Ken Buchanan

[Manassa]

Could he have beaten Julio Cesar Chavez or Alexis Arguello?

[TBooze]

Could he have beaten Julio Cesar Chavez or Alexis Arguello?

Chavez would of just been that little bit more intense

Chavez WU15 (9-6)

Arguello would of struggled with Buchanan's speed

Buchanan WS15 (8-7)

[heerko koois]

No.......not without a decent suntan....

[mcvey]

Could he have beaten Julio Cesar Chavez or Alexis Arguello?
Id give him a decent shot against Arguello,but think Chavez would walk him down and catch him ,as he did Taylor,Jim Watt went the distance with Arguello ,and he wasnt the speedster Buchanan was ,plus Arguellos feet were pretty slow,so Ken has a real chance of outpointing him,imo.

[Napuis]

He would have KOd both.

[Mantequilla]

Yes both would be winnable fights for him.

However, would no doubt be the betting underdog for both


I'd slightly favour Chavez and make him a favourite over Arguello.

[unitas]

no. chavez was too strong, too relentless.

arguello could box as well a buchanan, but hit way harder.

ken loses to both.

[Manassa]

As I suspected, Buchanan continues to be underrated.

[Duodenum]

Could he have beaten Julio Cesar Chavez or Alexis Arguello?Yes. His matches with both would have gone 15 rounds (as Buchanan would have done against Duran without the low blow after the bell). Duran has said Buchanan was his best opponent. (I don't know if Roberto ever contradicted that, but I've seen Cholo state this on camera during a post fight interview, given after he made short work of a hapless victim in the mid 1990's, and there was some on-air time to kill.)

Unlike Chavez and Arguello, Buchanan never sustained a legitimate legal knockdown, and was only stopped in his career by a low blow after the bell. (That punch would have incapacitated Cobb and Hagler.) He would have been too tough for either Arguello or Chavez to legally floor or stop, and that would have made him very difficult for Chavez and Arguello to defeat.

[Manassa]

I agree, Duodenum. Buchanan was insanely tough, probably on par with the Monzons, Canzoneris and Gavilans. These fights would almost certainly go the distance, and that's why I see Buchanan beating both. What could Chavez really do to him? Buchanan matched him in stamina and durability, and was equally tenacious. It would come down to Buchanan's superior boxing skills and his ability to fight equally with Chavez up close. Scrappy fight though, very scrappy, but entertaining.

Arguello would lose to Buchanan due to Buchanan's foot speed, evasiveness and use of angles. I just think he'd be landing more punches, if not as heavily, and edging Arguello at the finish.

[Duodenum]

I agree, Duodenum. Buchanan was insanely tough, probably on par with the Monzons, Canzoneris and Gavilans. These fights would almost certainly go the distance, and that's why I see Buchanan beating both. What could Chavez really do to him? Buchanan matched him in stamina and durability, and was equally tenacious. It would come down to Buchanan's superior boxing skills and his ability to fight equally with Chavez up close. Scrappy fight though, very scrappy, but entertaining.

Arguello would lose to Buchanan due to Buchanan's foot speed, evasiveness and use of angles. I just think he'd be landing more punches, if not as heavily, and edging Arguello at the finish.B I N G O!

[robert ungurean]

Ken has a decent shot against both.

[enquirer]

So how highly do you think buchanan ranks at lightweight? And how high in the pantheon of british fighters?

[Manassa]

So how highly do you think buchanan ranks at lightweight? And how high in the pantheon of british fighters?

Of retired fighters, Buchanan is my #10 lightweight of all time and rates as one of the very greatest Brits (not done a list yet).

[enquirer]

Thanks manassa. Would you say he is the best lightweight that duran fought?

[Manassa]

Thanks manassa. Would you say he is the best lightweight that duran fought?

Unquestionably - or at least the most accomplished. De Jesus might have been better, but I doubt it. If he was, he'd have proved it.

[Nemesis]

no. chavez was too strong, too relentless.

arguello could box as well a buchanan, but hit way harder.

ken loses to both.

Gennady strikes again :patsch

[Nemesis]

As I suspected, Buchanan continues to be underrated.

In fairness he did get to the final of our lightweight tournament

[TBooze]

So how highly do you think buchanan ranks at lightweight? And how high in the pantheon of british fighters?

Top 10 Lightweights:

10 Sammy Angott
9 Julio Cesar Chavez
8 Bob Montgomery
7 Ike Williams
6 Battling Nelson
5 Joe Gans
4 Pernell Whitaker
3 Henry Armstrong
2 Benny Leonard
1 Roberto Duran

Mentions: Jack McAuliffe, George Lavigne, Frank Erne, Tony Canzoneri, Barney Ross, Lou Ambers, Beau Jack, Jimmy Carter, Carlos Ortiz, Ken Buchanan, Esteban DeJesus, Guts Ishimatsu (Ishimatsu Suzuki), Alexis Arguello, Edwin Rosario, Jose Luis Ramirez, Hector Camacho Snr, Oscar de la Hoya, Shane Mosley, Steve Johnson, Jose Luis Castillo and Floyd Mayweather Jr


Top 10 Brits post war:

10 Jim Watt
9 Duke McKenzie
8 Randy Turpin
7 Chris Eubank
6 Nigel Benn
5 Ricky Hatton
4 Naseem Hamed
3 Jackie Paterson
2 Ken Buchanan
1 Lennox Lewis

[Manassa]

In fairness he did get to the final of our lightweight tournament

Can you remember who he beat? I know he edged Chavez, and possibly Beau Jack? Lou Ambers?

[Nemesis]

Can you remember who he beat? I know he edged Chavez, and possibly Beau Jack? Lou Ambers?

I thought he edged Arguello in one of the rounds, ironically enough :lol:

[Manassa]

10 Sammy Angott
9 Julio Cesar Chavez
8 Bob Montgomery
7 Ike Williams
6 Battling Nelson
5 Joe Gans
4 Pernell Whitaker
3 Henry Armstrong
2 Benny Leonard
1 Roberto Duran


Strange list. Why you'd have Nelson above Williams is beyond me. I like the inclusion of Angott though, and Montgomery is a fine pick - however I think he is a bit high. I think Beau Jack was slightly more accomplished. The absence of Tony Canzoneri and in particular Barney Ross is astounding. Worst of all, Carlos Ortiz is missing.

This is what mine looks like. Remember I'm rating both ability and accomplishments (which is why Whitaker or Armstrong may seem low):

1. Roberto Duran
2. Benny Leonard
3. Ike Williams
4. Barney Ross
5. Carlos Ortiz
6. Joe Gans
7. Henry Armstrong
8. Pernell Whitaker
9. Tony Canzoneri
10. Ken Buchanan

--

11. Beau Jack
12. Bob Montgomery
13. Sammy Angott
14. Lou Ambers
15. Joe Brown

I know some will have problems with Chavez not being included, but he didn't accomplish as much as some of the others. He would probably be #16 if I were to rate further.

Truth is, there are too many great fighters in the lightweight division. Historically it's been the richest weight class.

[Manassa]

I thought he edged Arguello in one of the rounds, ironically enough :lol:

I think you're right. I know Arguello beat Williams... Which I was not fucking happy about.

[mcvey]

no. chavez was too strong, too relentless.

arguello could box as well a buchanan, but hit way harder.

ken loses to both.
Arguello wasnt the boxer Buchanan was ,imo ,Vilomar Fernandez decisioned him ,and went the distance ,losing on points on another occasion.Check out Buchanan against Donato Paduano inMSG,giving weight away to a good boxer the Scot put on a boxing clinic.

[TBooze]

Strange list. Why you'd have Nelson above Williams is beyond me. I like the inclusion of Angott though, and Montgomery is a fine pick - however I think he is a bit high. I think Beau Jack was slightly more accomplished. The absence of Tony Canzoneri and in particular Barney Ross is astounding. Worst of all, Carlos Ortiz is missing.


I have a real soft spot for Ike Williams, so I made sure I did not overrate him.

Battling Nelson is an enigma, but I like early 20th century fighters, so maybe I am guilty of overrating them.

Montgomery was a superb fighter, in an amazing era for the Lightweights.

Ross is a tough one; I know a lot about him, but find it hard to place him. He does well pound for pound because of his multi weight reigns. He was best at 140lbs IMO, but unluckily for him, no one cared about that in the 30s, thus he probably does get underrated at 135 and 147.

[sweet_scientist]

Id give him a decent shot against Arguello,but think Chavez would walk him down and catch him ,as he did Taylor,Jim Watt went the distance with Arguello ,and he wasnt the speedster Buchanan was ,plus Arguellos feet were pretty slow,so Ken has a real chance of outpointing him,imo.

Having said that, Arguello looked much better against Watt than what Buchanan did.

[TBooze]

11. Beau Jack
12. Bob Montgomery


Montgomery had a better pedigree, and they were what 2-2 together? You got to love Beau Jack, but was he better Montgomery? If the answer is yes, an explanation is needed IMO.

[Nemesis]

Having said that, Arguello looked much better against Watt than what Buchanan did.

having said that Buchanan wasnt exactly in his prime when he beat Watt

[mcvey]

I think you're right. I know Arguello beat Williams... Which I was not fucking happy about.
Neither would Ike have been!

[TBooze]

having said that Buchanan wasnt exactly in his prime when he beat Watt

1973 Buchanan was pretty near it...

[mcvey]

having said that Buchanan wasnt exactly in his prime when he beat Watt
Neither was Watt when Arguello beat him!

[Bummy Davis]

Buchanan was a very good fighter, one of my favorites of the 70's, he could box and punch, I seen him fighting the garden vs Panamanian Laguna, great boxing from Ken and I seen him vs ChuChu Malave KO in the Felt Forum, he was a top guy Lb4Lb in the 70's too bad he had the misfortune of having Duran come around,still he gave Duran a good fight until the rough guy snuck in a low one but Duran was roughing him. I think he hold his own with Alex A. and Chavez both fights would be close calls

[TBooze]

Neither was Watt when Arguello beat him!

Yes, he was!!!

Watt was one of them wierd fighters that got better with age IMO.

[Manassa]

Montgomery had a better pedigree, and they were what 2-2 together? You got to love Beau Jack, but was he better Montgomery? If the answer is yes, an explanation is needed IMO.

Just compare their resumes. As a lightweight, Jack was beating Armstrong, Zivic, Constantino, Larkin, Zurita and the excellent Willie Joyce. Montgomery beat some fine fighters as well - but let's compare common opponents. Jack, slightly over the lightweight limit, beat Al Davis; weighing around the same, Montgomery was knocked out in a single round. Angott had Montgomery's number, whereas Jack got the better of him. We can't ignore Montgomery's blowout loss to Wes Mouzon either.

[mcvey]

Yes, he was!!!

Watt was one of them wierd fighters that got better with age IMO.
Watt was 33 he didnt get better with age ,he got good management and home advantage via Mickey Duff and Terry Lawless,Watt was coming to the endwhen he got a last big payday against Arguello,he put on a gutsy performance and retired immediately after,no Lightweight is improving once he is past 30.

[TBooze]

Just compare their resumes. As a lightweight, Jack was beating Armstrong, Zivic, Constantino, Larkin, Zurita and the excellent Willie Joyce. Montgomery beat some fine fighters as well - but let's compare common opponents. Jack, slightly over the lightweight limit, beat Al Davis; weighing around the same, Montgomery was knocked out in a single round. Angott had Montgomery's number, whereas Jack got the better of him. We can't ignore Montgomery's blowout loss to Wes Mouzon either.

Montgomery got the job done when the championship was on the line, something Beau never did... That is a big black mark aginst Jack IMO.

[TBooze]

Watt was 33 he didnt get better with age ,he got good management and home advantage via Mickey Duff and Terry Lawless,Watt was coming to the endwhen he got a last big payday against Arguello,he put on a gutsy performance and retired immediately after,no Lightweight is improving once he is past 30.

Watt did, or he would not of had the brains to use his head to beat O'Grady:yep

Watt was in his prime 79 to 81 IMO...

[Manassa]

Montgomery got the job done when the championship was on the line, something Beau never did... That is a big black mark aginst Jack IMO.

What do you mean? Jack was a two-time champion.

[Stewbear]

Buchanan is a great underrated lightweight, and yes he could beat either, however I find it unlikely.

[TBooze]

What do you mean? Jack was a two-time champion.

Beau Jack never won the World Championship at Lightweight; Montgomery won general recognition as champ in April 1945, when Ike won the NBA title, but having lost to NYSAC Champ Montgomery in 1944...

But I will concede I would not recognize his reign either (The Ring and New York did though.)

[Manassa]

Beau Jack never won the World Championship at Lightweight; Montgomery won general recognition as champ in April 1945, when Ike won the NBA title, but having lost to NYSAC Champ Montgomery in 1944...

But I will concede I would not recognize his reign either (The Ring and New York did though.)

True... Although I consider Jack a genuine champion. He was the best in the world at that point excluding Montgomery who was probably his equal.

[mcvey]

As I suspected, Buchanan continues to be underrated.
Buchanan is underated and it was nice to see him getting some kudos in the lightweight tourney,but it isnt a given he was even the best Lightweight Britain has produced,a few guys my age might argue that Dave Charnley would give him a good row,and was the Scot better than Freddie Welsh? Buchanan beat the guy you rate , Laguna twice,an old Ortiz, Suzuki,and Watt. Welsh beat Attell, Ritchie,Wolgast,White, Cross, Rivers,Wells,and Driscoll ,albeit on a foul.Duran beat how many great lightweights ? I say 2,one contra versially ,was it a punch or a knee? The other also beat him and dropped him twice,incidentally there is a theory that Laguna retired when he did to avoid the looming Duran.A meandering post but I have partaken of wine.

[sweet_scientist]

having said that Buchanan wasnt exactly in his prime when he beat Watt

You think he was already past it, 6 months removed from the Duran fight and 3 months removed from the Ortiz fight?

[Mantequilla]

His fight with Watt was just a really poor performance.

Standing flat footed and blocking punches with his face was an unwise course of action.

[sweet_scientist]

Chavez wouldn't be boxing him in the middle of the ring. He would be hunting him down and hurting him to the body and outmuscling him. Sure Buchanan was tough as nails, but he wouldn't be able to stave off Chavez's pressure. A prime Chavez beats the green Duran that fought Buchanan as well. Chavez would put the pressure on him and hurt him enough to win the decision. I think you are just straight up overrating Buchanan, rather than us underrating him.

I think Arguello would be a tough fight, Buchanan is quicker and more mobile, but Arguello was just as good a boxer and had the power for sure. Would be a tough fight to call.

I'm thinking likewise SP, though I'm not sure Chavez beats a young Duran. Perhaps he does.

Re Buchanan-Chavez: there's no way that Buchanan is going to fight equally with Chavez up close. Buchanan has toughness to survive an inside battle, but not the skills to go even with Chavez there.

Personally, as good a defense as Buchanan had, I don't think it's good enough to keep Chavez off him for long periods, and as such, much of the fighting will be conducted inside, where Chavez will be in command and land the more telling punches.

I'm thinking 9-6 Chavez, possibly 8-7.

[Shake]

I agree with Sweet Pea that a prime Chavez is a match for the Duran that beat Buchanan. Roberto was very raw back then, and although it'd be a war, I see Chavez being more accurate than this pretty wild version of Duran.

[Holmes' Jab]

Could he have beaten Julio Cesar Chavez or Alexis Arguello?

Chavez, nah. Arguello, perhaps. :good

[JohnThomas1]

Chavez, nah. Arguello, perhaps. :good

Agreed, but i still like Arguello by decision in a close fight. Arguello wasn't the fastest, but he was a great technician and long range specialist. I think his harder blows and the complications they cause would be the difference.

[Holmes' Jab]

Some good points, well made here.

I think JCC would be simply too good for him, though on one his best nights Buchanan would be a definite 'live' threat to Arguello.

[Duodenum]

Through no fault of his own, Chavez never established Buchanan's 15 round credentials. J.C. would not have been able to wear Ken down. If either did falter, it would probably be Chavez first.

Buchanan decisioned Watt over 15. While not a lethal puncher, Watt was a strong, bruising, durable pressing fighter with all the endurance
necessary to go 15 hard rounds. Yet shortly before Watt turned 25, Buchanan dethroned him for the British LW Title.

[sweet_scientist]

Through no fault of his own, Chavez never established Buchanan's 15 round credentials. J.C. would not have been able to wear Ken down. If either did falter, it would probably be Chavez first.
Based on what? Chavez not having 15 round credentials? Anyone that saw him fight would have to think that the longer the fight went, the better it was for Chavez. Chavez would have lapped 15 rounds up, no problems.

Buchanan decisioned Watt over 15. While not a lethal puncher, Watt was a strong, bruising, durable pressing fighter with all the endurance
necessary to go 15 hard rounds. Yet shortly before Watt turned 25, Buchanan dethroned him for the British LW Title.
Buchanan had good endurance no doubt. Though he boxed below par with Watt (I had them even after 12 rounds) he stormed home to take the last three and wrestled the title from Watt.

[Minotauro]

Chavez wouldn't be boxing him in the middle of the ring. He would be hunting him down and hurting him to the body and outmuscling him. Sure Buchanan was tough as nails, but he wouldn't be able to stave off Chavez's pressure. A prime Chavez beats the green Duran that fought Buchanan as well. Chavez would put the pressure on him and hurt him enough to win the decision. I think you are just straight up overrating Buchanan, rather than us underrating him.

I think Arguello would be a tough fight, Buchanan is quicker and more mobile, but Arguello was just as good a boxer and had the power for sure. Would be a tough fight to call.

Yeh I agree with the above Chavez would win a decision and rough Buchanan in doing so. The Arguello fight could go either way, although I'd favour Alexis.

[Manassa]

Chavez wouldn't be boxing him in the middle of the ring. He would be hunting him down and hurting him to the body and outmuscling him. Sure Buchanan was tough as nails, but he wouldn't be able to stave off Chavez's pressure. A prime Chavez beats the green Duran that fought Buchanan as well. Chavez would put the pressure on him and hurt him enough to win the decision. I think you are just straight up overrating Buchanan, rather than us underrating him.

I think Arguello would be a tough fight, Buchanan is quicker and more mobile, but Arguello was just as good a boxer and had the power for sure. Would be a tough fight to call.

Have you watched much Buchanan? He had a lot of grit. He wasn't just a boxer, he was a fighter, and would fire back hard in the face of adversity, and wasn't the featherfisted fairy some are making him out to be - he could whack. Duran beat Buchanan but it doesn't mean Chavez does - Duran, though young, was unpredictable, less measured and a better counter puncher.

Buchanan would be in there all the way, cards even, until the final two or three rounds where he'd pour it on for the win.

[red cobra]

I agree, Duodenum. Buchanan was insanely tough, probably on par with the Monzons, Canzoneris and Gavilans. These fights would almost certainly go the distance, and that's why I see Buchanan beating both. What could Chavez really do to him? Buchanan matched him in stamina and durability, and was equally tenacious. It would come down to Buchanan's superior boxing skills and his ability to fight equally with Chavez up close. Scrappy fight though, very scrappy, but entertaining.

Arguello would lose to Buchanan due to Buchanan's foot speed, evasiveness and use of angles. I just think he'd be landing more punches, if not as heavily, and edging Arguello at the finish.
I agree with all of this regarding toughness. If it were not for the low blow, Ken would have easily made for 15 against Duran. If ever a guy was underrated, it was Ken Buchanan. I believe he would have defeated both Chavez and Arguello. If Meldrick Taylor almost beat Chavez, Buchanan would have certainly won, being that he was a superior boxer and MUCH tougher than Taylor. Likewise with Arguello, who I have always been a big fan of, he would have had no answers for the ultra-tough Buchanan, who also had an edge to him. It took the fire and ferocity of the young Duran to defeat Ken, and great as they were, neither Chavez or Arguello had as much of those qualities as Duran.

[The Kurgan]

Well, obviously I'm going to pick Kennie, aren't I? :lol:

I think that Chavez, although a lesser boxer overall than Arguello, would trouble Buchanan more with his toughness and pressure. I think that Buchanan would figure out Arguello surprisingly quickly and win a big UD (10-5 or 9-5-1) while he would win a firm decision over Chavez (something like 9-6).

I have Buchanan right up there with Jimmy Wilde et al as one of the top British boxers of all time.

[The Kurgan]

Have you watched much Buchanan? He had a lot of grit. He wasn't just a boxer, he was a fighter, and would fire back hard in the face of adversity, and wasn't the featherfisted fairy some are making him out to be - he could whack. Duran beat Buchanan but it doesn't mean Chavez does - Duran, though young, was unpredictable, less measured and a better counter puncher.

Buchanan would be in there all the way, cards even, until the final two or three rounds where he'd pour it on for the win.

Definetly. Buchanan also fought well under pressure- his counters were compact and he could shorten his jab to great effect. Just being a pressure fighter doesn't solve Buchanan- you have to be a scientifically awesome pressure fighter, like Duran was.

[Boro chris]

Definetly. Buchanan also fought well under pressure- his counters were compact and he could shorten his jab to great effect. Just being a pressure fighter doesn't solve Buchanan- you have to be a scientifically awesome pressure fighter, like Duran was.

Having a criminaly incompetent ref helps as well!
Interesting to think how close Duran came to blowing a near certain victory when he made the decision to punch Kenny in the Happy sack!
How would boxing have been different if Duran was disqualified?

[Mantequilla]

Not much.

He would just have come back and won the title at a slightly later date.

[ron u.k.]

Buchanan is underated and it was nice to see him getting some kudos in the lightweight tourney,but it isnt a given he was even the best Lightweight Britain has produced,a few guys my age might argue that Dave Charnley would give him a good row,and was the Scot better than Freddie Welsh? Buchanan beat the guy you rate , Laguna twice,an old Ortiz, Suzuki,and Watt. Welsh beat Attell, Ritchie,Wolgast,White, Cross, Rivers,Wells,and Driscoll ,albeit on a foul.Duran beat how many great lightweights ? I say 2,one contra versially ,was it a punch or a knee? The other also beat him and dropped him twice,incidentally there is a theory that Laguna retired when he did to avoid the looming Duran.A meandering post but I have partaken of wine.good point about charnley, a lot of the older critics would suggest that buchanan would have a hell of a job on to beat him.he was a real tough guy and a southpaw at that.

[john garfield]

Buchanan was a very good fighter, one of my favorites of the 70's, he could box and punch, I seen him fighting the garden vs Panamanian Laguna, great boxing from Ken and I seen him vs ChuChu Malave KO in the Felt Forum, he was a top guy Lb4Lb in the 70's too bad he had the misfortune of having Duran come around,still he gave Duran a good fight until the rough guy snuck in a low one but Duran was roughing him. I think he hold his own with Alex A. and Chavez both fights would be close calls

I, too, was at the Felt Forum when Buchanan flattened Chu Chu Malave, BD. Chu Chu was, and is, a good friend, and it really saddened me.

[The Kurgan]

Having a criminaly incompetent ref helps as well!
Interesting to think how close Duran came to blowing a near certain victory when he made the decision to punch Kenny in the Happy sack!
How would boxing have been different if Duran was disqualified?

You can bet that Duran would be known as "Dirty" Duran.

[red cobra]

What retarded logic. Taylor had hands 4 times as fast as Buchanan, which is why he was able to vastly outland Chavez and win rounds. It was very hard to just box circles around him and box a win against him.
What do you know about logic? Taylor had very fast hands, but he was not, NOT, as good a defensive fighter or as tough as Buchanan. All the while he was unloading on Chavez, and I believe the last second stoppage was pure bullshit by the way, he was taking a terrible beating from JCC. He was ruined as a fighter by that beating. Had he (Taylor ever fought Duran, he would have been even more brutally manhandled. He would never had been able to survive to the 13th round like Buchanan did. Just because a fighter has fast hands doe not mean that he is a defensive whiz too. If he was a good defensive fighter, he would have concentrated on not taking that horrible beating from Chavez, even if it meant not landing quite as many punches as he did and not stationing himself like he did in front of JCC and taking as much as he did. He lacked the ring generalship to go with that great hand speed.

[TBooze]

Interesting. Why isn´t Joe Calzaghe in there?

I wrote it in 2005 and only included retired fighters.

[TBooze]

Ricky Hatton is in it :D

:patsch True... but I wrote it in 2005, Calzaghe was not top 10 then

[Thinman]

Could he have beaten Julio Cesar Chavez or Alexis Arguello?

Never mind Chavez or Arguello, Could he had beaten DeJesus?. It might sound easy, but if you think that Buchanan is underated, what do you think about DeJesus?

[Thinman]

As I suspected, Buchanan continues to be underrated.

Buchanan is underrated in this forum same as other fighters, but not much. I can say that Dejesus, Ramirez..Canto...Olivares..Napoles, are big time underrated in this forum, more than Buchanan.

The problem you have is that you think that if people don't agree with you, then the boxer you support is underrated, and that is not the case.

I still believe that Arguello could have defeated Williams. Why? because his defense was not that great... his left hand down is an invitation for someone like Arguello to hit that chin, and you know it.

I actually think that Arguello woud have more problems with Buchanan than Williams. Can we agree on this? :good

[Shake]

No, Meldrick Taylor wasn't tough at all. The man is known for fighting past his limit with broken bones and bleeding insides, but hey, if you say he wasn't as tough..

[red cobra]

Shake, thoses are the things that fighters all do, is endure and fight throughtheir physical pain. As Ezzard Charles said once "pain is a part of this business. Broken hands, injured eyes broken ribs, bruises, cuts, etc....Don't confuse that with how one man can take a punch better than another. Buchanan was much tougher than Taylor. Do you really think Taylor could have taken the same punishment from a 1972 Roberto Duran that Buchanan did? Like I said, if it weren't for that low blow in the 13th, Ken probably would have gone 15 rounds that night. Nobody did that until Edwin Viruet in 1977.

[Duodenum]

Never mind Chavez or Arguello, Could he had beaten DeJesus?. It might sound easy, but if you think that Buchanan is underated, what do you think about DeJesus?I think we all realize that DeJesus was the Rodrigo Valdez of the 1970's lightweights, both excluded from HOF status by Duran and Monzon. That one would probably go 15 rounds, and come down to whether or not it's fought on the outside or in close. My pick is Ken, but that would be no cinch.

[Duodenum]

Having a criminaly incompetent ref helps as well!
Interesting to think how close Duran came to blowing a near certain victory when he made the decision to punch Kenny in the Happy sack!
How would boxing have been different if Duran was disqualified?To me, the issue wasn't so much that he struck with a low blow, but with a punch which was delivered after the bell rang ending the round. Johnny LoBiance should have given Ken at least five minutes to recover. (It might have just as easily been Duran who was injured by the extraneous action.)

The proper outcome of that one should have been a 15 round decision in favor of Duran, not a stoppage on a blow struck between rounds.

[red cobra]

I think Ken was shafted royally by the ref. He would have finished the fight and lost a unanimous decision, but thats better than a tko loss. Buchanan should have never had an inside the distance loss on his record.

[Thinman]

I think Ken was shafted royally by the ref. He would have finished the fight and lost a unanimous decision, but thats better than a tko loss. Buchanan should have never had an inside the distance loss on his record.

Yes, he was big time shafted by the ref. That fight should have been a UD or any kind of decission in favour of Duran, but not a TKO. To be honest with you.. I did not like the way the fight ended up.

[Thinman]

I think we all realize that DeJesus was the Rodrigo Valdez of the 1970's lightweights, both excluded from HOF status by Duran and Monzon. That one would probably go 15 rounds, and come down to whether or not it's fought on the outside or in close. My pick is Ken, but that would be no cinch.

Very good analogy. :good

I see it going the distance, and I think both have a chance to win.

[Lex]

Based on stylistic differences I'll go with Buchanan over Chavez by UD; and SD over or draw with Arguello.

[Duodenum]

I think Ken was shafted royally by the ref. He would have finished the fight and lost a unanimous decision, but thats better than a tko loss. Buchanan should have never had an inside the distance loss on his record.Yes, and I do not consider any lightweight in history as being capable of legally taking him out inside 15 rounds (Duran included). I rate Ken as though he did indeed go 15 complete rounds with Duran. (Let's not forget either, that Buchanan nearly decked Roberto, shortly after LoBianco ruled a knockdown in favor of Duran which Don Dunphy believed to be a slip. I rate Buchanan as I would if he had indeed dropped Duran before DeJesus did. To this day, Duran considers Buchanan as the best opponent he ever defeated, and I agree.)

[Pat_Lowe]

Yes, and I do not consider any lightweight in history as being capable of legally taking him out inside 15 rounds (Duran included). I rate Ken as though he did indeed go 15 complete rounds with Duran. (Let's not forget either, that Buchanan nearly decked Roberto, shortly after LoBianco ruled a knockdown in favor of Duran which Don Dunphy believed to be a slip. I rate Buchanan as I would if he had indeed dropped Duran before DeJesus did. To this day, Duran considers Buchanan as the best opponent he ever defeated, and I agree.)

I've heard Duran says Leonard is the best opponent he defeated which to me is clearly true. I have a clip of him saying that Leonard was his toughest opponent to face.

[john garfield]

I think Ken was shafted royally by the ref. He would have finished the fight and lost a unanimous decision, but thats better than a tko loss. Buchanan should have never had an inside the distance loss on his record.

With the benefit of decades, some may think that Kenny could have continued that fight (even Ken and his corner) -- not with five minutes or five hours. That was no glancing blow.

I was ringside that night, with the perfect vantage point. With the piledriver Duran landed to Ken's nuts, he's lucky he's not a soprano.

[Duodenum]

I've heard Duran says Leonard is the best opponent he defeated which to me is clearly true. I have a clip of him saying that Leonard was his toughest opponent to face.Okay then, so he's contradicted himself. I was watching him in a post fight interview after he made short work of a preliminary bum late in his career, where there was some air time to kill, and Duran was in a chatty mood. He was being asked and answering questions about his entire career, and it was then that he described Buchanan as the best boxer he ever faced. I guess we'll never know for sure what he's thinking without administering him a dose of thiopental sodioum, and hooking him up to a polygraph. (I actually do consider SRL as the best he defeated, but I wasn't in the ring with either.)

[Duodenum]

With the benefit of decades, some may think that Kenny could have continued that fight (even Ken and his corner) -- not with five minutes or five hours. That was no glancing blow.

I was ringside that night, with the perfect vantage point. With the piledriver Duran landed to Ken's nuts, he's lucky he's not a soprano.Well sir, that would seem to be the definitive assertion about that. In your view, what would the proper course of action have been for LoBianco to take? Duran was clearly superior up that point in the evening, and the referee failed to get between them to stop the extracurricular action in a timely fashion. Was a DQ in favor of Ken warranted in your opinion, or did Ken bring it on himself by continuing on with Duran did after the bell?

[Thinman]

Okay then, so he's contradicted himself. I was watching him in a post fight interview after he made short work of a preliminary bum late in his career, where there was some air time to kill, and Duran was in a chatty mood. He was being asked and answering questions about his entire career, and it was then that he described Buchanan as the best boxer he ever faced. I guess we'll never know for sure what he's thinking without administering him a dose of thiopental sodioum, and hooking him up to a polygraph. (I actually do consider SRL as the best he defeated, but I wasn't in the ring with either.)

At the time that Duran defeated Buchanan in 1972.. he was 21/22 y/o and probably for him was the hardest fight because he was a novice. When he fought SRL he was 29/30 y/o and had more experience, and probably for him was not as though as the fight he had against Buchanan eight years before.

We all know that Duran was a better boxer at the time he faced SRL. I think he was a monster when he faced SRL the first time.

The question is.... what do you think Duran would have said about Buchanan if he had face him in 1980 for the very first time instead of fighting SRL? I am talking about the same Buchanan he faced in 1972.

[Duodenum]

At the time that Duran defeated Buchanan in 1972.. he was 21/22 y/o and probably for him was the hardest fight because he was a novice. When he fought SRL he was 29/30 y/o and had more experience, and probably for him was not as though as the fight he had against Buchanan eight years before.

We all know that Duran was a better boxer at the time he faced SRL. I think he was a monster when he faced SRL the first time.

The question is.... what do you think Duran would have said about Buchanan if he had face him in 1980 for the very first time instead of fighting SRL? I am talking about the same Buchanan he faced in 1972.It's a perfectly relevant point. Would Ken have still been tough enough to go 15 rounds with a more evolved Duran? Yes, I think Ken was that tough. But he was not the better competitor when they actually did meet, and his best was never good enough to prevail against Duran's best. (Ditto SRL.)

I consider Ken Buchanan to be the greatest British boxer of the postwar period, but Duran as the second greatest of all time. Bottom line is that all three are enshrined in Canastota where they belong.

[Thinman]

It's a perfectly relevant point. Would Ken have still been tough enough to go 15 rounds with a more evolved Duran? Yes, I think Ken was that tough. But he was not the better competitor when they actually did meet, and his best was never good enough to prevail against Duran's best. (Ditto SRL.)

I consider Ken Buchanan to be the greatest British boxer of the postwar period, but Duran as the second greatest of all time. Bottom line is that all three are enshrined in Canastota where they belong.

Yes they are, and they belong in the HOF. We were lucky to see these kind of boxers when they were active.....they don't come like that anymore.:-(

[Duodenum]

Yes they are, and they belong in the HOF. We were lucky to see these kind of boxers when they were active.....they don't come like that anymore.:-(Alas not. And so we come here to reminisce about the glory days.

[boxbible]

Buchanan had a great set of legs that took him in and out of the danger zone like he was on roller skates. Plus the lateral movement and excellent jab gave many boxers absolute fits.

But some of his mechanics were horrendous. He stuck his head up in the air all the time where his granite chin definitely saved him on more than one occasion. He slipped punches by leaning way over to the side thereby putting himself out of countering opportunities many a time. And his defense was reliant on his reflexes and foot movement rather than on classic slipping and blocking.

Now Chavez and Arguello were textbook in their mechanics. They punched, slipped and blocked in a most efficient manner. Buchanan certainly had the physical attributes to meet them halfway, but Chavez and Arguello were more efficient technically.

Arguello might have had more trouble with Buchanan's lateral movement as evidenced in his fight against Vilomar Fernandez, but let's not forget that Fernandez was a brilliant technician and terribly under-rated. I think Buchanan would have made enough mistakes for Arguello to capitalize on. And, as in his fight with Duran, Buchanan wouldn't have had enough real skill or firepower to hold off Chavez indefinitely. Chavez on points also.

[Mantequilla]

Fernandez was just a so-so runner imo.

He ran like a thief against Arguello and Duran and really just fought to survive.

Arguello's one-paced plodding and crap defence lost him that fight, not any classic boxing from Fernandez.

I don't see Buchanan as being the best post-war British fighter though.Lewis would take that on accomplishments and Conteh for head-to-head.

[boxbible]

Fernandez was just a so-so runner imo.

He ran like a thief against Arguello and Duran and really just fought to survive.

Arguello's one-paced plodding and crap defence lost him that fight, not any classic boxing from Fernandez.

You need to watch Vilomar Fernandez more closely... Vilomar did not "run" vs either Arguello or Duran. He used very nimble lateral movement, changing direction right in front of them to create opportunities which he took advantage of with great combos.

Vilomar was actually leading on points against Duran before getting seriously low-blowed midway throught the fight. Then Duran started catching up to him.

He was definitely not just trying to survive... else, how could he have beaten Arguello?

[Mantequilla]

I've watched him plenty.

He was a hack.

And he did fight to survive against Arguello.When i say that i don't mean he did a MOrrade Hakkar for the entire fight, just taht he was extremely defensive and took almost no risks.

A survivor first and a competitor second.That he actually won the fight spoke more to Arguello's incompetence on that night than anything i saw from Fernandez.

[Duodenum]

You need to watch Vilomar Fernandez more closely... Vilomar did not "run" vs either Arguello or Duran. He used very nimble lateral movement, changing direction right in front of them to create opportunities which he took advantage of with great combos.

Vilomar was actually leading on points against Duran before getting seriously low-blowed midway throught the fight. Then Duran started catching up to him.

He was definitely not just trying to survive... else, how could he have beaten Arguello?Well, he certainly didn't run against Kenty or Davis Jr. He circled right as fluidly as I can remember seeing any orthodox boxer do it. Duran may have had hands of stone, but Vilomar had springs for legs.

Lot's of Arguello's opponents tried to win by running on him, but only Fernandez succeeded. Still, that was only over 10 rounds. Buchanan had the toughness not to need to run against Arguello. One thing we know about Buchanan; that rugged Scot was never taken out twice by a single legal blow.