Ken Buchanan

I've heard Duran says Leonard is the best opponent he defeated which to me is clearly true. I have a clip of him saying that Leonard was his toughest opponent to face.

 

With the benefit of decades, some may think that Kenny could have continued that fight (even Ken and his corner) -- not with five minutes or five hours. That was no glancing blow.

I was ringside that night, with the perfect vantage point. With the piledriver Duran landed to Ken's nuts, he's lucky he's not a soprano.

 

Okay then, so he's contradicted himself. I was watching him in a post fight interview after he made short work of a preliminary bum late in his career, where there was some air time to kill, and Duran was in a chatty mood. He was being asked and answering questions about his entire career, and it was then that he described Buchanan as the best boxer he ever faced. I guess we'll never know for sure what he's thinking without administering him a dose of thiopental sodioum, and hooking him up to a polygraph. (I actually do consider SRL as the best he defeated, but I wasn't in the ring with either.)

 

Well sir, that would seem to be the definitive assertion about that. In your view, what would the proper course of action have been for LoBianco to take? Duran was clearly superior up that point in the evening, and the referee failed to get between them to stop the extracurricular action in a timely fashion. Was a DQ in favor of Ken warranted in your opinion, or did Ken bring it on himself by continuing on with Duran did after the bell?

 

At the time that Duran defeated Buchanan in 1972.. he was 21/22 y/o and probably for him was the hardest fight because he was a novice. When he fought SRL he was 29/30 y/o and had more experience, and probably for him was not as though as the fight he had against Buchanan eight years before.

We all know that Duran was a better boxer at the time he faced SRL. I think he was a monster when he faced SRL the first time.

The question is.... what do you think Duran would have said about Buchanan if he had face him in 1980 for the very first time instead of fighting SRL? I am talking about the same Buchanan he faced in 1972.

 

It's a perfectly relevant point. Would Ken have still been tough enough to go 15 rounds with a more evolved Duran? Yes, I think Ken was that tough. But he was not the better competitor when they actually did meet, and his best was never good enough to prevail against Duran's best. (Ditto SRL.)

I consider Ken Buchanan to be the greatest British boxer of the postwar period, but Duran as the second greatest of all time. Bottom line is that all three are enshrined in Canastota where they belong.

 

Yes they are, and they belong in the HOF. We were lucky to see these kind of boxers when they were active.....they don't come like that anymore.:-(

 

Alas not. And so we come here to reminisce about the glory days.

 

Buchanan had a great set of legs that took him in and out of the danger zone like he was on roller skates. Plus the lateral movement and excellent jab gave many boxers absolute fits.

But some of his mechanics were horrendous. He stuck his head up in the air all the time where his granite chin definitely saved him on more than one occasion. He slipped punches by leaning way over to the side thereby putting himself out of countering opportunities many a time. And his defense was reliant on his reflexes and foot movement rather than on classic slipping and blocking.

Now Chavez and Arguello were textbook in their mechanics. They punched, slipped and blocked in a most efficient manner. Buchanan certainly had the physical attributes to meet them halfway, but Chavez and Arguello were more efficient technically.

Arguello might have had more trouble with Buchanan's lateral movement as evidenced in his fight against Vilomar Fernandez, but let's not forget that Fernandez was a brilliant technician and terribly under-rated. I think Buchanan would have made enough mistakes for Arguello to capitalize on. And, as in his fight with Duran, Buchanan wouldn't have had enough real skill or firepower to hold off Chavez indefinitely. Chavez on points also.

 

Fernandez was just a so-so runner imo.

He ran like a thief against Arguello and Duran and really just fought to survive.

Arguello's one-paced plodding and crap defence lost him that fight, not any classic boxing from Fernandez.

I don't see Buchanan as being the best post-war British fighter though.Lewis would take that on accomplishments and Conteh for head-to-head.

 

You need to watch Vilomar Fernandez more closely... Vilomar did not "run" vs either Arguello or Duran. He used very nimble lateral movement, changing direction right in front of them to create opportunities which he took advantage of with great combos.

Vilomar was actually leading on points against Duran before getting seriously low-blowed midway throught the fight. Then Duran started catching up to him.

He was definitely not just trying to survive... else, how could he have beaten Arguello?

 

I've watched him plenty.

He was a hack.

And he did fight to survive against Arguello.When i say that i don't mean he did a MOrrade Hakkar for the entire fight, just taht he was extremely defensive and took almost no risks.

A survivor first and a competitor second.That he actually won the fight spoke more to Arguello's incompetence on that night than anything i saw from Fernandez.

 

Well, he certainly didn't run against Kenty or Davis Jr. He circled right as fluidly as I can remember seeing any orthodox boxer do it. Duran may have had hands of stone, but Vilomar had springs for legs.

Lot's of Arguello's opponents tried to win by running on him, but only Fernandez succeeded. Still, that was only over 10 rounds. Buchanan had the toughness not to need to run against Arguello. One thing we know about Buchanan; that rugged Scot was never taken out twice by a single legal blow.