Ken Buchanan V Alexis Arguello

Scotland`s best ever boxer vs Nicaragua`s best ever boxer, nothing to shout about I know (& Im scottish) but 2 great boxers.

I pick Arguello in a very close decision, there would likely be nothing between them as far as rds go but I think the judges will lean towards the harder, cleaner blows delivered by Alexis.

 

I actually like Arguello narrowly here.

 

Duran had problems trying to hit Ken with his right hand .... due to his reach he had to (almost) jump some times.... this won't happen to Alexis...... Arguello would find the distance and he will hit Ken hard.

Every single boxer that Arguello fought tasted his right hand..... Ken won't be the exception. Arguello's accurate punches will dictate the pace after 8 or 9 rounds.

At the end I see Arguello winning by UD.... Ken had a good chin, but a late stopage isn't out of the question.

 

What a tough match-up. As much as I like Arguello, I remember a quick Vilomar Fernandez didn't allow arguello to get set with his punches by moving. Buchanan has the ability to move very well laterally.

 

Buchanan is a more fluid natural boxer than Arguello. He's certainly got better movement laterally and he edges it the jab department as well. Arguello has the nod in the power category as well as body punching. I like Arguello's overall technical skills over Buchanan's.

Both fighters were very controlled.

 

Sooooo your pick was......

 

Arguello via decision. IMO he might get outboxed in there at times, but he was a very good boxer himself. This style certainly suits him better than Pryor's. Buchanan would be caught with the right hand at long range on ocassions. I can see Arguello being the one forced to become the aggressor, which he would do while boxing himself. I can't see Arguello abandoming his boxing skills at long range.

 

Buchanan is a bit overrated really.

The middleweights and light heavies had the better British fighters at the time in Minter, Conteh and the Finnegan brothers.Winstone and Walter McGowan too.

Buchanan wasn't really even the best lightweight when he fought Duran, Gato Gonzalez was.

 

I don't see this being quite as close as others do. Arguello just seems to be more complete to me and a great puncher to boot. Obviously Ken's movement and jab would bother Alexis and it would be a tight fight but I'd be comfortable in taking Arguello. But I always liked the
Thin Man so maybe I'm not giving Buchannan a fair shake. But I'd still take Arguello by decision something like 10-5 or 9-6.

 

I know none of them were ever at the same exact place in their career as each other, but they were all more or less of the same era.

Buchanan's career ran from the mid-sixties through to the mid-seventies.it's not their fault his peak was embarassingly short.

 

He's not underestimated at all on this forum.

His name pops up all the time.

I actually think both these guys are a little overrated on this forum.IMO, Arguello is not nearly as a complete a fighter as is often said.He's more Trinidad than Jofre.

Buchanan wasn't half the fighter Conteh was and on the evidence of his fight with watt would have been lucky to beat any of the others had they been in the same weightclass.he also laboured badly against a shot Carlos Ortiz and fighters like Frankie Otero.

 

Come on now.

 

I know it's harsh comparing him to Tito, but i just can't bring myself to consider Arguello a complete boxer-puncher.