Eubank was (or could have gone on to have been) arguably the greatest boxer of his generation... he had devastating power in both hands.

His problem was that after he badly injured Watson, he lost the ability to finish people off in fights properly.. This created a fighter that was there for the taking. I think this was there for everyone to see in his draw with Benn, which he should have won, and both defeats to Steve Collins.

Eubank ended losing his last 3 fights against a young Calzaghe and twice to Carl Thomson (if i remember correctly)... Thomson wouldnt have lasted 3 rounds with the pre Watson Eubank... I dont think Steve Collins would have gone the distance with him either.

Nigel Benn never let that bad injury to McClellan effect the way he boxed.... Chris Eubank never recovered mentally from what he did to Watson.

To be honest, Benn never recovered mentally or physically from the McClellan fight either..... He had a couple of low key defences after that, against opponents who he could beat in his sleep, but then lost to Malinga, who was a very limited fighter.

Steve Collins then outclassed him twice and he was finished.....



The McClellan fight is a funny one, because there were so many ifs and buts.....Yes, Benn miraculously came back, but you could easily make a case he shouldn't have been allowed to - Also, one of the things I did agree with McClellan's coach about, is that the referee was totally incompetent. He guarded Benn through that turbulant opening period, constantly stepping in when Benn was on the brink of being ko'd.

If it had been in Vegas with a US ref, it would have been over in the 1st and McClellan would probably have gone onto be an all time great.

i agree that physically he was never really the same again.... but Benn never lost the killer instinct for me.. he always tried knock someone out... he never held back. Eubank on the other hand was still in his prime and at the top of his game... but it was plain for everyone to see that after Watson he was obviously fighting within himself..... He used to rock fighters with good shots and stand there, hesitating, letting them get their senses back, before going in for a clinch... I remember fans booing in one fight as he refused to finish someone off. He ended up jabbing him on the ropes until the ref stopped the fight.

Greatest comeback I ever witnessed was at a Jimmy Carr gig and there's no way I could repeat it here. It was obviously setup, but still one of the funniest things I have ever seen/heard.

Yeah thats the most demoralising blow a sportsman can inflict on his opponent. It happened in the Ali - Foreman rumble in the jungle, Ali was just letting Foreman punch himself out and taking the punches chirping in Foreman's ear "is that all you got? that all you got???". Foreman said after that it was all he had, he was going full tilt to put Ali out and he couldn't break him, it was then only a matter of time.

Brian Close the old cricketer did something like this as well when he played for England against the West Indies fast bowlers like Wes Hall, they were bowling short balls and he just used to take them on the chest and stand there and take it, so they knew they didn't have a weapon that could intimidate him.

And my favourite RL example along these lines, to keep with the title of the thread, was Glenn Lazarus 'the brick with eyes', he was on the floor after a tackle and the tackler grabbed the back of his head and smashed his forehead into the ground. Lazarus just got up and played the ball and didn't even glare at the attacker, it looked like he hadn't noticed it. In a hardman of RL contest it must have been a close thing between Hanley, Lazarus and Dean Bell.

Not a fan of golf but when the Ryder cup starts i can't get enough of it!

I too felt a great affinity with those 14 plucky multi-millionaires knock a ball around in the name of my geographic region.

What has what their wealth got to do with it?

Now in English please.

I find their pseudo beatification nauseating. Simple as. Elitist, horrible sport, they supposedly represent an entire continent(? - not in my name) and whinge for 3 days about pressure when no one made them do it. They should try doing a hard day's graft on the tools before they start bleating.

They've got their multi-millions by being damned good at what they do
Take away the sponsorship deals of the really decent golfers, most pro-golfers don't earn that much.
And don't forget (bar sponsorship), golfers AREN'T paid. They earn.
If footballers play crap, they still walk away with tens of thousands PER WEEK.
If golfers play crap, they go home on a Friday night, with nowt.
If they play crap for a season, they lose their "card", and go back to flogging Mars bars and golf gloves at their own course.
Yes, fantastic golfers get paid extremely well, but the majority earn the amounts of a Championship 2 footballer

I imagine you wont feel any affinity to people who get paid a quarter of a million pounds per year to pass a rugby ball, in the name of YOUR geographical region, on Saturday night, eh, Mr Cynical?

Complete 5h1te

Fair enough if you don't like golf, but you specifically referred to their wealth. As stated above, top level golfers have made their money in perhaps as pure a meritocracy as you'll find in sport. Besides, world class exponents of vastly popular sports are, almost by definition, going to be wealthy. What's the big deal?

And as for their 'bleating' about pressure, I don't think that making reference to the pressures involved in such a high level sporting event is unique to golfers. You'd hear the same from footballers in the World Cup, or cricketers in the Ashes. Though of course it's a matter of opinion whether or not this can be construed as 'whinging'.

They deserve every penny they get.

I wouldn't go out in public, let alone be seen on tele, in white shoes, peaked cap, tartan pants and a checked jumper for any amount of money.

Might have turned up at a few player of the year awards in similar but that was a long time ago.

You Sir are almost like Oscar Wilde in your reposte.

If I need to de-contruct your ramble (maybe as an exercise in helping you contructing a written response)

1) What is the difference between being paid and earn?
2) I never mentioned footballers, you did.
3) They don't lose their card - it's not as simple as you make it seem. I am friends with a European tour journey man.
4) Championship footballers. I refer you to 2).
5) I will feel affinity to the Wire winning but I'm confused my post was I don't feel any affinity to Ryder Cup golfers but then you went off on one widening the argument to football, rugbyleague, the difference bewteen earning and being paid. Then your subsequent post showed your intellect for what it is.

I have no real interest in golf however it is an absolutely huge global industry. The people that play it generally have high incomes and can play for much longer than people can play other sports. So there's a large market of people spending money on membership fees, food and drinks at the courses and golf equipment. It also generates tourism, especially to historic courses. Golf's worth about 13% of the UK's sporting economy.

People often bring up "Golf Management Studies" as an example of a mickey mouse degree but the golf industry is something that gets rich people from all over the world spending money in the UK economy.

At the top end, golf, like football, has a huge TV market not only for selling the broadcast rights but also for advertising space because the target audience is wealthy. Whether or not you think what they do represents hard graft, the elite players create value just by being there. This value boomed when Tiger Woods came around which is why the whole sport was worried when he got into trouble a couple of years back and why they are desperate to make a lot out of Rory McIlroy. Much as we would like RL players to get better paid for what they do, they do not create that much value.

Most people that are employed in the golf industry will not make that much money, pretty much all the benefit of the value the elite players create, goes back to them in earnings. But that is fair really.

Wires 71 on top form.

Outstanding return after a couple of seasons in the doldrums.

I love playing golf.... i can watch the majors and the ryder cup... but the smaller events hold no interest for me.

I certainly don't hold a grudge against the sport because of how much money it makes the top players... that would just be silly.

This.

Perhaps we can organise a Forum Golf Day and Dropkick can judge who has the snazziest gear? (I'm joking about the second part of this proposal)

In defence of Lefty 'Golf-blah', I think there is a difference between "paid" and "earn" on the basis that to earn something usually requires effort on the part of the earner, the same can not always be said of a payee

me, too morleys

I play (twice a week in the summer, once in the winter) to a reasonable standard, however, I have very little interest in televised golf. I watch The Open and The Masters (and the RC every 2 years) religiously, but the thought of watching The BMW International (as an example) leaves me cold. And as for US golf, I'd rather watch the test card.

As regards to cash, let them win as much as possible.
It makes me howl with laughter, everytime someone mentions the word millionaires in a derogatory way. These people wouldn't be jealous, would they?

Ah, how I've missed your pomposity.
You don't feel any affinty to Ryder Cup golf. So what. Don't comment on it, then. I feel no affinity to Union, wrestling, tennis etc, but I don't feel the need to go on the Other Sports threads on here, and spout 3 like you.
Thank you for noting my intellect

I'm not turning up. He hates my Dunlop £9.99 kecks

Sometimes its jealousy, sometimes its a moral judgement along the lines of nurses/soldiers only get paid this so why should such and such an occupation be paid so highly. Sometimes the resentment is about how people have earned their money.

Some people are rich because they have provided something of value to society. By value I'm not making a moral judgement just mean they provide something people want. Simon Moran falls into this category, he puts on gigs and events that lots of people value highly enough to pay a certain price to go along so he gets part of the value along with the musicians and others that are involved in those gigs and events. Someone that works in a care home won't earn as much not because their work is morally less but because they aren't providing something with as much social value in terms of the aggregate number of people willing to pay for it.

Other people are rich because they have found a way of taking wealth off others, without providing something of value themselves. For example if I was able to lobby government to allow me a licence to put a toll bridge on a busy road and charge £1 a day and I got 50000 vehicles down it a day, I could earn £50k a day, and be in the ranks of the super rich. I wouldn't have created anything new for society just taken advantage of an unnecessary rule to earn money for myself. If people complained I would say I was a top rate tax payer and if the government tried to tax me more I would simply go elsewhere and the UK would lose my tax. But my tax isn't anything extra, its just paid by me because I was able to take advantage of a situation to extract others wealth, they would have otherwise bought other things and paid VAT etc on that. This type of thing is 'rent seeking'.

Unfortunately in the banking sector, you have some productive activities but also a lot of rent seeking where people are rich without adding value. That is bad and thats where IMO its legit to complain about being being rich. But golfers aren't rent seekers, they create value.