One of the biggest robberies I've ever seen. Watson was a hell of a boxer...

you mean Eubank vs Watson 1?

yea, seems like a lot of people had Watson winning.

He was winning in II as well until Eubank did that whole "I fink I betht put wathon in a coma" thing. Epic Eubank win. (Though I never like to see a fighter as good as Watson get hurt like that)

Fight looked pretty even to me.

Fight looked pretty even to me.

This is true.

I have no idea how people can think Watson won this fight clearly when he did nothing for 5 rounds.

Eubank would of only needed one more round to secure a draw.

Haven't seen the fight in years, my memory of it was that it was a close fight but Watson shaded it.
Eubank did well to get given a draw against Benn in the 2nd fight too.

Excellent fight, shame about the outcome of the second fight though. But that's just the sort of risks boxers take when they get into that ring.

Such a deep,informative post to explain your argument there.Out of interest,are you related to mickey malone? Because he's the only other poster I have seen on here as great a moron as you are.

For a fight to be a robbery(greatest robbery ever in your [wrong]opinion)then the victim of such a bad decision must have clearly dominated his opponent,to the point where only one man was dominant and leaving any debate of a close decision lying on the canvas with that of his opponents pride that was beaten out of him.

Eubank vs Watson to most impartial viewers was a contest held between two equally matched middleweights,both of whom tested each other physically and mentally in a grueling battle wgich produced arguably the greatest middle weight contest in the last twenty years

Who was the winner? well you have a close decision winner in Chris Eubank(as was the case),You have a close decision winner in Michael Watson(as many felt) or you have fight which was simply to close to call in that a draw is perhaps the most fair to call(as which one judge felt)

Now perhaps you should actually go and watch the fight before commenting on it like a misinformed noob,If not,then wrap the nearest wire around your throat and tighten until all thoughts and feelings have left you

Honestly,Some people just read that a fight was controversial and it's the worst decision ever without ever having actually seen that fight.These stupid newbs along with poofters like malone are the real reason boxing is dying

the first fight was a close fight, i scored it for michael watson but i remeber thinking that it wouldn't have surprised me if someone had eubank ahead. imo it was far from a robbery, i think that word gets thrown around too much, berto/collazo was a robbery according to some people.

however that said i thought it was relatively clear that watson had won that fight by a small margin.

iv always wondered how watson would have done if he hadn't suffered after that second fight, would he have beat collins? would he have gone up against calzaghe? how would he have fared against some of the americans?

its a shame that watson is not as well known as benn and eubank, he was as good a fighter as both and arguably beat both. i can understand his frustration, he was as good a fighter as any other MW but wasn't getting the mainstream recognition or the paydays.

Honestly,Some people just read that a fight was controversial and it's the worst decision ever without ever having actually seen that fight.These stupid newbs along with poofters like malone are the real reason boxing is dying

Don't know where this hostility is coming from, but no biggie.

I actually did watch the fight, and IMO Watson clearly won. I saw a documentary on youtube called Fighting Back-The Michael Watson Story. In that documentary they were saying how bad of a robbery it was and there is no way Eubank won that fight. Now, I don't believe anything unless I see it with my own eyes, so I had to see how big of a "robbery" it was. So I searched the fight on youtube to see if they had it and to my luck they did. I had it 7-5 Watson. Watson should have been given the W. Eubank was to focused on hitting him with that one big shot. While Eubank was focusing on that big shot Watson was just the boxing, sticking to his gameplan. Plus, Watson won the last 3 rounds IMO. Watson wanted it more and you could definitely see it...he just kept coming while Eubank would retreat most of the fight.

Now princemanspoper, you've probably been into boxing way longer than I have. I guess you can say I'm a "noob" to the scene. But I'm trying to learn as much as I can about the sport I love and *******s like you discourage newcomers like me. I love boxing, so **** you princeman.

Don't know where this hostility is coming from, but no biggie.
Now princemanspoper, you've probably been into boxing way longer than I have. I guess you can say I'm a "noob" to the scene. But I'm trying to learn as much as I can about the sport I love and *******s like you discourage newcomers like me. I love boxing, so **** you princeman.

Don't let him get under your skin he is just an attention seeker

I had it 7-5 Watson. Watson should have been given the W.

That's entirely different in regards to an actual robbery you fool,Since when has a 7-5 scoring been regarded as a dominant clear victory? You came here proclaiming it to be the greatest robbery ever and yet you produce a scoring like that in regards to your argument

Absolutely ridiculous,You watch boxing,You know absolutely nothing of boxing.There is a difference child




Don't let him get under your skin he is just an attention seeker


Yes,um......ok.Do you have anything else to offer to this topic?

Yes,um......ok.Do you have anything else to offer to this topic?

My reply was:

Haven't seen the fight in years, my memory of it was that it was a close fight but Watson shaded it.
Eubank did well to get given a draw against Benn in the 2nd fight too.

I agree with you you can't call a very close fight a robbery.
However I didn't see any reason to insult people whilst giving an opinion.

Fair enough, I chose the wrong words. Crucify me.