Ken Buchanan vs. Juan Manuel Marquez at LW

Buchanan, though best at 135, would still have the stuff to handily outpoint JMM, who may be good, but is painfully overrated. A prime..PRIME I said MAB would have been too much for Marquez. Anyway the answer to the thread question is Buchanan W15 Marquez.

 

Also added to the hopper is the fact that Buchanan is waaaaayyyy better than Chris John. No comparison..

 

1. The point is Casa wasnt crappy in his prior fight he scored a brutal KO against a top contender. In this fight he was tricky, slick and quick and not an easy fight to look good in for most in history. I dont see why scoring a late Ko against the linear champ whos a tricky vet after a close fight is proof of a poor performance

2. Ortiz looked terrible and it wasnt just the hair

3. The division outside of Ken, Duran, Dejesus isnt exactly strong and I wouldnt be suprised if Old Casa/Diaz beat the lot, obviously you'll disagree

4. Substance looked impressive enough to me

5. I'd agree not 1 of the lot are the best FWs ever but they are all right up theresay theres never been a greater FW era with the possible exception of the late 70s. I certainly rate all of them over brawlers like Azumah and Saddler who couldnt throw straight punch to save their lives and that 3ft midget Saldivar

 

Buchanan for sure. He's a mobile ring general, Marquez doesn't get enough combos off as the fight progresses due to the superior footwork of his opponent.

 

Casa isn't near Buchanan.**** at the time he fought Marquez he wasn't near Jim Watt.I never liked Casamayor much though.you find a way to lose to Acelino Freitas in your prime and you are going to have to do a damn lot to regain my faith in you, and Casa never managed it.

Navarro was much, much better than Juan Diaz too imo.Talk about sleeping on someones ability, i'd say you are doing it with Ruben there anarci.

 

And marquez is a bit like Eubank when gets made to steadily lead, overextending punches, falling off balance etc. he's not comfortable fighting like that at all, and he would have to be here.

he was robbed against the very ordinary no offense John imo, but looked terrible.Forget Buchanan at lightweight, if that was someone like Famechon at feather in there with him, it would be a clinic.

Oh, and why is there is always the same few guys claiming "old timer nuthugging" as soon as anyone favours a guy from 20-40 years ago(those days of ancient legend!)over someone from the past 15 years.Fair enough you think there is a bias on this board, but you don't ALWAYS have to take the contrarian "active guy is actually at least as good/being seriously underrated here" stance.After the 20th time in a row it becomes pretty transparent and every bit as much of a bias, as any you are heroically raging against.

this is what to do.read McGrains concise posts here.drink them in and digest the points contained within and come to the simple obvious conclusion of aging, flatfooted counterpuncher with much worse defense, losing to extremely tough, active and mobile pure boxer(the exact same rough style the initial fighter was proven to look bad against) who was AT HIS PEAK in this weightclass.

Can't we just discuss the fighters for once, without all the hints at bias/nuthugging and ****.

 

This is real talk on every point put forth. This is what i get at also, Lora is right.

 

1. I dont think John is ordinary, if you think John has no offense this must be his only fight you've seen. Some fights are tactical battles, this is such a fight. Pity there isn't more big fights out there for him

2. Sunds like a dig aimed over here. When someone writes 'average contender from 70s does a better job than ATG from today' it usually rates as old time nuthugging

3. If you followed the thread it'd be apparent that pretty much everyone myself included sees a Buchanan win. The fact some see JMM as a none competitive punch bad is the laughable issue

 

Hit the nail on the head. We've gone through several pages of peripheral discussion, but this is the bottom line.

 

Chris John's main trouble, besides maybe questionable power, is his tendency to fade somewhat in the later rounds...I don't know, he may have addressed and fixed this problem..but Buchanan had NO such stamina problems, even in the Puerto Rican heat while facing a champion named Ismael Laguna, and even appeared to be at least able to see the final bell (if it weren;t for a flagrant foul) in a torrid bout with Roberto Duran...Buchanan would have been poison to JMM...and would have won decisively..end of story.

 

I like Marquez, he's tough and a warrior, but he gets a lesson in this fight! Buchanan was too good at controlling distance and rhythm, especially against fighters like Marquez.

His speed, mobility and particularly his jab control this fight with relative ease!

Although I do think the first few rounds would be competitve enough, until Ken finds his rhythm and range!

Add to that Marquez ain't hurting him, and there is only one winner

 

Bump

 

Would Marquez lose one-sidedly or in a competetive fight?

How many people underrate an aging fighter with the wrong style but who still is an ATG-level fighter against another great fighter?

 

Kenny was canny enough to keep marquez at bay and outbox him.

Buchanan by UD.