Could Ken Buchanan have beaten Roberto Duran?

Anyone thinking Buchanan could win a rematch, obviously never saw the first fight.

 

Duran was winning the fight, he was better than Ken on the night, I don't see it being any different tbh, as fine a boxer as the great Scot was.

 

Have you seen the fight?You are aware that Duran was way up,aren't you?And you are aware that Ken threw 2 punches clearly after the bell landed prompting Duran to foul,aren't you?

 

No , and you make a decisive foul look more legit by telling me this , but if so , and if the claim of Duran's improving and Buchanan slipping after the fight is true , why did Duran avoid a rematch ?

 

he didn't need a rematch. he decisively beat buchanan the first time. a second win would mean nothing, but ken's movement (at his best) could make duran look bad so it was lose-lose

 

I'm not trying to make a decisive foul look more legit.I am correctly stating that Buchanan committed a "decisive foul" prompting Duran's response.It's that simple.Nobody ever brings up Ken's 2 punches clearly after the bell but we all know about Duran's low blow.Double standard anyone?I have no idea what happened when it came to Duran "avoiding a rematch".And quite frankly,neither do you.

 

If both men bring their A game then Duran wins.