Ismael Laguna or Ken Buchanan, who do you rate higher?

Both are more or less equal for me.

 

i think Buchanans win in the first fight seperates them. The fight is as close as they are in rankings and i had it by 1 point.

Lagunas win over Ortiz is huge IMO but it wasnt exactly vintage Ortiz he looked stale and slow but a great win nonetheless.

 

How woud of buchanan done against a prime jose luis castilo? and i cant split ken and laguna, i have saw alot of ken, but not enough of laguna to comment

 

i think Kens abit too clever for Castillo and Castillo is a tough fight stylistically i just think Ken is the class above but Castillos strength and pressure make it very tough for Ken

 

I think the castilo who turned up for steveie johnson and first mayweather fight is too strong for ken and beats him points in a close fight , but you never know ken was a true ring genral, who had a great boxing brain. there is a documentry on youtube about ken great watch, have you seen it?

 

nope aint seen it will check it out some time

Castillo was strong and had good pressure but he didnt really force it on you in the way Duran did.

is it Ruben Navvap (the guy Ken won the WBC title from i think it was meant to be Sugar Ramos but he got an STD and this guy stept in) well he was a strong customer and Kendealt with him fairly easy although Ruben had a short preperation.

 

C'mon guys, this is a thread comparing boxing masters, not discussing the merits of bland workmanlike pressure fighters.

 

Indeed, and for my money I rate Laguna higher, but not by much at all.

 

They're difficult to separate when all is said and done. At the height of his powers however, I think Buchanan was slightly better, although you could argue that Laguna had the slightly better career in an overall sense with a better top win (Ortiz). Kenny also fell from the top quite quickly whereas Laguna was at the top for longer. They also had different strengths and weaknesses, Ismael being quicker and more athletic with Buchanan being stronger and more fluid.

Still, I like Buchanan. Both are legends though.

 

Laguna caught an unfocused Ortiz ,who never was the most dedicated of trainers,he was a party animal.prime Ortiz beats Laguna 7 days a week imo ,so thats his biggest win qualified imo.Kenny was superior imo,there was more substance to him as far as I could see.

 

i disagree

Ortiz was in alright shape but he admitted he didnt like Panama and felt rotten the week of the fight and felt ****ed basically for various reasons that swhat led to his unfocusedness.

Also i have never seen reason to say Laguna was style over substance he showed he had substance afew times

 

The Castillo who turned up for Stevie Johnston probably deserved to lose both of their fights.

Ken had more than enough strength and resilience to deal with Castillo. He was going strong with Duran for 12+ rounds, there's nothing Castillo could show him he didn't handle in turbo boost fashion against Duran.

Ken was resilient enough to go with welterweights like Paduano as well, so I don't really see Castillo imposing himself on Ken. What I do see is Ken's jab spearing Castillo all night long though.

As to the thread topic, I've always had Laguna slightly ahead (especially since I had Ismael taking their first fight), but as others have said here, there's not much separating them, if anything when you really get down to it.

 

I like Kenny a bit better but Ive always had Laguna that little bit higher...**** they were good, such a good era.

Could you picture Valero or Katsidas against these guys?

 

Ooooh, you cruel *******.