Buchanan vs Whitaker

[Sayers]

No doubt this fight would be a beautiful one to watch, but who would be the winner? :bbb

[Mr Butt]

whitaker, 10-5

[billy boy balbo]

the tartan legend :P

[stevebhoy87]

I can't see past Whitaker here, he just has Buchanan outgunned in pretty much every area, far better defense, better on the inside, similar level of jab. I just don't see where Buchanan has any real advantage here

[bodhi]

I can't see past Whitaker here, he just has Buchanan outgunned in pretty much every area, far better defense, better on the inside, similar level of jab. I just don't see where Buchanan has any real advantage here

Size and reach?

[stevebhoy87]

Size and reach?

I say them as negligible, boxrec has their being an 1'' difference in reach and 1.5'' in height, not enough of an advantage to overcome the rest of the disadvantages i see ken having.

[bodhi]

I say them as negligible, boxrec has their being an 1'' difference in reach and 1.5'' in height, not enough of an advantage to overcome the rest of the disadvantages i see ken having.

I agree but it is an advantage :D

[stevebhoy87]

I agree but it is an advantage :D

:lol::lol: I can't really argue with that

I retract my previous post, i now think whitaker has almost all of the advantages apart from reach and height. I still favour whitaker UD though :D

[McGrain]

I think it would be very very close. I think Whitaker should be favoured, but I don't rule out an upset here. Buchanan had an extremely cultured left hand. It's possible he was the better jabber of the two. He was also an extremely sharp puncher. A wider decision is not impossible, but I don't see any rounds that aren't very close.

[WhataRock]

I think it would be very very close. I think Whitaker should be favoured, but I don't rule out an upset here. Buchanan had an extremely cultured left hand. It's possible he was the better jabber of the two. He was also an extremely sharp puncher. A wider decision is not impossible, but I don't see any rounds that aren't very close.

Thats a brave call.

[McGrain]

Thats a brave call.


Nothing brave about perching firmly on the fence :D

[WhataRock]

Nothing brave about perching firmly on the fence :D

Splinters can kill McGrain.

[McGrain]

De La Hoya is supposed to be this brilliant jabber, and he is to a degree, though I think he's become a wee bit overated in that department now, but he was so tentative with his jab against Whitaker. He sort of shuffled it out, and Whitaker showed him lots of nice movement from an awkward crouch and it made him more tentative, and Oscars jab was basically taken away from him. With Buchanan, that wouldn't happen, he'd probably be doing the more pronounced lateral movement, he'd be jabbing and moving, offering variety and mobility off what is a snapping punch. If he missed it would matter less, meanwhile Whitaker isn't going to be able to control their relative foot placements, and he's going to risk that little bit more when he sticks out his own jab. I see Buchanan possibly shading the battle of the jabs in this way. Where I see Whitaker edging ahead would be off his timing Buchanan's sometimes showy defensive moves with is jab and other punches, I think he would land the heavier, more eye-catching stuff, and although I think Ken is tough enough to eat those shots for 12/15 rounds, I think this is what might turn the tide in Whitaker's favour. On the other hand, if Buchanan knuckles down and fights a more disciplined fight, he losses that edge he might have in the jabbing department. So a very tough fight but one, yeah, I would bet on Whitaker to win.

[GPater11093]

I think it would be very very close. I think Whitaker should be favoured, but I don't rule out an upset here. Buchanan had an extremely cultured left hand. It's possible he was the better jabber of the two. He was also an extremely sharp puncher. A wider decision is not impossible, but I don't see any rounds that aren't very close.

Buchanan had a great left hand but Whittaker has one of the best jabs in history and by my reckoning THE best.

Also I like the fact you mention Buchanan was a sharp puncher as he was. His jab was snappy and his right hand had some snap in it aswell, the lead right stunned Laguna afew times.

De La Hoya is supposed to be this brilliant jabber, and he is to a degree, though I think he's become a wee bit overated in that department now, but he was so tentative with his jab against Whitaker. He sort of shuffled it out, and Whitaker showed him lots of nice movement from an awkward crouch and it made him more tentative, and Oscars jab was basically taken away from him. With Buchanan, that wouldn't happen, he'd probably be doing the more pronounced lateral movement, he'd be jabbing and moving, offering variety and mobility off what is a snapping punch. If he missed it would matter less, meanwhile Whitaker isn't going to be able to control their relative foot placements, and he's going to risk that little bit more when he sticks out his own jab. I see Buchanan possibly shading the battle of the jabs in this way. Where I see Whitaker edging ahead would be off his timing Buchanan's sometimes showy defensive moves with is jab and other punches, I think he would land the heavier, more eye-catching stuff, and although I think Ken is tough enough to eat those shots for 12/15 rounds, I think this is what might turn the tide in Whitaker's favour. On the other hand, if Buchanan knuckles down and fights a more disciplined fight, he losses that edge he might have in the jabbing department. So a very tough fight but one, yeah, I would bet on Whitaker to win.

Very interesting post.

I watched Buchanan vs Laguna I today and Laguna got some of his best scoring inside. Now Whittaker was pretty good at applying pressure and with his footspeed he could get inside Buchanan and let his short ripping punches go, now IMO Whittaker dominates the inside whereas the outside is quite even due to what you explain, I dont fully agree as I think Whittakers footspeed helps him out. And Laguna landed afew great right uppercuts which is a brilliant punch in Pernell's arsenal.

I do like the way Buchanan would circle to his left and throw out afew jabs then all of a sudden circle right and throw out a lead right. I think this would be effective aginst Whittaker as it would be coming onto a bling Whittaker due to the angle of him being a southpaw. But is it enough?

Also Whittaker could match Buchanan for woorkrate and grit. Buchanan's late round surges would be matched by Whittaker. I just dont see the upset.

[lora]

C'mon now, Virgil Hill had the best jab.And Floyd.

[GPater11093]

C'mon now, Virgil Hill had the best jab.And Floyd.

:rofl:rofl

[itrymariti]

I say them as negligible, boxrec has their being an 1'' difference in reach and 1.5'' in height, not enough of an advantage to overcome the rest of the disadvantages i see ken having.

I remember looking up Buchanan's dimensions a while ago and being surprised. He looks much taller and rangier on film, whereas, in reality, he's not particularly big compared to a lot of modern Lightweights.

[GPater11093]

I remember looking up Buchanan's dimensions a while ago and being surprised. He looks much taller and rangier on film, whereas, in reality, he's not particularly big compared to a lot of modern Lightweights.

I know, Buchanan aint that tall. there was a picture of him next to SFW Alex Arthur and it looked like a Lightweight next to a Welterweight, thats how much bigger Arthur was.

[itrymariti]

I know, Buchanan aint that tall. there was a picture of him next to SFW Alex Arthur and it looked like a Lightweight next to a Welterweight, thats how much bigger Arthur was.

Well, Arthur is a tall guy and he always had trouble boiling down to the limit. Maybe Ken's shrunk a bit "in old age" (i.e. with all the beer).

I'm starting to doubt boxrec a little here. Laguna is listed as 5'9", Buchanan as just over 5'7". But Laguna doesn't look bigger on film; if anything Buchanan seems to have the edge.

[red cobra]

Buchanan looked somewhat taller than Roberto Duran, who's also listed as 5'-7".

[elmaldito]

two of my 10 alltime favs

[Boxed Ears]

Well, Arthur is a tall guy and he always had trouble boiling down to the limit. Maybe Ken's shrunk a bit "in old age" (i.e. with all the beer).

I'm starting to doubt boxrec a little here. Laguna is listed as 5'9", Buchanan as just over 5'7". But Laguna doesn't look bigger on film; if anything Buchanan seems to have the edge.

:lol:

[GPater11093]

Well, Arthur is a tall guy and he always had trouble boiling down to the limit. Maybe Ken's shrunk a bit "in old age" (i.e. with all the beer).

I'm starting to doubt boxrec a little here. Laguna is listed as 5'9", Buchanan as just over 5'7". But Laguna doesn't look bigger on film; if anything Buchanan seems to have the edge.

They look about even in height, in fact 5'9 would sound right, thats a fairly tall Lightweight and in a same day weigh in scenario that is pretty tall.

Arthur has been boiling down but still he dwarfed Ken.

[lora]

Boexrec's height and reach listings seem to be consistently wrong imo.

[GPater11093]

Whens McGrain getting back on this thread?

[teeto]

It is true that Whitaker just about is better in every department in terms of operating effectively, but this remains the fight between two boxer types that i would like to see more than any other.