In terms of excitment.....

First topic message reminder :

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?

I quite like it.

rowley wrote:I quite like it.

It is a soft mans rugby.

johnson2 wrote:

rowley wrote:I quite like it.

It is a soft mans rugby.

Still like it

alma wrote:It's alright in an hour's highlights show (like C4 used to do), but live it's pretty dull, especially when whole defensive/offensive teams trudge off every few minutes.

Got to agree with that Alma, went to it the first timea league game was at Wembley a few years ago and apart from the novelty of seeing it for the first time and the spectacle the game was pretty dull, the only sport I genuinely think is better on TV than live.

rowley wrote:

johnson2 wrote:

rowley wrote:I quite like it.

It is a soft mans rugby.

Still like it

It's a tactical game really. In which people still take huge hits, get concussions broken ribs/arms/legs etc. Tough sport and a more tactical game than Rugby in my opinion. Then again, I dislike Rugby but enjoy the NFL so my view may be rather slanted!!!

Alex, how can you be from Leeds and not like Rugby? Either code. You're not really a Yorkshireman are you? You are a babysham drinking southerner.

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:Alex, how can you be from Leeds and not like Rugby? Either code. You're not really a Yorkshireman are you? You are a babysham drinking southerner.

He works/did work in HR, the horse has already bolted Tina.

It just doesn't interest me, please don't take away my Yorkshire tag, it's all I have left to show that I'm a man!

The NFL is pathetic compared to Rugby, eurgh.

At least our Baseball is better than your "rounders"..