David and Maddie of Moonlighting come in second. Sam and Diane of Cheers are no. 1.

http://www.avclub.com/content/node/45176

I totally disagree. Even though I liked Sam and Diane, there is no way that their romance compares to David and Maddie. No way!!!

Your absolutely right .Fair enough Cheers ran for longer but there wasn`t that spark the sexual chemistry that Bruce and Cybill have got. With Diane and Sam you can imagine that when the cameres stopped rolling they went their own ways had no connection what so ever and were just two actors that happened to work together .BUT in David and Maddie case it went beyond their characters into real life, in effect the chemistry and the attraction came from Bruce and Cybill ,which i think made it far more interesting to the viewer as we all felt like we where watching personel moments and not just something from a script.
PS besides Bruce and Cybill were by far HOTTER when together and boy did they know how to KISS or what!

I saw this on TV Land and I agree. I never thought Sam and Diane had any chemistry. I also never liked how they delighted in insulting each other. I didn't find that funny. With David and Maddie, even though they had their differences, I always saw the affection between them. That's why the 5th season was so maddening, because towards the end Maddie started to say he was "vile" and that was so unlike them in previous seasons. But I'm starting to veer onto another subject...

I again agree with CyBr. They had comic chemistry, not sexual.

Sam and Diane reminded me of how a New England/Boston couple would act - kind of uptight in a way. Plus, neither one of them has much sex appeal in real life.

Cybill just oozes sex appeal - you just KNOW that she loves being with someone. Bruce does also.

Cybill with her hair all messed up, Cybill with her neck exposed, Cybill giving "that look" - wowie zowie, that woman was/is/will always be sexy.

There would have to be differences, because they were different kinds of shows--'Cheers' was a comedy and 'Moonlighting' was a hybrid of that and drama. ML had much more of a dramatic edge, though. So you'd expect them to have to write the characters a different way.

You have a lot more time to delve into someone's personality in a one-hour show than you do with a half hour. Still, as much as Sam and Diane were a lot of fun to watch, next to the other plot, it's like the difference between a bike and a train.

Even if you had just seen the last few episodes of Yr. 3 of ML, you would know it's far more deep, magnetic and compelling. Sam and Diane were very funny, and we certainly cared about them, but the other couple were on another level entirely.