Nigel Benn IBHOF

[Rover]

lol, the rope caused the trauma. What's so difficult to grasp?

And the huge punch caused him to go into the rope. What's so difficult to grasp?
If you slam my head into a wall and I die as a result, you caused it.

You are painful to discuss things with.

You're using the "fact" that Eubank battered Watson into a coma as some sort of measuring stick to beat Benn with and somehow elevate Eubank above Benn in some sort of mythic rankings in your head.

It's a totally specious argument.

More importantly, you've already backtracked and said that he didn't beat him into a coma, he knocked him down with one punch which didn't put him into a coma at all, he was saved by the bell and helped back to his corner.

One doesn't need to go into a coma immediately.
Jimmy Garcia didn't die immediately, either.

[orbtastic]

Seriously...go and have the afternoon off or something.

Eubank didn't beat him into a coma. The end.

[Datsue]

I like you Rover. Your persnickety fastidiousness, anal attitude to winning & ability to do the impression of a dog on a rag at will must stand you in good stead in your profession.

But you come across as a know-it-all change-the-tune how-dare-you-challenge-me superior twat sometimes, & this is one of them mate.

Watson hit the back of his head on the rope. The neurosurgeon said it in his report. It was basically mega-whiplash. This wasn't Jimmy Garcia & you fvcking know it. It was a great shot, but if he'd've fallen literally anywhere else in that ring Eubank would've lost on points. & if you must ask why this is suddenly so important, it's because you threw it out there in an attempt to bolster your opinion--that you may have startlingly come to the conclusion a lot of us Brits disagree with--in this matter. In a classically rhetorical sense you're doing well, but on a simple human level, by talking about it this way, scoring points using it (or attempting to) you're making yourself look a complete & utter dickhead.

I can't see you ever letting this go, meself, not even if Chris fuckin' Eubank himself came online right now & said "Yeah, I might've beaten him once but Nige was a far superior fighter to meself. Had a better resume as well", so I'm going to bow out now.

But please don't take a supercilious tone in future with any of those you've argued with, because--speaking as a complete stranger who'd like to call another complete stranger who shares his passion a friend--you've been in the wrong here, & are too proud & stubborn to admit it, over a thorny issue for British boxing fans.

Have a good day.

[Rover]

I like you Rover. Your persnickety fastidiousness, anal attitude to winning & ability to do the impression of a dog on a rag at will must stand you in good stead in your profession.

But you come across as a know-it-all change-the-tune how-dare-you-challenge-me superior twat sometimes, & this is one of them mate.

Watson hit the back of his head on the rope. The neurosurgeon said it in his report. It was basically mega-whiplash. This wasn't Jimmy Garcia & you fvcking know it. It was a great shot, but if he'd've fallen literally anywhere else in that ring Eubank would've lost on points. & if you must ask why this is suddenly so important, it's because you threw it out there in an attempt to bolster your opinion--that you may have startlingly come to the conclusion a lot of us Brits disagree with--in this matter. In a classically rhetorical sense you're doing well, but on a simple human level, by talking about it this way, scoring points using it (or attempting to) you're making yourself look a complete & utter dickhead.

I can't see you ever letting this go, meself, not even if Chris fuckin' Eubank himself came online right now & said "Yeah, I might've beaten him once but Nige was a far superior fighter to meself. Had a better resume as well", so I'm going to bow out now.

But please don't take a supercilious tone in future with any of those you've argued with, because--speaking as a complete stranger who'd like to call another complete stranger who shares his passion a friend--you've been in the wrong here, & are too proud & stubborn to admit it, over a thorny issue for British boxing fans.

Have a good day.

I like you too, Datsue, especially when discussing the lower weights.
Watson hit his head because Eubank punched him. Hence, Eubank caused it.

[Ezzard]

you really must stop bringing the tragic stuff into this argument - it does not make your case stronger - watson was winning the fight and chris managed to find one from out of nowhere. the fact of the tragedy comes not from chris being dominant in the fight because he was losing it - do you understand what i am saying?

In the first fight Watson was robbed. Plain and simple. But for a while every time Eubank’s fights went to the cards there was a lull while we waited for the scores to be added up the right way.

Watson decided in the second fight that he couldn’t allow it to go to the cards a second time. He knew that Eubank was the draw and the title would have to be literally cut out of his spleen.

So in those late rounds, with the fight surely in the bag…Watson did not take a round off. Or hold back…or play it safe… he had no choice but to go for it….and the rest is as it is…

I like Eubank. I too was a fan. He was a tremendous fighter…strong, stout chin, great psychology, highly skilled, great reflexes… But he rarely fought for 3 mins of a round. He always looked big at whatever weight he fought at. I wonder if he was often drained because stamina seemed an issue. I don’t want to denigrate him because he was top drawer but he was on a bum of the month tour allowed by TV and the WBO…and he always got the decisions…

I think misterpunch and Datsue have a handle on all this...

I don't think Watson was robbed the first time, and nobody had the title for the second fight.

Then you're not qualified to speak on the subject. Too biased to read the fight.

[Rover]

I'm not qualified because I disagree with your view of it?

[Ezzard]

I'm not qualified because I disagree with your view of it?

Nope...simply because you're so wrong there is no other interpretation.

Poor effort...

[Rover]

I'm not qualified because I disagree with your view of it?

Nope...simply because you're so wrong there is no other interpretation.

Poor effort...

Sure there is. That was a close fight. I think Watson could've stopped him in the tenth. Too cautious.

[misterpunch]

"And the huge punch caused him to go into the rope. What's so difficult to grasp?
If you slam my head into a wall and I die as a result, you caused it."

dont tempt me

[Rover]

i'm not bothering with you anymore - waste of time

'Member this?

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Ok, we get it, you don't want Benn in the IBHOF. You don't need to make nearly 50% of the posts in the thread.

Yes he does

[misterpunch]

how old are you rover? your incredible immaturity seems to put you at about 18 at most. but if you watched those fights in the late 1980's you must be at least in your mid 40's. i just cant put your childish attitude and the estimation of your age together. but maybe you just watch all the fights on youtube and therefore have no cultural reference to go with them. thats fine. young people are welcome to get into our sport whichever way they want. i wish you many years of enjoyment and hope that you pick up some knowledge and maturity along the way

[Datsue]

Ok, we get it, you don't want Benn in the IBHOF. You don't need to make nearly 50% of the posts in the thread.

Yes he does

[MEISINGER]

lol, the rope caused the trauma. What's so difficult to grasp?

And the huge punch caused him to go into the rope. What's so difficult to grasp?
If you slam my head into a wall and I die as a result, you caused it.

so this argument is causing me to bang my head against a wall
if i die is it your fault?

[Rover]

lol, the rope caused the trauma. What's so difficult to grasp?

And the huge punch caused him to go into the rope. What's so difficult to grasp?
If you slam my head into a wall and I die as a result, you caused it.

so this argument is causing me to bang my head against a wall
if i die is it your fault?

No, because you don't have to read it, and I'm arguing with different people.:)

[Rover]

how old are you rover? your incredible immaturity seems to put you at about 18 at most. but if you watched those fights in the late 1980's you must be at least in your mid 40's. i just cant put your childish attitude and the estimation of your age together. but maybe you just watch all the fights on youtube and therefore have no cultural reference to go with them. thats fine. young people are welcome to get into our sport whichever way they want. i wish you many years of enjoyment and hope that you pick up some knowledge and maturity along the way

Late 20s.
I saw several of the fights live--at least the ones televised on Showtime.
I don't need a cultural reference to score fights.

[Rover]

Ok, we get it, you don't want Benn in the IBHOF. You don't need to make nearly 50% of the posts in the thread.

Yes he does

You know me so well.:)
Though it's not quite half...yet.:)

[misterpunch]

late 20's ...ok...perhaps you dont need a cultural reference to score fights on youtube as you do but it does explain why you think eubank is better than he was. as an earlier poster quite rightly stated, in the late 80's some boxers - eubank is a great example - were favoured, by those with an interest in such things, into winning close bouts. that was a closed boxing authority culture that has now led to younger fans lionising certain fighters. ergo - your worship of the wonderful chris, while older followers of our sport, like myself who were actually there for many of those duels, know why he was given decisions he should not have been given.

[Rover]

late 20's ...ok...perhaps you dont need a cultural reference to score fights on youtube as you do but it does explain why you think eubank is better than he was. as an earlier poster quite rightly stated, in the late 80's some boxers - eubank is a great example - were favoured, by those with an interest in such things, into winning close bouts. that was a closed boxing authority culture that has now led to younger fans lionising certain fighters. ergo - your worship of the wonderful chris, while older followers of our sport, like myself who were actually there for many of those duels, know why he was given decisions he should not have been given.

I don't worship himm, and the fights are out there, so cultural reference has nothing to do with my scoring of them.
(I haven't seen any of Eubank's pre-title fights so won't comment on them.)

[Ezzard]

I remember watching Eubank-Collins on TV with members of my family of my age… We’d be early 20s… These lads, who are family, were n’er do wells…always on the rob… Two of them were geeing Chris up…then about round 6 they said he will win won’t he? Eubank? Only we both put a grand on him each…

Now these chaps didn’t have jobs. The whole room went silent. I eventually said Eubank will get the decision as long as he’s standing at the end…because that’s what usually happens.

Didn’t go according to plan that night…

[Counter-puncher]

coupla things on Eubank - Watson that I think are worth mentioning

i don't agree with the idea that Watson was robbed in the first,. necessarily. from memory Eubank pretty much swept the first 5-6 rounds, and even allowing for Watson coming on late, calling 'robbery' on a fight Eubank definitely won 5 rounds in is a bit strong

on the 2nd fight, the first time i rewatched it, over a decade later, what struck me most strongly was how badly Watson started to tire, and take some heavy clean counters, from around round 8 or so. my memory had the fight as being mostly dominated by Eubank, who was several points down on the cards at the time of the stoppage, where a replay surprised me how badly Watson was tiring. he was pushing his punches, they had lost their snap, and his legs had gone very heavy.

[misterpunch]

not the way i saw it - i thought he was robbed to the extent that even chris should have been honest and man enough to admit it.

[Rover]

coupla things on Eubank - Watson that I think are worth mentioning

i don't agree with the idea that Watson was robbed in the first,. necessarily. from memory Eubank pretty much swept the first 5-6 rounds, and even allowing for Watson coming on late, calling 'robbery' on a fight Eubank definitely won 5 rounds in is a bit strong

on the 2nd fight, the first time i rewatched it, over a decade later, what struck me most strongly was how badly Watson started to tire, and take some heavy clean counters, from around round 8 or so. my memory had the fight as being mostly dominated by Eubank, who was several points down on the cards at the time of the stoppage, where a replay surprised me how badly Watson was tiring. he was pushing his punches, they had lost their snap, and his legs had gone very heavy.

Ah, CP, don't you know that you are now disqualified from this discussion because you won't call Watson I a robbery, thus showing how biased you are?

[Counter-puncher]

not the way i saw it - i thought he was robbed to the extent that even chris should have been honest and man enough to admit it.

you didn't think Eubank boxed Watson's socks off for about 5 or 6 rounds while Watson waited to wake the fvck up? or that Watson's hell for leather approach to the 2nd fight might just be related to the mistakes he made first time round?

[Datsue]

I remember watching Eubank-Collins on TV with members of my family of my age… We’d be early 20s… These lads, who are family, were n’er do wells…always on the rob… Two of them were geeing Chris up…then about round 6 they said he will win won’t he? Eubank? Only we both put a grand on him each…

Now these chaps didn’t have jobs. The whole room went silent. I eventually said Eubank will get the decision as long as he’s standing at the end…because that’s what usually happens.

Didn’t go according to plan that night…

Fck me man, don't you just hate it when you can't even rely on boxing to be corrupt any more?

S'weird feeling innit? A bit like a watching a sheepdog being savagely mauled by a sheep...