxer.

I think that "encouraging" might perhaps be pitching it a little strongly, SBS. Having realised that he wasn't going to persuade Eubank Jr not to bother with boxing, Chris determined that his son had better do the thing properly and arranged for him to do some training with Mike McCallum. What Chris had above all, of course, was pride, which was what drove him to become such an exceptional fighter. I wouldn't say that he's looking to live out past glories through his kid, that's for sure.

Benn for me on achievement, but pretty even.

I wouldn't say that he's looking to live out past glories through his kid, that's for sure.
--------
I wasn't suggesting that. Just surprised to see his boy going down the boxing route, however I don't know the ins and outs of it, and if as you say it's more to make sure he does it right having failed to dissuade him from it altogether, then that would make sense. Hopefully he'll have inherited his old mans skills, heart and whiskers. But not his dress sense or voice...

Or indeed driving skills, SBS. Apparently Junior's had some visa problems in the States. He'd been going along quite nicely at some amateur level over there. He's 22 this year, though, so time is moving on a bit, I'd have thought. Time to make his mark properly in either the unpaid or paid ranks if he's to get anywhere near his Dad's level.

Eubank.

Benn won the rematch.

Benn was better.

Benn won the rematch.

Benn was better.
.................................................
Benn was the better guy but Eubank was the better fighter imo, your right about the rematch though Benn won that hands down for me, Watson was the best out of the 3 for my money though.

Eubank was never the same after Watson 2

I would say Eubank was the more all round fighter and so would rank him higher than Benn on pure talent. But, the Benn who beat McClellan on that night would have beaten, in my opinion, the best that Eubank could offer. Benn reached his zenith that night and was a picture of focused aggression. Tragic night but, paradoxically, Benn's greatest for me.

Eubank was a level above Benn on boxing skill but like some have mentioned above he just wasn't that into it. Also the Watson fight changed him immeasurably.

Eubank.

I maintain that Eubank is one of the most talented British fighters I have ever seen. He really could have done better with what he had. Too much posturing and a lack of enthusiasm for the game that only got worse after the second Watson fight meant he never made the most of himself. Watching him turn it on to beat Watson and Benn gave a glimpse of what might have been. Benn had a lot going for him and has better wins than eubank on paper, but overall I rate him a little lower.

From a purely ability point of view and nothing outside the ring to sway judgement i'd have to say Eubank

If you take their 2 career records i'd comfortably pick Eubank, and if they faced off 100 times i'd pick him to beat Benn 95 of those.

Not saying i don't like Benn, far from it. One of my favourite guys to watch from the 90s, absolute warrior. Just felt if Eubank chose not to go to war then Benn was a bit lost on what to do.

Added a poll to the question to make it easier to see the answer from you all!

I much prefer Benn, but, deep down, thought Eubank was the better fighter

Of course Coxy, if Eubank chose not to go to war, his workrate was so poor at times that Benn would undoubtedly win it on the scorecared being the far busier.

Benn wasn't a bad boxer (he was an ABA Champion after all) I judt think he realised he'd win more fans being aggressive than by being savvy whereas Eubank simply didn't give **** why people watched him...just so long as they paid their money!

I think Eubank was the better all round fighter, but Benn wanted it a whole lot more. Eubank was always happy to do just enough to win, whereas Benn wanted to win in style!
That is why many people rate Benn higher and also why Benn achieved moreon the world stage i,e, wins over McClellan, Barkley and De Witt.
Eubank had all the tools but lacked the will to use them to full effect, which is a shame because everytime he was pushed he produced special performances as against Benn twice, Watson twice, Thompson twice and Collins twice, I also remember Eubank battering Henry Wharton who he rated quite highly!
Liked em both but if I had to have one of them fight to save my life i'd pick Eubank every time!

Eubank himself doesn't seem to agree with most on here either. In a recent interview he said he overachieved and I agree. Eubank really wasn't as good as some make out. For all his supposed skills he didn't show them nearly enough to deserve the kudos he gets from some. Yes he showed class at times but he was also very cllumsy and lazy in equal meusures. Benn's boxing improved a hell of a lot post Watson and he deserves more credit than he gets in my opinion.

I think the votes and subsequent comments are what we all expected; Benn's win over McClellan is significantly better than anything of Eubank's record, and while Eubank basically wasted what should have been the prime years of his career between 1991 and 1995, Benn went from strength to strength.

However, there's absolutely no doubt that Eubank was the better technician, and certainly the more rounded fighter. I'd give the edge to Benn when it comes to punching power, but not anywhere else. Eubank always went for quality over quantity when it came to punch output, had the superior stamina and the much better defence.

Still, I can never bring myself to rank Eubank ahead of Benn in the all-time British standings.

88Chris05 wrote:I think the votes and subsequent comments are what we all expected; Benn's win over McClellan is significantly better than anything of Eubank's record, and while Eubank basically wasted what should have been the prime years of his career between 1991 and 1995, Benn went from strength to strength.

However, there's absolutely no doubt that Eubank was the better technician, and certainly the more rounded fighter. I'd give the edge to Benn when it comes to punching power, but not anywhere else. Eubank always went for quality over quantity when it came to punch output, had the superior stamina and the much better defence.

Still, I can never bring myself to rank Eubank ahead of Benn in the all-time British standings.

Its a tad harsh on Eubank to say he wasted the 1991-95 years given what happened to Mike Watson.

azania wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:I think the votes and subsequent comments are what we all expected; Benn's win over McClellan is significantly better than anything of Eubank's record, and while Eubank basically wasted what should have been the prime years of his career between 1991 and 1995, Benn went from strength to strength.

However, there's absolutely no doubt that Eubank was the better technician, and certainly the more rounded fighter. I'd give the edge to Benn when it comes to punching power, but not anywhere else. Eubank always went for quality over quantity when it came to punch output, had the superior stamina and the much better defence.

Still, I can never bring myself to rank Eubank ahead of Benn in the all-time British standings.

Its a tad harsh on Eubank to say he wasted the 1991-95 years given what happened to Mike Watson.

I completely agree with az - first time for everything, I suppose - and I also feel that there is an ' elephant in the room ' as far as Benn v McClellan is concerned.

Given the tragic circumstances, I'm not at all comfortable addressing the issue, but the truth is that McClellan was clearly stricken as early as the fourth round, when he began to blink, repeatedly, and was unwilling or unable to keep his mouthpiece in place. This isn't revisionist history, on my part, since I remarked on it while watching the fight unfold ' live, ' though I had absolutely no idea that the situation was so serious.

Neither did Nigel Benn, of course, so we cannot take a single brownie point away from one of the gutsiest performances ever seen in a British ring. What we can do, however, is ask ourselves how we would see the fight panning out had McClellan not been ill, and how comparisons between Benn and Eubank would then have been perceived.

One tragedy, ultimately, benefitted Benn and another, ultimately, diminished Eubank.

Benn was never the same fighter after gthe GMan fight windy so that fight was also the end of Benn as we knew him in the ring. That fight took all of the fight out of him. He lost 4 out of his last 5 fights post Mcclellan so I think to say its benefitted Benn is abit harsh. I could flip it and say what if the tragedy hadn't happend and Benn went on to beat Collins aswell??.

Haito wrote:Benn was never the same fighter after gthe GMan fight windy so that fight was also the end of Benn as we knew him in the ring. That fight took all of the fight out of him. He lost 4 out of his last 5 fights post Mcclellan so I think to say its benefitted Benn is abit harsh. I could flip it and say what if the tragedy hadn't happend and Benn went on to beat Collins aswell??.

Must say I hadn't thought of it that way round, Haito, and it's an excellent point which you make. Nonetheless, I still believe that the McClellan fight is seen by many as Benn's greatest achievement, ( and, given the guts and heart which he displayed, I wouldn't disagree, ) and I can't help but wonder how much McClellan's illness affected the outcome of the fight.

Either way, Benn and Eubank are not easy to separate, and I loved them both.

Difficult to fully assess the impact of the tragedies on both men but in Eubanks favour, the Watson incident happened quite early in his career therefore, in my opinion had a more lasting effect on his overall career.

When the McClellan incident happened, Benn had already been through the been through the business end of his career and had lost fights to his biggest domestic rivals before he ever faced McClellan. Eubank on the other hand had beaten his biggest domestic rivals before the Watson incident and had to fight a much larger portion of his career afterwards with that incident hanging over him.

Sorry Azania and Windy, it's an understandable idea to give Eubank a free pass for his 1991 to 1995 career based on the Watson tragedy, but I personally don't think it should be the case. It was perhaps inevitable that Eubank was going to lose some of his killer instinct in the aftermath, but losing part of your clinical finishing abilities isn't the same as taking the easy 'cash train' route, which is precisely what he did.

Might seem a little harsh on my part, mind you. Just the way I see it.

With regards to Benn-McClellan, it's very easy to say "I'm not taking anything away from his win", but when we start to speculate on what might have happened had McClellan not suffered such an ailment during the fight, I think that's exactly what we begin to do. Benn won the fight and, while it seems that McClellan at the very least had been suffering with severe headaches for a couple of fights beforehand, there can be no doubt that Benn's tremendous punches worsened the condition. Barbaric, I know, but ultimately Benn's own performance caused (or at least played a major role) in McClellan's demise during the fight, so he should be given full credit.

McClellan, as you rightly said Windy, seemed to be struggling a little bit from the fourth of fifth round onwards; but let's not take away from the fact that Benn had to go through absolute hell just to get to that stage of the fight in the first place.

Tend to agree Chris re Eubank, I love Chris but he does seem to get a pass with regard to his level of opposition that other fightes such as Calzaghe get absolutely pasted for. Does seem to smack of double standards for me.

For what it is worth I struggle to split them as I do think Benn's best wins particularly Mclellan are better than anything on Chris' ledger but would perhaps still have to have Chris above him. Think he is ther more naturally gifted guy and ultimately his performance head to head and against common opponents such as Watson tends to give him the edge. The gap is close enough though that I would not argue too greatly were someone to see it different

With respect, Chris, I most certainly did not devalue anything in Benn's performance against McClellan and I was, on the contrary, at pains to say so. Nonetheless, McClellan was not the force he might have been, yet was still unable to drop Benn later on, when he was clearly ill. To my mind this presents at least a reasonable case that a fully fit McClellan might have been too much for Nigel. No shame in that, but it does go to the value of that fight in assessing Benn, overall.

I agree with both you and jeff about Eubank's having taken the soft options, and alluded to that in my original contribution.

The reason Eubank gets more of a pass for his opposition than Calzaghe is because nobody declares him an all time great and even at his peak he wasnt considered a top pound for pound fighter. They are measured on different levels. Calzaghe is generally considered on a higher tier than Eubank.

I find it difficult to look past Benns losses to Eubank and Watson when assessing him in relation to Eubank. When I add to this that I believe Eubank was the better boxer overall, for me it places Eubank narrowly but clearly ahead of Benn.

Excellent point from manos, above. We set the bar higher for ATGs, and rightly so.

More than reasonable point re Calzaghe Manos. Whilst I'll agree my example was probably poor I still think there are certain people a little to willing to gloss over the level of opposition Chris was happy to face for large parts of his reign.