Eubank Vs Pascal, who is better?

Who do you consider better, prime for prime, who would you pick head to head?

Prime, pre Watson Eubank Vs any version of Pascal.

 

[video=youtube;oBErthbPTJE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBErthbPTJE[/video]

 

I specified prime, pre Watson Eubank, you posted a video of past prime, post Watson Eubank, this isn't who we're talking about :kidcool:

 

Serious question?? I'm confused

 

I can also post the video where he robs michael watson, or the one where he is beaten from pillar to post by the same michael watson, before he lands a hail mary punch to save his ass

 

joM thinks Pascal is clearly the better fighter, and anyone who disagrees is just speaking through "euro bias", so I thought I'd get Fightbeat's opinion on the matter.

 

Watson was a very good fighter, and Eubank beat him twice. Pascal couldn't even beat Frock, or 50 year old hokins.

 

Froch is way better than Michael Watson, and so is a 50 years old Hopkins. Dawson is several leagues better than Michael Watson.

Watson was a real decent fighter, but the best thing that happened to him, reputation wise, is to be disabled by Eubanks. He wasn't anything special

 

Well I doubt too many Limeys would accuse McDogg of Brit Bias and I can say with complete confidence that Eubank was an obviously superior fighter to Jean Pascal ... It's not "Ezzard Charles vs. Doug DeWitt, who's better?" But it's definitely still a no brainer

 

Well, their respective resume clearly shows the contrary

 

50 year old Hopkins even being relevant was as good an
indicator of how poor the division had become as anything ...

 

Only if you grossly overrate Pascal's opponents, which I'd say is a safe bet for a guy who seriously compares Chris Eubank with a scrub like Eric Lucas

 

Not saying that Pascal is something special, but a 50 years old hopkins is clearly better than Ray Close though. And Dawson was top 10, probaly top 5 p4p when Pascal beat him. Eubanks never came close of beating a guy so highly rated (in fact, he was too far cowardly to fight such top opposition). But as I said, the average memory of a fightbeat poster is not much better than the one of a goldfish, so it's no surprise that not many rebember this.

And the Lucas comment was clearly in jest, I said a post later that Eubanks was clearly better. Sad that you have to use cheap tactics like this. Even if he was better, Eubanks sure would have struggled against mediocre Lucas, like he did against any tough fighter who could set a decent pace.

 

Exactly, it's like asking who's better out of Golovkin and Quillin. Anyone with two eyes can see Golovkin is better, just like it's blatantly obvious Eubank is better than Pascal.

 

Bad comparaison, since I don't rebember seeing GGG getting battered pillar from post by a Michael Watson type of fighter, nor Quillin beating a top 5/top 10 p4p guy

 

Eubank

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Ka0dY_NsPU0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Pascal

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/gUZNQcKlp0g" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

Pascal hasn't beaten a top 5 p4p fighter ffs ::

And Eubank hasn't been battered from pillar to post by anyone.

 

Yep, Eubank would never had the guts to cross the altantic to face an undefeated future legend in his hometown like Pascal did. Good point

 

50 year old Hopkins was probably better than Sonny Banks, so I'm gonna go with Pascal over Muhammad Ali

 

where was Dawson rated when Pascal beat him ?

 

Not in the top 5 p4p unless you were a complete mentalist

I know you don't believe this (which helps explain this type of stance) but not all P4P lists are created equal... Eubank fought in a tougher era, not that I give a fuck about your predictable response: "you are just angol sexon jingo pig who think old day was better cause you have no PhD")

 

yes Eubanks fought in a better era, but he didn't fought any of the top fighters of his era, which makes your point completely irrevelant. Eubanks two best wins were against Benn and Watson, two guy that wouldn't even come close to crack the top 10, even in the current era.

Eubanks career is a succession of struggle against mediocre oppostion.

 

I think the only person who did rate Doorson as a P4P'er when Pascal beat him was mikE, so yeah ::

 

Well, all credible publications had him at least in the top 10. But as I said, considering the average intellect of poster in here, i'm not surprised that most don't rebember this

 

...

 

Speaking of frauds that damn Nigel ben was over rated as well. On the same level as stephane ouellet

 

I fucking KNEW it

The average intellect... Ranks with "Anglo-Saxon", "Bert Sugar" and "Jingoist" as JOM's default criticism

 

well, when folks are not able to rebember things that happened a few years ago, it's a pretty logical conclusion.

 

:l2:

 

I don't rebember Doorson being ranked top 5 p4p by anyone but mikE, that's for sure.

I do also rebember thinking that your intellect is probably around 2% of the capacity you think it is. I'm now thinking I was mistaken, and it's more like 1%.