Eubank vs Benn II

I was doing a bit of readin up on Chris Eubank Sr earlier and I read an interesting fact that had passed me by when the original set of fights were happening.

I would have been around 17/18 when Eubank and Benn were in their prime and was your typical armchair fan. It was also the days before the internet made everyone an expert.
I was reading that in the second fight that Don King had a clause in the contract that he would sign both the winner and the loser of the fight to his promotional company. That in itself is quite unusual I would have thought but the actual result was a draw, meaning that there was no winner or loser, leaving bith men free of any contractual obligation.

Now I cant remember the fight that well but due to the circumstances surrounding the contracts, was this a “manufactured” results by the likes of Hearn and co? Was there outrage at the time or was it genuinely that close that the decision seemed correct?

It seems strange that so few fights end in a draw but this one, which had a contract attached to the outcome, ended in this way.

Does anyone else remember anything about this?

I had Benn winning but then I could hardly be classed as unbiased. It really was a pick 'em fight and close enough so as to suggest that a draw wasn't a ridiculous idea.

Always helps the conspiracy theorists though

I was young at the time but was of the opinion Benn was robbed. However I was a big fan so probably influenced my thoughts. Maybe time to revisit that one.

The result wasn't really controversial, fans were pretty much split over who deserved the nod, which would have gone to Benn had he not got a point deducted for a low blow. Be very surprised if there was anything underhand.