Don't know much about him other than that he fought and lost controversially against Duran How does he compare to today's top British fighters like Calzaghe and Hatton?
I think he had the best left hand in the history of British boxing. Serious. A great fighter. Went to Puerto Rico and battered Laguna for the title in some ridiculous heat (we Scots don't travel that well), he pretty much conquered the US in a way no British fighter had since Fitz. They loved the guy in New York, supposedly! He was probably bigger there than at home, scandalously. Beat Laguna again, and Duran rated him as his toughest opponent ever. Think about that. Probably not quite the fighter a peak Benny Lynch was, but only him, Fitzimmons, Lewis and Kid Lewis rate clearly ahead of him in terms of British fighters, he heads up the second clutch with guys like Calzaghe.
he was a very very good fighter,not ATG but definatly worth his HoF placing. he continued his career a bit too long but truly had a great left to follow his lead headbutt. he was a dirty ******* but a great fighter.
Had to fight on, debts. I've even heard it said that he took a couple of unlicenced bouts to settle some ****. Hotel business failed.
thats sad to here man,such a great fighter who headlined shows all over the world to be having to do that to make ends meet.i know from stories that when he lost to my hometown fighter charlie nash that he was well past it.
Ken Buchanan was one of my favorite alltime boxers, with a capital "B" for boxer. He was somewhat of an underachiever post-Duran, which was mitigated somewhat by Duran's obstinate refusal to grant him a rematch, but career-wise, he was peerless as a boxer, with a hard edge about him, which was proven by his victories over Ismael Laguna, one in Laguna's part of the world to win the crown, and in the rematch in NYC, when he overcame an injured eye to outgut and outbox the fast, elusive boxing master from Panama again. Buchanan's nontile victory over the then unbeaten Donato Paduano was a boxing masterpiece. His loss to Duran showed his toughness under fire, for though he was soundly beaten by the Panamanian terror, he contested Duran far better than any of the other Duran challenger's (yes, I'm aware of DeJesu's nontiltle victory, but in title rematches, he did not gut it out like Buchanan). A great boxing master, in my humble opinion.
Excellent fighter, not just a very good outboxer with nimble footwork and a sharp jab, but an extremely tough and versatile fighter willing and able to duke it out in the trenches.
it's actually pretty sad how disregarded ken is in british boxing. there was a thread on who is the top 10 british boxer. and people were still arguing if bruno or mckenizie whould be there....only at the end of the thread did somone say buchannan and the usual response was "Who?" he had to travel to puerto rico and the u.s becuase the british boxing board of control didnt recognise the wba. which ken was ranked in. i heard that after he won the wba belt when he came back only his family met him at the airport. no journalists, no reporters, no boxing fans or an interested scots. how sad is it when a great master boxer hands one of the best performances of a brit fighter outside the uk and doesnt get any response form the public form it. he's one of my favourite fighters on film a mix of slick boxer and tough mental tactics. very similar to another of my favs joel casamayor due to the same thing. i also dislike how most boxing historians say how he was taken apart by duran when in actual fact he was drawing with one of the greatest lightwieghts of all time.one of the most textbook fighter as well. to the guy who said he isnt an atg i pity tha foo' becuase he certainly was one of the best british and a top 15 lightwieghts of all time.
..............I like watching Buchanan fights. You always feel the time was well-spent. He was both fun and instructive to watch. He boxed like a dream, as McGrain said a terrific jab, superb speed and fluidity, very learned and nimble footwork, and could slip and block shots quite well. This is not to say he was a "mere" boxer that would run from you; far fom it. If you pressed him, he'd back you the hell off him. He'd stand and trade as it suited him too, which meant action fights. In other words, he was primarily a boxer, but he could make you respect his fighting ability too. Tough, rugged, technically very sounf and speedy fighter. Very, very worthy of his HOF induction.
exactly. doesnt the word "boxer" seem a bit jaded when you get guys like raheem gettign called master boxers. i always felt that a text book boxer should be in the ring for a fight but fight with a technical brain. sadly it has become a hit and run affair. anyways great boxer to watch has everything you could want and i think thats exactly how you feel after you watched one of his fights "time well spent"
In the build up to Hatton Mayweather on Sky Box Office they showed a list of the ten best British fighters ever, (not sure whom they were compiled by though - maybe Sky Sports boxing panel or summat) and I seem to recall Buchanan was in the top 3 - I can remember Lennox Lewis was No.1, Hatton No.8 and Calzaghe No.9. All part of a discussion to see where Hatton would rank if he would beat Mayweather etc. In short, Buchanan was a bloody good fighter - shame he lost his last four fights though.
