Tell me about Ismael Laguna

Here is some footage of Laguna:

[yt]7s1hnvIG6cs[/yt]

 

Robbed twice against Buchanan

 

Buchanan beat him fair and square BOTH times and in the second bout Laguna had to resort to dirty tatics just to stay in the fight.

 

No he wasn't.

 

Not one of my favourites I found him to be more flash than substance,he beat an ill prepared ,complacent Ortiz then got schooled in the return,,there is some talk that he retired prematurely to avoid Duran ,I dont know if there is any truth in it . He certainly was speedy afoot and with his jab ,to me he seemed a bit of a "showboat" ,just my opinion.

 

I completely disagree. There was a lot of flash sure, but his skills can't be denied, nor his effectiveness. I thought he was a superb fighter. Been a while since I've seen the first Laguna/Ortiz bout.

 

As I said ,just my opinion.Its definitely a minority opinion,but at least its mine.

 

His style is that of a so-called 'complete fighter' imo, not that he was one, dont get me wrong, but stylistically a little bit like a Dejesus, could mix it and box also is what i mean, not one dimensional, though Ortiz was more actually complete as a fighter, better and greater than Laguna by my reckoning (and should be by everyones really). Laguna was flashy, but countered guys solidly and was a slippery customer. Now i have his winning bout against Ortiz, and ive seen some other good footage also, but i wouldnt say ive really seen him extensively, anyway form what i can muster, if there is a weakness it may be his offensive arsenal is not of the widest range (am i contradicting myself here in saying his style was that of a complete fighter?), his main asset was really the countering and flurrying imo, and from in that respect i understand McVey's viewpoint. I think DUran would be able to drag him into a fight and outgun him there, the speed difference is not that big, Roberto is underrated there, especially those laser hands that initiated his attacks, but Laguna is quite similar to Dejesus in that timing of solid counters, something which spelled downfall in that defeat of DUran, not just the moving that some will have you believe. Laguna is most definitely a great lightweight for me, he is good to watch for modern fans of that flashy slippery stuff, for some classic posters i suggest to look at how he picked his shots, feinted quite well and was a good pocket man, but beatable by the best.

 

Mantequilla, me thinks you were just trying to get a rise out of the masses with your statement,,,right? Laguna was past his best in the Buchanan fights but they were till great skilled matches. These guys gents, could box. The first was the closer of the two with Kenny pulling away in the second with some brilliant moves.

 

Excellent boxer but beatable by the very best. Overshadowed by Duran.

 

He was past his prime by the time Buchanan got to him. I personally think he was every bit as good prime for prime, a better stylist IMO. I think he would've fared well against many great LW's to be frank, in other words I think he's being a tad underrated.

 

They're in the same vicinity i'd say, im personally big on Buchanan and if forced to say who was better/greater would likely pick him. But its close.

 

teeto, it was hard for me to equate Ismael with DeJesus at first, their styles weren't alike at all, but I think I see where your coming from. Buchanan just eked out the first match with him so I would agree, prime for prime theres only a sliver between them. Like you I would give it to Buchanan on technique. Ismael came into the second fight just beaten by a lesser light and didn't deserve another title go but it was fun to watch. He was a little too far past his best to match Kenny down the stretch though.