This is a pertinent thread with the noises surrounding Josh Taylor. Comparisons to Buchanan are being made less and less quietly. His next two fights will determine whether this is prudent or not I guess. To answer the question, i think that the lightweight division is the deepest division, though this is arguable. I have Buchanan alongside DeJesus, McFadden, Laguna, guys like that; this is outside the top twenty. But this division isn't heavyweight. Just outside the top twenty is might close to being a great fighter for my money...in the end, gun to my face, guy going "IS HE GREAT?? IS HE GREAT, YOU LISTMAKING *****?" i'd have to say "no he's not, please don't shoot." But I wouldn't get upset if anyone disagreed with me.
very good boxer, tough fighter- he lost to a prime Duran but was hit low- the fight was very competitive - I think Ken was an excellent fighter- In fact Nat Fleicher of ring magazine told me that Ken was a very good fighter- that was saying a lot coming from Nat when it came to modern active fighters, which Ken was when the question was asked
He is perhaps as near to being a great as is possible without achieving greatness? His fight with Paduano was a boxing clinic.
I have always had him in the ATG list. He was that good. ( albeit lower than some others) But, yeah, he was superb.
He was probably a nearly great. He gave great performances and he was unlucky in the way he lost the title (on an intentional foul) and then wasn't given a rematch by Duran. Had he beaten Ishimatsu Suzuki in 1975 he might well have got the rematch he deserved with Duran. A fight with DeJesus would also have been interesting. He was at his peak in the early 70s though so not convinced he'd have beaten either fighter at that point.
