In terms of excitment.....

How did Britain's magnificent 4 Eubank, Benn, Watson and Collins compare to America's famous 4 Leonard, Hearns, Duran and Hagler?

I will always remember those great middleweight scraps that took place in Britain in the 90's. The build ups, the personalities, the drama and the real un-hyped tensions between the fighters. Of course Benn and Eubanks provided unforgettable moments in and out of the ring. Their first fight was brutal to say the least and really gripped the nation. Benn the rough, savage slugger and Eubanks the refined, articulate Brighton home boy had a fiery rivalry.

Micheal Watson was the gem looking in from the outside and I recall him being nicknamed Micheal what's his name, but he really proved himself by outboxing Benn and Eubanks. Micheal was the quite, unassuming, very schooled fighter from Hackney who was a real mommas boy. We all know he won the first fight with Eubanks but took defeat like a champ hmm there's a lesson there for someone! Of course I don't have too explain too much about the tragic end to that fight but what a contest that was. Watson was on his way to victory and even put Eubanks down late only for Chris to get up and unleash a stunning uppercut that basically won the fight for him. Great night of boxing.

And then Collins who fancied his chance against Benn and Eubanks. This guy was your typical tough, hard as nails Irishman who knew how to get into a fighters head. He surprised the nation by beating the big 2 back then and managed to add the real highlight of his career.

Sometimes its great to remember the great nights of boxing but how would you say it compared to the big four states side in terms of drama, personalities, and fights?

They don't compare is the answer.....well in importance anyway!!

Leonard, Hearns etc were all superfights.....huge events..

Very interesting Onetwo, genuinely good article!!

It's all down to opinions I guess, what type of people you prefer, what fights you liked best, but for me I would actually go with our British boys. For me the eccentric personality in Eubank the wars that they had between each other were great.

The levels of skill is higher for the fantastic four but some of the fights were lacking a bit, to be fair I wasn't really around during the build up to them however, so that part I can't comment on particularly.

You're probably not old enough to appreciate the buzz of the fab 4 Alex...

Hagler v Hearns was truly immense in build up and product..

If we're including Collins then shouldn't we include Benitez as well as the fab four? A forgotten man of the era somewhat who fought three and beat one, had a bigger role to play in that era than Collins did in the 90's.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:You're probably not old enough to appreciate the buzz of the fab 4 Alex...

Hagler v Hearns was truly immense in build up and product..

Which is what I said in my post, I can't really comment on the build up and what not, but in terms of the fights I would go with the British guys over the fab 4 overall. Leonard Duran 1 and Hagler Hearns were incredible no doubting same with Leonard Hearns 1, it's all down to opinions but the fact that certain events had more gloss over them doesn't sway my opinion.

TRUSS missing the point.

In terms of drama and excitment I just wondered what you're thoughts were.I know that Leonard and co were in superfights but the British quartet offered so much value for money. The build up really did get the nation talking and the media lapped it up.

We are always reminded of great rivalries in boxing but I think that time for British boxing is as good as any.

Fought Benn and Eubank twice...so I think he's okay....

As for Benitez..history has been unkind...

However the fact he tended stink didn't help his cause..and the fact like almost every top-notch technician beat Duran and was soundly slapped by the other two..

Probably counts against him..

Missing the point in so much as they were no doubt exciting to Brits..

However p4p positions were at place..in events featuring greats when the fab 4 fought....

for excitement..you can't get better than that..

Soundly slapped?

My point being Truss that the fab four provided the excitement much like Benn and Eubank, the other two play a similar role to Benitez in that they were there.

Truss the thing is you're saying it like it's fact, when it's clearly an opinion...

The British fights had dedicated fighters in all fights which you can't really say about the US fab four considering the no mass fight.

Also we had knock downs and knock out galore in Britain and fiercely contested bouts. Apart from Hearns v Duran, Haglar v Hearns and Leonard v Duran 1 the fights were average, but I accept the skill level was higher.

He has been unfairly treated perhaps...Puerto Rican with a tendency to stink...counting against him....probably...

You do have a point..

Certainly felt sorry for the guy losing a crown to a peak Leonard and then to a peak Hearns..

Unlucky guy for sure!

Don't tell me what I'm saying and how I'm saying it Alex.......told you that before..

Disagree there OneTwo, the Leonard Hearns fight was fantastic surely! Incredible comeback.

Benn taking the money and running...quitting on his stool without getting touched is more dedicated than Duran going down in 8 with no-mas...

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:He has been unfairly treated perhaps...Puerto Rican with a tendency to stink...counting against him....probably...

You do have a point..

Certainly felt sorry for the guy losing a crown to a peak Leonard and then to a peak Hearns..

Unlucky guy for sure!

Don't tell me what I'm saying and how I'm saying it Alex.......told you that before..

And I shall constantly disregard that and tell you how it is, sorry.

I shall continue to feel challenged by you too!!

Honest!

Yeah I take part of it back Alex Leonard v Hearns 1 was a great fight.

I think the British fights had a great mix of contrasting personalities then the US four. Hagler could talk a good fight but Leonard was the nations sweetheart.

Eubanks had a very unique charisma in boxing. People loved to hate him as he was strange but Benn was a brute and everyone knew it. When he spoke you had to laugh he was like a character from Eastenders.

Leonard was the golden boy and Duran was the Panamanian lion and a big character...

So Collins and Watson...were more exciting and charismatic than Hagler and Hearns????

Not Hagler I used to love listening to that stron Brockton accent but I don't remember either of them 2 hiring a hypnotist in preparation for their fights like Collins did. That was a big tactic by the Irishman and damn funny. I was rooting for Chris but Collins put on a good show.

Watson was not a talker but he struck a cord with the people as he was a highly likeable and effective fighter.

Wasn't it Benn that hired McKenna?

No it was Collins who hired the hypnotist but I can't remember who it was. He wanted to get inside Eubanks head and did just that with a level of performance acting that was surely Oscar worthy.

"I recall him being called Michael What's his name"

"Watson struck a chord with the people"

And you're point is????????

'No, no, you listen to me! I'd like to thank my trainer, Kevin Sanders. Everyone sayin' we ain't goin' anywhere without Jimmy Tibbs. Proved him wrong. And not only that, the person I'd like to thank most of all is Paul McKenna, who hypnotised me and made me believe in myself.'

- Nigel Benn

Watson pulled the same stunt on Eubanks Alex. Can't remember when Benn did it but I do remember Collins getting a lot of media attention because of it.

Just pointing out the contradictory comments....No need to get shirty!!

I mean Collins pulled the same stunt.

Fair enough, I don't mind Leonard as a charcater, nothing really grabbed me about him, he's an intelligent guy, but just not that much of engaging character to me.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Just pointing out the contradictory comments....No need to get shirty!!

Nothing contradictory TRUSS I believe it was Benn who called him that. Watson was not that big a name as Benn or Eubanks but he had a lot of support. The public, celebs and all turned out to see him fight the body snatcher.

Leonard was well spoken and liked but Hearns was as boring as dish water and Duran? well learning English would have helped.

I'm not being funny guys but since none of you were around at the time and weren't privy to this excitement..

Doesn't it render your opinions pointless????

I'm not being facetious......

Just that you don't know what Hagler-Hearns was like...you don't know!!

Guys like Windy and the like do....

how do you know If Watson struck a chord with the people then????

He does now..that's for sure..

To be fair I've seen countless interviews with them and watched all the build up online, there's videos of HaglerHearns build as an example all over Youtube. Get with the 21st Centruy Truss!!

I'm not being funny but the footage of the fab 4 I saw growing up you wouldn't have seen.....

I was around ...you weren't....

end of..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:I'm not being funny guys but since none of you were around at the time and weren't privy to this excitement..

Doesn't it render your opinions pointless????

I'm not being facetious......

Just that you don't know what Hagler-Hearns was like...you don't know!!

Guys like Windy and the like do....

how do you know If Watson struck a chord with the people then????

He does now..that's for sure..

No one was around in Dempsey's day (I would be very surprised if there was) neither but we still talk about him don't we?

And for the record I can recall the mid 80's fights and all of the British fights. Plus this article carries a question with it, a question for all those who are well placed to answer it.

AlexHuckerby wrote:To be fair I've seen countless interviews with them and watched all the build up online, there's videos of HaglerHearns build as an example all over Youtube. Get with the 21st Centruy Truss!!

Thats correct!

I could be in 1876 just by the click of a button TRUSS. I am able to read accounts of fights, watch interviews, and listen to views and opinions.
Get over yourself.

All secondary evidence of the times......

My evidence is primary...I was an eye witness..

S does that mean you should not talk about fighters pre 1900's as you were there right?

It certainly doesn't ....nor should you assume that you know more about the fab 4...and the excitement created by their matchups than someone who saw it first hand...

You're making assertions about personalities..hype etc and event size..without the evidence to support your claims....

But I love you anyway..

The British quartet provided value for money.

So Truss let's say a farmer that was around in the 80's and watched the build up would know an awful lot more about the Fab 4 just because they were there as opposed to me who has studied them and watched nearly all of there fights not just against each other but there whole career? But just because he was "there"

Very interesting article, OneTwo. My compliments.

In terms of fight excitement (going purely on what happened in the ring), I'd say the British four (Collins being lumped in there as a matter of convenience) provided just as much entertainment as their American counterparts. Both quartets produced a few stinkers or below-par affairs(Benn-Collins I and II for the Brits, with Duran-Leonard III and Hagler-Leonard over the other side of the pond), but on the other side of the coin, I'd say that Benn-Eubank I, Watson-Eubank II and Benn-Watson were every bit as compelling as Hearns-Leonard I, Duran-Leonard I and Duran-Hagler. Obviously, Hearns-Hagler has a class all of its own which gives the Americans an edge, but the British quartet can still hold their own in this respect.

Naturally, though, the British list of fights can't compare in terms of significance or world-wide build up. Expectation for Eubank-Benn, for instance, reached fever pitch in the UK; expectation for Duran-Leonard, Hagler-Hearns and Hagler-Leonard reached fever pitch in any country where boxing was a popular sport.

In terms of personalities, I'd take Eubank over the lot of them, but that's more down to personal preference.

Yup, if the likes of Haye and Hatton and Naseem were all on terestrial for there whole careers just think of how big boxing would be right now in this country. Absolutely massive with buzz and people talking about it all the time.

alma wrote:
I remember the groans in my house when Eubank defected to Sky. I'd argue that was partly when boxing in this country began its slow descent to relative obscurity.

Not convinced myself, cricket and football are rarely shown on terrestrial TV, certainly not live and are arguably more popular than ever, boxing not being on terrestrial has certainly not helped but other sports have flourished so we have to ask why boxing has failed to do so.

Interesting point Rowley, which no doubt leads into the same old arguement that we have all discussed a thousand times on the proliferation of belts and governing bodies and the sport being nigh on impossible for an outsider to understand.

But picture this, Hamed and Hatton and Haye etc. on terrestrial TV, would you not think the sport would be so much bigger than it is right now? Or at least much more talked about and grabbing more headlines.

The only UK boxers the guys in my office know about is Khan and Haye they get rather misty eyed if I mention someone like JMM or even Mayweather.

Na - thing is we got to see those fighters grow - just like we got to see those cricket and football players grow - the exciting new talent then we followed em onto ppv/sky because we knew they were worth it. need a match of the day type thing for boxing - will help it grow.

rowley wrote:

alma wrote:
I remember the groans in my house when Eubank defected to Sky. I'd argue that was partly when boxing in this country began its slow descent to relative obscurity.

Not convinced myself, cricket and football are rarely shown on terrestrial TV, certainly not live and are arguably more popular than ever, boxing not being on terrestrial has certainly not helped but other sports have flourished so we have to ask why boxing has failed to do so.

Cricket and football are embedded in British culture hence their continued popularity. Boxing, even at its peak in the UK years ago, was and continues to be a niche or minority sport.

People can watch cricket or football then go out and play it afterwards, but I highly doubt similar amounts would go and jump in a boxing ring after watching a fight on ITV.

alma wrote:

Group Cpt Lionel Mandrake wrote:

rowley wrote:

alma wrote:
I remember the groans in my house when Eubank defected to Sky. I'd argue that was partly when boxing in this country began its slow descent to relative obscurity.

Not convinced myself, cricket and football are rarely shown on terrestrial TV, certainly not live and are arguably more popular than ever, boxing not being on terrestrial has certainly not helped but other sports have flourished so we have to ask why boxing has failed to do so.

Cricket and football are embedded in British culture hence their continued popularity. Boxing, even at its peak in the UK years ago, was and continues to be a niche or minority sport.

People can watch cricket or football then go out and play it afterwards, but I highly doubt similar amounts would go and jump in a boxing ring after watching a fight on ITV.

You've obviously never watched Fight Club!

I can remember watching Bloodsport at my mates house when I was about 10. Afterwards we cleared the furniture out his mum's living room and had our own martial arts tournament

I won

To be fair though I mentioned cricket and football as they are the most high profile sports but there are others such as golf who have suffered greatly reduced coverage on terrestrial tv since Sky but continue to flourish, am not arguing the lack of terrestrial Tv coverage does boxing any favours but personally don't like seeing this blamed for the ills of the sport because I genuinely believe the issue to be more complex and this is just one of many issues and for me not the most important.

NFL has a growing fanbase over here now, but most certainly not all that popular. My dad started playing American Football in the 80's and there were leagues that were up and coming that got more and more popular over here, just due to the fact that it was on the telly a lot. At least that's what my dad reckons!