Eubank, Benn, Watson - Now Froch, Groves, DeGale

The comparisons to draw between them are fantastic, and I've to be honest I feel like we may just be entering a genuine golden age in boxing for Britain, a lot of new guys coming through, I do believe Hearn wants to try and make as many big domestic clashes as possible and we should see a fair bit of excitement too. Now I understand the general mentality of Boxing fans seems to be upset and angry with everything and get excited about nothing because everything is hype or a big scam by the promoters. However, I like to think I'm a pretty optimistic guy.

Groves is more Watson, Degale more Eubank and Froch more Benn, obviously there is a fair few differences between them.

That's the first talking point, but the second one is, which trio do you think was better?

It's a little more difficult to judge as we have seen the first 3's careers go all the way through and all 3 actually started there careers in the division below, so personally I would pick the more current boxers to win match ups most of the time vs. the 90's ones. But that's just my thoughts.

Have made the point before Alex, but easy to be snippy about these types of fights and what they may or may not mean on the world stage, but between this place and the old BBC site there have been infrequent threads about what got us all into the sport and I can pretty much guarantee the most common answer amongst those of us of a certain age is the fights you mention between Benn, Eubank and Watson etc. Am not for a minute suggesting if, for instance Groves emerges from this round robin as the man he should not look to fight Ward but we are kidding ourselves if we think a fight starting at 4am in Vegas is going to get new fans into the sport like a good old set of domestic rivalries will.

I have made no secret of my love of a good domestic tear up and like you Alex I am excited about the potential match ups we have in front of us. Also good chance of them getting made, as it was Barry Hearn who promoted the bulk of those fights first time round so you would like to think he would be counseling Eddie to do likewise now.

Its in Hearns interest to make these fights happen. He has full control of the figters and a deal with Sky. These fights will be big. I think Degale is underrated and underestimated in how big a draw he could be. Good domestic rivalries sell well. The first Degale/Groves fight was big enough and they were only domestic level back then.

I reckon Froch is marginally the best fighter of the two era's. Groves did well in the fight with Froch but I think he overachieved in that one even considering he lost. Of the 90's and current fighters DeGale is clearly a step or two behind the rest IMO.

Onetwo, you should look at his other posts. Three of the four are derisory. Obviously had a bit too much pop last night and became a web warrior!

On topic, it is good to have decent national rivalry, but this isn't in the league of Benn, Eubank and Watson. That had people of my age salivating like a jack russell looking at steak! Good matches to have though, so let's hope they get made.

By the time degimp gets to world level Froch will be long gone. And he can blabber about a IBF eliminator that he's in, doesn't mean Froch won't just bin the belt when he goes looking for a big name after spanking the ginger muppet. Groves then dissolves and his career goes to pot. Dave667 also has a mental breakdown after seeing his favourite fighter get taken out in 4.

AlexHuckerby wrote:
That's the first talking point, but the second one is, which trio do you think was better?

It's a little more difficult to judge as we have seen the first 3's careers go all the way through and all 3 actually started there careers in the division below, so personally I would pick the more current boxers to win match ups most of the time vs. the 90's ones. But that's just my thoughts.

DeGale wouldn't have had a prayer against atson, Benn and Eubank -- not on current form.

Groves hasn't achieved much yet -- we'll see how he fares in the Froch rematch.

Froch will be rated above them all, yet I wouldn't fancy his chances against Watson.

Could be interesting if they were all in the pot together.

Think Benn vs Froch would have been incredible although I'm not sure I could handle reading all the reports of 'war' and 'trenches' that would have come from that one.

Think Eubank would have probable been too awkward for Froch.

As said above it is difficult to see how Groves / DeGale could have coped with Benn or Watson and DeGale vs Eubank would have been an ugly fight.

God Degale vs Eubank would be a posturing contest I don't even wanna think about it

The question of which trio was better could probably be answered in 2 to 3 years time,Froch is up there we know, but the other 2, the jurys out at the moment.

Can someone please explain where my comment has gone???????

why has it been removed?????

ONETWOFOREVER wrote:Can someone please explain where my comment has gone???????

why has it been removed?????

Because it quoted an offensive comment, to delete the offending post and leave your post that quoted it up here would somewhat defeat the object.

Fair enough

Why is no-one mentioning Steve Collins? What gives Watson the nod over Steve? Not complaining btw, I much prefer Watson, just thought I'd ask

Collins v Froch would be a war of attrition.

Maybe because Collins wasn't British?
Alex talked about a golden age of boxing in Britain in the OP. P

Putting nationality aside, it seems unfair to dismiss Collins by virtue of geography when he was as much a part of that SM era as the others

I know what you mean...
But it's Alex's thread and he mentioned 3 British fighters and a golden age of British boxing...

I expect Froch to retire this year so it will be a rather short lived golden age...

I don't think Collins was to be honest Dave, he got to the party once the others had beaten the crap out of eachother. Benn was never the same after Gman and Eubank wasn't after Watson, it's hard to gauge how good he is in relation when he didn't fight either at their best.

Far too early to say with Groves and Degale, they have their top level careers still ahead of them while Froch's is coming to an end. The 90's trio were all a similar age, at similar stages in their career so excuses regarding to age couldn't be made.

Nice article, Alex - some great comparisons and contrasts drawn.

Froch has definitely proven himself the best of either bunch in all the areas that matter most - achievement, consistency at championship level, opposition etc, and I think he'd have confirmed his superiority against Benn and Eubank if he'd have been competing with them at Super-Middle back in the day, too.

Benn's power didn't carry up to 168 quite well enough for me to think he can get Froch out of there and it's one fighter with a tendency to run out of steam late on (Benn) against another who gets stronger and stronger as fights wear on (Froch). Eubank could be very, very slippery and awkward, and his movement and cagey style would give Froch problems like Dirrell did, but then again some of Eubank's opponents (like Watson in their first fight) let him off the hook by not letting enough shots go or having the confidence to really push Eubank back and force him to fight at their pace. I could see a really ugly fight there, with lots of scrappy rounds and neither man hitting the target cleanly all that much, but with Froch's attacking inclinations and pressure giving him a close decision win.

As for which trio is better...Well I think when all the dust settles the current-day lot will collectively have attained results to put them a notch ahead of the late 80s / early 90s boys, even if they never command the public's affections and emotions in the same way. Froch's record already goes beyond Benn and Eubank's, and Watson was sadly out of the game when he was 26 - the same age Groves has only just hit. A couple of good showings and results at world level will already see Groves surpass Michael, even if that comes with an asterisk. Degale isn't going to run off two dozen world title fights like Eubank did, mind you.

As others have said, Eubank, Benn and Watson were all born within a couple of years or so of each other and were all massive parts of each other's developments as a fighter, whereas Froch has built a legacy and carved out a place in history long before Groves or Degale made it to world title level, so this trio doesn't have the same kind of dynamic or level of arch-rivalry, but I think Groves and Degale can fill that roll further down the line because, whether he wins or loses, there's every chance that May 31 could be Froch's last fight in any case.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I don't think Collins was to be honest Dave, he got to the party once the others had beaten the crap out of eachother. Benn was never the same after Gman and Eubank wasn't after Watson, it's hard to gauge how good he is in relation when he didn't fight either at their best.

Far too early to say with Groves and Degale, they have their top level careers still ahead of them while Froch's is coming to an end. The 90's trio were all a similar age, at similar stages in their career so excuses regarding to age couldn't be made.

There's a good argument to say that Groves has fought a shopworn version of Froch

Hopefully Calumn Smith will step up to the plate once Froch retires. I can also see Billy Joe and Ryder stepping up to SMW in the next couple of years. Could be a great era especially with Groves/Degale/Ryder/Smith under the same promotional banner. Hearn seems keen to make the big domestic showdowns!

Despite the differences between the two trios, it is exciting that the analogy at least has some sort of basis. Froch vs GG has been great for the sport in the UK.

Lambert I have to say, Billy Joe doesn't seem a big or particularly strong Middleweight, stepping up to Suermiddleweight may be too much to handle for him.

DAVE667 wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I don't think Collins was to be honest Dave, he got to the party once the others had beaten the crap out of eachother. Benn was never the same after Gman and Eubank wasn't after Watson, it's hard to gauge how good he is in relation when he didn't fight either at their best.

Far too early to say with Groves and Degale, they have their top level careers still ahead of them while Froch's is coming to an end. The 90's trio were all a similar age, at similar stages in their career so excuses regarding to age couldn't be made.

There's a good argument to say that Groves has fought a shopworn version of Froch

No denying that Dave but he's past his best rather than gunshy like Eubank became or just plain shot like Benn.

I'm genuinely not sure if Froch is past his best to be honest, though it is possible the Kessler rematch could have taken something out of him.

Agree with Alex - a lot of variables make it tough to decide whether or not Froch really is past his best, or was before facing Groves (as that fight was the kind which can take something out of any fighter, even if they won it). He's 36, but given that he didn't turn professional until 2002 his career in the paid ranks has been a lot shorter than most 36 year olds who are still going at a high level. Also little to suggest he'd lost anything in the eighteen months or so before facing Groves, as Bute and Kessler II were probably the two highest points of his career.

Bute was very much in his prime (regardless of whether or not you were on his hype train or not) but Kessler last year looked a bit ragged and worn to me, so on that basis you could maybe argue that Bute represented the last we saw of an absolute peak Carl (according to him, his training stats were the better for that bout than anything before and anything since) and that Kessler being slightly past his own peak maybe papered over a couple of cracks in Froch. But the waters are very murky on that one.

I guess the fairest way to look at it is that it's incredibly rare for any fighter, regardless of how long they've been a pro, to be at their athletic peak at the age of 36 - but it's possible they can still be within a few per cent of it, especially if, like Froch, they're not a fighter that relies on speed, reflexes and timing. I'm probably in that camp if I had to pick; Groves may not have faced a smack bang in the middle of his pomp Froch, but still faced a very near-prime version. In short, still close enough to his best for a potential Groves win in the rematch to come without a load of bitter excuse making or ifs and buts.

It could be a case of Groves' career after the rematch answering the question for us a few years down the line. If Froch beats him next month then no doubt Froch will be back and better than ever to many. If Groves beats him, then no doubt many people's immediate reaction will be that he caught Froch when he was over the hill. If Groves' career is patchy after that, and he never really establishes himself as a top, top performer at world level, then that kind of thinking will persist. But if Groves goes on to carve out a career similar to Froch's, for instance, then more people will probably be willing to acknowledge that we just weren't fully aware yet of how good Groves was in 2013 / 2014 and that his style would always have been a nightmare for Carl.

It's difficult to say and age can be a bit misleading, Mayweather is 37 but looked as good as he ever has against Alvarez while Hopkins magnum opus was against Trinidad also in his late 30's.

There in lies the problem, those two are defensive masters who have rarely taken a clean punch in their careers even when Hopkins was outclassed by Jones he wasn't being peppered by power punches. On the other hand you have Benitez, the equal of anyone defensively but finished at the very young age of 24. Regardless of having relatively few fights, Froch has never been difficult to tag and to tag hard so you would assume he'd age quicker than most but has to be said he was brilliant against all of Bute, Kessler and Mack so very hard to tell.

I'd agree with you Chris that Froch is past his best but how far gone he is we don't know, it wouldn't only be with a drastic downturn in class of opponent that would truly tell us.

It's hard to estimate Froch's freshness based on the Groves fight as he took such a heavy knockdown early on that changed the dynamic of the fight. In saying that I though at the time Froch had maybe lost half a step. A couple of years previous to this I think Froch would have handled Groves fairly easily.

It was like Kessler in the first Froch fight. He was already starting to slide but was still able to get the win. He slid some more going into the second fight and by then he had slipped enough for Froch to be able to beat him.

It's hard to predict a slide and it can only be verified over a minimum of 2 or 3 fights.  Froch is on the downward curve of his performance ability chart, he has said the peak of the curve was against Bute.


Listening to Collins and Eubank both fighters have said that Collins out smarted Eubank.  Collin's set a pace in the first fight Eubank couldn't live with.  Eubank had an opportunity to pull the win out of the fire with one good sequence of work but apart from that Collins was the worthy winner.  Eubank was 28 years old when he was out foxed by the less talented Collins.