Buchanan vs Whitaker

:rofl:rofl

 

I remember looking up Buchanan's dimensions a while ago and being surprised. He looks much taller and rangier on film, whereas, in reality, he's not particularly big compared to a lot of modern Lightweights.

 

I know, Buchanan aint that tall. there was a picture of him next to SFW Alex Arthur and it looked like a Lightweight next to a Welterweight, thats how much bigger Arthur was.

 

Well, Arthur is a tall guy and he always had trouble boiling down to the limit. Maybe Ken's shrunk a bit "in old age" (i.e. with all the beer).

I'm starting to doubt boxrec a little here. Laguna is listed as 5'9", Buchanan as just over 5'7". But Laguna doesn't look bigger on film; if anything Buchanan seems to have the edge.

 

Buchanan looked somewhat taller than Roberto Duran, who's also listed as 5'-7".

 

two of my 10 alltime favs

 

They look about even in height, in fact 5'9 would sound right, thats a fairly tall Lightweight and in a same day weigh in scenario that is pretty tall.

Arthur has been boiling down but still he dwarfed Ken.

 

Boexrec's height and reach listings seem to be consistently wrong imo.

 

Whens McGrain getting back on this thread?

 

It is true that Whitaker just about is better in every department in terms of operating effectively, but this remains the fight between two boxer types that i would like to see more than any other.