Ismael Laguna or Ken Buchanan, who do you rate higher?

It would be like Buchanan vs Paduano all over again with Ken doing ven more damage

 

Aye, that it would; the current lightweight crop ain't all that special. Worse than Laguna busting up Ramos too. Btw, I always liked Hugh McIlvanney's assessment of Buchanan - Paduano, where he compared the look on Paduano's face following his constant eating of Ken's jab to the look of a man who had just smoked an exploding cigar.

 

Laguna vs Ramos is mental aint it, the best crowd ive ever seennear blew the speakers on my TV.

also yeh that McIlvany quote is class. I recently watched the paduano fight and was veyr impressed but Ken didnt look 100%

 

I'm sure BUchanan has mentioned he had picked up a bad cold but went ahead with The Paduano fight anyway.It bothered his stamina and breathing apparently, he does uncharacteristically fade a bit in it.

 

yes in his book he states hehad a cold

he does fade in the last round abit but just defensivly he looks like his timing is off slightly

 

i was impressed with buchanan in this fight.i've never seen afighter get as much snap behind a left jab.he was magnificent:bbb

 

As for Buchanan/Laguna...I have to go with Buchanan who had more substance, IMO. Both had brief title reigns and both had reasonably similar styles, but Ken had more of an edge....a hardness to his offense and last but not least, he BEAT Laguna twice, and I think he would have done so at any stage of their careers. I believe that the margin of victory in that 1st fight would have been even greater if the fight were held in a more temperate climate zone, but Ken found a way to persevere over that even in P.R.