Ken Buchanan vs Ray Mancini

Didn’t an inexperienced Ray Mancini give Alexis Arguello an excellent fight.Buchanan would undoubtedly beat Mancini,but he wouldn’t win by a shutout.

 

yes he did. AA said that Ray's strength was incredible and had to keep him at a distance to wear him down

Buchnon is no Alexis Arguello, not even close

I agree that Ken would likely win but it would be extremely close because ken can't punch

 

Ken Buchanan easily outboxes Mancini. That jab was impeccable.

 

That’s a tough one. Not sure myself. Buchanan was the better technician but Mancini was relentless. Probably a close fight

 

Yes,I agree.Ray is likely to bring the pressure

What was it that poster said? "Too much Ray Mancini!" and "where there's a Ray, there's got to be a WAY"

and while having a good jab is nice, did it keep Duran off?

No

Did Duran's pressure pay off?

I will say that Duran's pressure and rough housing/dirty fighting paid off more than Kenny's jab and let's face it, Buchanan never looked THAT great to begin with so I'm with you; this is a close one and Ray could win this on sheer volume of punches alone

 

I usually will go with the superior boxer in these mythical match ups especially when the superior boxer is as sturdy and tough as Buchanan was. With that said, I think Mancini gives him all kinds of hell with his physicality,strength and determination but ultimately it's Buchanan winning on points.

Side note, Mancini seems to be a pretty polarizing fighter on this forum and lots of good posters seem to think he is overrated. My take is he was one of the more entertaining guys to watch when I was kid because you always knew he was going to lay it on the line every night and he could compete with anyone as he showed when he pushed the great Alexis Arguello to the limit.

 

I can sympathise with the idea that Mancini might do well early doors and take some rounds based on aggression. Buchanan could be a slow starter and wasn't truly a defensive whiz or pure boxer in the true sense of the word, great mover though he was. The first Otero fight showed that he could be gotten at with a bit of reckless pressure.

That said, he was alot more prone to straight punches than the hooking, winging style of someone like Ray. Quite adept at picking off hooks with his gloves and exaggerating the movement of his upper body to defend himself against them.

Ultimately Mancini though probably telegraphed stuff a bit too much, was too easy to jab at and would find his feet in the wrong place half a step behind.

And despite being the lighter hitter, I'd put money on Buchanan being physically stronger and the better infighter of the two. Better at grappling and shortening his punches up close with an underrated uppercut. And once he started his freakish late round stamina charge, he'd probably be teeing off on Mancini in the championship rounds and putting a bit more of a comfortable gap between them. It's easy to forget what remarkable endurance, grit and durability Buchanan had - it was more notable at times than his boxing ability with his better opponents forcing him into the trenches relatively often.

 

This is pretty much it for me too. Buchanan wasn't just a boxer in the form-over-substance way we sometimes train ourselves to categorize things. He had form AND substance, and even a young Duran couldn't put him away legitimately. Can't see Ray doing it either.

Buchanan clear decision or late stoppage due to cuts.

 

Ken Buchanan is simply on a higher level than Ray. Ken by UD 145-140 and Ray's face will reflect the damage of going the distance.

 

Buchanan was a level above Mancini in every way.

 

So right! Ken was a tough guy, he'd be ok here.

 

I missed that one..