Ken Buchanan vs. Juan Manuel Marquez at LW

1. Buchanan was tough with great stamina, casa is tough as nails he just doesnt work as hard. Casa is actually trickier and faster than Buchanan, but Ken works at a faster pace and that makes him better. No way Ken has an easy time with Castillo, Castillo is a poor mans Duran but bigger strong and would attempt to bully ken in much the same way pre-prime Duran did. He wouldnt be as successful and I'd favour the better boxer in Ken to win out, easy, no chance

2. Past prime? Yes, still slick, tricky, fast and a great puncher, yes. And thats why hes not easy to face. People were raving over Katsidis coming into that 1

3. I'd believe that

4. Fair enough but I think its an indication that Buchs isnt this dominant unbeatable (by anyone except for Duran) force that can beat any modern fighter while blindfolded, hopping on 1 leg and drinking malt trebbles between rounds

5. And that is where we'll have to agree to disgree I feel

 

1.Yea Campbell gave him a solid beating

2. I thought Diaz was a pretty hot prospect, that workrate, stamina, intensity and boxing skills were very impressive. He was on a hot run for a while too. He was always a bit fleshy and didnt have great power otherwise he wasnt far from top class

Did anyone else think HBO commentary was way off the mark yet again, for this fight

3. Yes he probably does but if he gets wacked with that howitzer of an uppercut that took Diazs head off he'll be seeing stars

 

1. Based on what, when did either man look to put in a good performance prior to Ken beating them? You're clutching at straws

2. No not 1 and 2 top5 though, which rarely results in easy fights

3. Its moving into a new division and taking on the top2 dogs after beating the top dogs 5lbs south

4. Quite a good point given your remark was 'I don't see what the fuss over featherweight Marquez is'

 

Marquez was a big FW though, in his none title fights he'd fight at 130lbs for his none title fights and we know he sometimes came into the ring as much as 142lbs on fight night at the higher weights. His physical conditioning was also very good. In todays weight draining divisions he isnt a big LW, in yesteryears same day weigh in division though he'd carry the weight fine

 

Casamayor looked crap before the Marquez fight too, so what's your point?

Even with a comb over, Ortiz was still giving Buchanan some trouble, and against a lesser fighter like the Casamayor that Marquez foguht, I can see Ortiz troubling him a lot.

Let's take 1972 for an example and Ring's rankings:

Roberto Duran, Champion

1. Esteban De Jesus
2. Rodolfo Gonzalez
3. Ken Buchanan
4. Chango Carmona
5. Ray Lampkin
6. Antonio Puddu
7. Pedro Carrasco
8. Jimmy Heair
9. Ruben Navarro
10. Mando Ramos

The Casamayor and Diaz that Marquez fought aren't good enough to make that list for me. Perhaps they could squeeze in instead of Jimmy Heair.

Yep, all form, but what about the substance?

Ok, fair point in reference to that comment, but still, I do think Marquez is overrated at featherweight, that's what I meant. It won't help me to say that I think Pac, Morales and Barrera are overrated at featherweight too. It's not that I'm simply making a spot judgement on Marquez as opposed to his competitors. Of course you're going to totally disagree on them being overrated and so that's not going to make my point of thinking Marquez is overrated any more digestible.

 

Marquez isn't near his best at lightweight and can't do there what he could do in lower weight classes. Buchanan would roll.

 

I've only seen his fight with Cruz, so I'm not the best one to judge this, but I think they'd beat him. Morales would probably have the more trouble with him, but will find a way to win a close-cut decision regardless.

How do you think they fair?

 

1. Old timers werent as heavy on the diuretics, sauna sessions, sweat suits, water restriction. There wasnt as much stuff around and they couldnt afford to be dead at the weigh in. Regardless a big FW can step u to LW, ie Lagunna

2. I'm not picking Marquez anyway but I am picking him to score impressive counters and win about 1/3 of the rounds or more

 

Well ****, even I'd give him about 4 rounds. What are we arguing about here?