Prime for prime: Ken Buchanan v Jim Watt

I think a fighter's standing as a former champion should count for more than a challenger who is fighting for the title for the first time.

I'm not saying that's the way it is but I think that's the way it should be.

 

Were you referring to Eddie Thomas?

 

Watt said that McClellan quit.

If he had added that he thought this might have been due McClellan sensing that something was wrong then it would have been different.

But he didn't, he just said that McClellan quit.

I remember seeing Barry McGuigan's reaction to Watt's remarks - he was appalled.

 

Buchanan should edge it, but both of these fighters get the usual British regurgitation accolades of great pinned on them, simply because the UK, beyond the Historic little fellows, didn't shine as often as they would have liked too, well many of them, many, not all, tend to get hyped up ribbons type of recognition.

Top & Noted fighters, yes, but not true greats, same with Turpin, Honeyghan, Hatton and now Fury.

 

Hunnigan?

 

Honeyghan, my bad.

 

Say Watt?