Antonio Cervantes vs. Ken Buchanan

What you just said!!:deal

 

crazy talk. dejesus was definately the better, and more proven fighter than Buchanan. He clearly beat fighters that Buchanan lost to and of the name fighters Buchanan beat he either struggled with them or beat them when the well before (Watt, who wasnt that great IMO) or well past their prime (Laguna, Ortiz Hernandez). So much weight on here is given to the Paduano fight which is ridiculous. Paduano was never anything more than a regional talent, definately not world class. Ive never understood all of the Buchanan love except from people who truly believe he was somehow going to beat Duran before he decided to dog it and milk that blow for all it was worth.

 

You've shown your own Bias with that last comment Klompton.that's just presumptious nonsense, like something i might post on one of my less inspired days.

As for the fight itself i'd favour Cervantes in a 3 or 4 pointer, but tend to agree with those saying Buchanan is much better suited to moving up than Dejesus(though a fight between the two would be very close imo).esteban's main weaknesses were on the stamina and physical presence front, he was a small man that depended on technique and power, relying little on pure physical gifts.Buchanan on the other hand was big, with terrific stamina and durability, though his own lack of power would have been a drawback.

 

Crazy talk? I could well say the same for you. You're missing my point. If you think that Kenny wasn't fit to polish Dejesus' knackersack, well, that's up to you. What I said was that Buchanan was stronger, tougher and fitter with a better jab and a slightly more unusual style, all of which is true. Dejesus may have been a tad faster and better offensively than Buchanan, but it was, as lora says, his lack of size, strength and stamina that hindered him against Cervantes. Most seem to be in agreement that Kenny and Esteban were round about the same level, but it has zero bearing as to how Buchanan would do against Cervantes seeing how he was, for better or worse, a different kettle of fish to Dejesus. But I get the tiniest impression that what I say isn't going to make much odds, so we'll leave it at that.

 

Where do you get that he was stronger, tougher, fitter, and had a better jab? His having a more unusual style is just a nice way of saying he wasnt as polished as Dejesus. Im not sure where you are getting any of this. Dejesus fought against a higher caliber of opponent than Buchanan and had more success against them. He was three inches shorter than Buchanan but they fought at almost identical weights throughout their careers meaning Dejesus was more stout than the beanpole from Scotland. If believing that Cervantes was a full rung ahead of Dejesus on the pugilistic ladder and Dejesus was a full rung ahead of Buchanan makes me biased then so be it but the thread asks people how a match between the Scot and the Columbian would play out and I gave my opinion.

 

I'm not sure Cervantes was the better fighter, but his size would win him the day, I feel. DeJesus's size disadvantage had more to do with his performance against Cervantes than a lack of skills by comparison. Although I'm not neccessarily saying he'd have won even had they been the same size.

A good point was made by lora when comparing the fight to Monzon/Napoles in terms of the size/style difference.

 

Well, i ain't got any issues with anyone thinking Cervantes would smash him, but the comment about milking the low blow and dogging it does go a bit far.I've done some good Buchanan trolling as wellover the years, mind you.

Who knows for sure how hurt he was at the end of that fight? i'd say if it was faked it would be for other reasons than dogging it anyway, more likely a cynical attempt to get Duran DQ'ed with an eye to doing better in a rematch perhaps.The scot had plenty of chances to punk out beforehand if he had wanted to.

 

I feel like Buchanan gets way more credit than he deserves just based on being a Duran victim. How in the world was he a better techncian than DeJesus?

Kenny was simply NOT in Cervantes class!

Buchanan wouldnt beat Tszyu, let alone Cervantes.

 

Cervantes wouldn't have done any better against Duran, in my opinion. Maybe not even as good. Ken at least had the flexibility/limberness to his movements to avoid maximum punishment, whereas Cervantes was just too straight up and down by comparison.

 

I dont know. I think its a hell of a fight. Carlos Eleta wanted no part of Cervantes for Duran for whatever reason. Cervantes was fast, durable, big, and could punch. To me its one of the elite matchups of that era that never happened, that and Benitez-Duran at 140 which also the fault of Eleta.

 

Duran was in front and was allways going to win,but this statement is bollocks,[ pun intended].Buchanan had surgery for damage to his testicles after this fight.

 

He was trying to artificially repair what he never had... balls.

 

Cervantes was not faster then Buchanan and that right there tells me you don't know what your talking about.You ever see Buchanan vs Lauguna 1?And Lauguna wasn't past it on that day and Ken matched him and if you know anything about Lauguna then you know how fast he was.

Durna avoided Cervantes to fight RAY LEONARD for ALOT more money its as simple as that.

And if Duran hadn't fouled Buchanan Buchanan makes it to the decision.

Lauguna fought Buchanan the 2nd time and couldn't outbox Buchanan so he tried to turn the bout into a rough fight and STILL lost.

I actually like Cervantes over Buchanan at jr.welter but don't think it would have been easy for Cervantes-he would have had a hell of a time with Buchanans jab and movement.As far as knocking out Buchanan who ever knocked out Buchanan?

 

Your credibility just dissapeared.