Who ranks higher for you, Ken Buchanan or Wilfred Benitez?

no it wasn't just that he beat Duran. It was the whole career and his fights with Leonard,Hearns and Duran.

 

Is it me or is it a bunch of aliases voting, "CassiusClayAli", "MoneyFloydMay", "PernellSweetPea", looks pretty damn similar to me.

 

Just messing with you, homie. I voted for Benitez as well. :good

 

His name is Wilfredo.

 

I feel bad in a way not voting for Ken Buchanan but I do think Wilfred ranks higher. I met Ken by the way at the Hall of Fame dinner in Los Angeles in the 1990s. I have a picture of he and I somewhere here. He has a lot of style. Same night I met Bob Foster. Didn't expect Foster to be that tall.

 

I have Benitez higher. Weight and quality wins (Cervantes>Laguna for one) although in terms of ability they were both pure class.

 

Benitez; a quality fighter in more divisions and beat better fighters than Buchanan did.

 

To be fair tho, Leonard & Hearns outboxed & dominated Benitez, Leonard even stopped him right at the death... in saying that tho, I voted for Benitez over Buchanan, I felt he had the greater career overall.

 

I don't think there was a massive disparity in the actual quality of the two fighters, but Benitez takes it on quality of opposition fought and achievements. Becoming a world champion as young as Benitez did is indeed unheard of, and his win over Roberto Duran was perfectly legitimate, and trumps anything Buchanan managed to do in his career.

 

Benitez. Buchanan was a very good Lightweight. Benitez was a great. And could have been greater,if he'd had more discipline.