Eubank v's Benn - End the Feud.

It’s Time to End the Eubank vs Benn Feud – For Good.

The time has come to put the Eubank vs Benn rivalry to rest. What began as one of British boxing’s most thrilling sagas has evolved into something increasingly hollow – a conflict carried forward not by fresh competition, but by the fading echoes of their fathers’ unfinished business.

Let’s be clear: Chris Eubank Sr. won the rivalry. He beat Nigel Benn in 1990 and, though their 1993 rematch was ruled a draw, the consensus has long accepted that Eubank walked away with the bragging rights. There was no third fight because, truthfully, there didn't need to be. Eubank had done enough. Time moves on, and so should we.

Fast-forward thirty years, and now their sons – Conor Benn and Chris Eubank Jr. – are tangled in a narrative that isn't truly their own. Worse still, the premise of them fighting each other is built on a series of compromises that make a mockery of boxing’s basic structures: they’re from different weight divisions, with different natural advantages, and have had to agree to dangerous, artificial limits just to meet halfway. It’s not about titles. It's not about rankings. It's not about genuine rivalry. It's about settling scores that should have been buried long ago.

The Eubanks have proved their point across generations. No matter how hard the Benn side may find it to accept, the facts remain: the history favours Eubank. Continuing to drag this feud into new chapters only cheapens what once made it great. It risks the dignity of both families. It risks the safety of the fighters. And it does nothing meaningful for the sport.

A line must now be drawn. Eubank wins the rivalry – father and son. That's where the story must end.

If boxing is about honour, about competition, about moving forward – not living in the past – then this is the only honest conclusion. The Eubank vs Benn feud must be put to bed, once and for all.