Best lightweight you pick Buchanan to beat?

I have always been a fan of Ken Buchanan. He deserves a lot more recognition in Britain than he gets.

 

Thought Ismael edged Buchanan in the first fight natonic.

A few people here have mentioned how Buchanan could/would beat Chavez. I don't see that at all. Whatsoever. I mean, what exactly is he going to do? Keep Chavez off him? Not going to happen. Not for long anyway. And the thing is, I don't think Ken is all that better a boxer than Chavez in any case.

 

Perhaps like Meldrick Taylor did, Buchanon can use his excellent handspeed and sharp shooter accuracy to land straight shots on Chavez, sticking and moving and outboxing him, and perhaps cut his eyes.

 

The best lightweight version of Duran was the one who fought De Jesus the third time. Not the one who fought Buchanan or De Jesus in the rematch, although thats more of how we come to think of Duran stylewise. He was just far smarter with his attacks, far better defensively, and well rounded when he rubber matched De Jesus. Technically he was certainly at his peak during his very late days as a lightweight.

 

I don't even think Buchanan's hands are quicker than Chavez's, to say nothing of being comparable to Meldrick Taylor's. I mean, how many times was he getting beaten to the punch by Jim Watt?

Ken also, obviously, doesn't throw as many punches as Meldrick does.

Ken does have better movement than Meldrick though, and he will need it if he is to be any chance whatsoever in the fight.

I like Chavez to track him down and force him to fight his fight, more or less. Best case scenario I see Ken losing a 7-5, 9-6 type fight. Ken's jab is a good weapon that he will rely on, but with Chavez's tight guard I can't see it being much of an issue. Ken will need to find other avenues to score punches and I don't think he has enough variety in his shots to outpoint a Chavez that will be on top of him and forcing him to conduct matters on Chavez's terms.

I don't think any boxer short of a Pernell Whitaker level boxer is going to get the job done against a lightweight Chavez. Ken is just a tad off that level.

 

Buchanan was very poor against Watt, bsaically seemed to abandon his defence and footwork.If watt had the ability of even a Cowdell he would have whipped him that night.

 

That really annoys me. He's definitely one of the greatest British fighters in my book.

 

I agree that Armstrong would beat him he would put even more pressure then Duran did and a higher workrate it would be too much for Ken. He wouldn't be able to keep Henry off him.

 

That both fighters, Duran (the version of Duran that faced Buchanan that is) and Armstrong were primarily overwhelming swarmers. Duran hadn't yet matured into the boxer-puncher/feinting/defensive master he'd become, and therefore comparing the two as if that is the Duran being considered isn't fair. The Duran that faced Buchanan wasn't much more versatile than Armstrong, and arguably not even yet as effective at that particular style (I actually think he already was though).

 

Some of you are clearly bypassing the fact that Ken's fight with Jim Watt was more than just a boxing match, it was a massive moment in each others lifes, this is Glasgow versus Edinburgh, two superb Scottish boxers coming face to face, I think in circumstances like this there are so many intangibles that sometimes judging Buchanan on that fight is unreasonable and harsh. Watt would have loved dearly to have won that fight, and take it back to the punters on the west. The fight showed this. Of course Ken wasn't at his best that day. It was ****ing Glasgow versus Edinburgh for feck sake.

 

I think Buchanan beat exactly the level of lightweight that he could beat - Jim Watt, slightly faded Laguna, badly faded Ortiz. I would make most fighters in the top 10-15 LWs the favorite over him, including a peak Ortiz, and maybe a peak Laguna as well.