Ken Buchanan

I agree with Sweet Pea that a prime Chavez is a match for the Duran that beat Buchanan. Roberto was very raw back then, and although it'd be a war, I see Chavez being more accurate than this pretty wild version of Duran.

 

Chavez, nah. Arguello, perhaps. :good

 

Agreed, but i still like Arguello by decision in a close fight. Arguello wasn't the fastest, but he was a great technician and long range specialist. I think his harder blows and the complications they cause would be the difference.

 

Some good points, well made here.

I think JCC would be simply too good for him, though on one his best nights Buchanan would be a definite 'live' threat to Arguello.

 

Through no fault of his own, Chavez never established Buchanan's 15 round credentials. J.C. would not have been able to wear Ken down. If either did falter, it would probably be Chavez first.

Buchanan decisioned Watt over 15. While not a lethal puncher, Watt was a strong, bruising, durable pressing fighter with all the endurance
necessary to go 15 hard rounds. Yet shortly before Watt turned 25, Buchanan dethroned him for the British LW Title.

 

Based on what? Chavez not having 15 round credentials? Anyone that saw him fight would have to think that the longer the fight went, the better it was for Chavez. Chavez would have lapped 15 rounds up, no problems.

Buchanan had good endurance no doubt. Though he boxed below par with Watt (I had them even after 12 rounds) he stormed home to take the last three and wrestled the title from Watt.

 

Yeh I agree with the above Chavez would win a decision and rough Buchanan in doing so. The Arguello fight could go either way, although I'd favour Alexis.

 

I agree with all of this regarding toughness. If it were not for the low blow, Ken would have easily made for 15 against Duran. If ever a guy was underrated, it was Ken Buchanan. I believe he would have defeated both Chavez and Arguello. If Meldrick Taylor almost beat Chavez, Buchanan would have certainly won, being that he was a superior boxer and MUCH tougher than Taylor. Likewise with Arguello, who I have always been a big fan of, he would have had no answers for the ultra-tough Buchanan, who also had an edge to him. It took the fire and ferocity of the young Duran to defeat Ken, and great as they were, neither Chavez or Arguello had as much of those qualities as Duran.

 

Well, obviously I'm going to pick Kennie, aren't I?

I think that Chavez, although a lesser boxer overall than Arguello, would trouble Buchanan more with his toughness and pressure. I think that Buchanan would figure out Arguello surprisingly quickly and win a big UD (10-5 or 9-5-1) while he would win a firm decision over Chavez (something like 9-6).

I have Buchanan right up there with Jimmy Wilde et al as one of the top British boxers of all time.

 

Definetly. Buchanan also fought well under pressure- his counters were compact and he could shorten his jab to great effect. Just being a pressure fighter doesn't solve Buchanan- you have to be a scientifically awesome pressure fighter, like Duran was.

 

Having a criminaly incompetent ref helps as well!
Interesting to think how close Duran came to blowing a near certain victory when he made the decision to punch Kenny in the Happy sack!
How would boxing have been different if Duran was disqualified?

 

Not much.

He would just have come back and won the title at a slightly later date.

 

good point about charnley, a lot of the older critics would suggest that buchanan would have a hell of a job on to beat him.he was a real tough guy and a southpaw at that.

 

I, too, was at the Felt Forum when Buchanan flattened Chu Chu Malave, BD. Chu Chu was, and is, a good friend, and it really saddened me.