Just how good was Ken Buchanan really?

Question

I know there's a big question mark over his "low blow" fight with Duran, but even if the ref had come down on Buchanan's side, its far from certain Ken would've managed to win the fight.

So just how good was Scotland's best, in a world context?

Answer 1

I think hes on popularity par with Dick McTaggart & Benny Lynch, especially the latter who achieved more being a professional. Ken was a good fighter and was all heart, he beat Jim Watt (i have the fight) and Watt wouldnt fight him ever again or defend his world title against him, I spoke to Ken in Scotland when I was fighting gainst Scotland and found him a tremondous man, full of respect for us compared to other attending fighters. At the end of his career he fought up and coming Charlie Nash and lost, he told us he recovering from an illness and only had 2 weeks training for the fight, after the fight Nash was hung over the ropes in exhaustion, I have total respect for this man, god bless him
Check these, they'll answer your question
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2DyLr20us0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQ8Dnf_8sd8&mode=related&search=

Answer 2

Benny Lynch was by far and wide Scotland's best. I have films of the man and he was a marvel.

Buchanan's style was very "British". In other words, very technically correct. Stood straight up and threw every punch in textbook fashion. He had solid boxing skills but I think the best things he had going for him were an iron chin and the fact that he just could not be discouraged. He was thoroughly out of his league against Roberto Duran, who was beating him from pillar to post, but Ken never stopped sticking to his gameplan. Never lost focus and never got discouraged. He just kept boxing and being the tough guy he was. It was very impressive and showed a lot of heart.

Not sure what the low blow question mark is. Do the British somehow think that Buchanan was winning or would have won the fight had he not been hit low? If so then they haven't bothered to watch the video of the bout.

Duran never gave KB a rematch because he probably got tired of using his face and body for a bongo drum. Rest assured, he had no reason to fear Buchanan.

Answer 3

Ken Buchanan was an outstanding boxer and had a great career beating Ismael Laguna twice which was no easy feat. He fought well against the great Duran but I feel that had it went the distance that Duran would have still been the winner in that fight. It was the only time that Ken was kayoed in his brilliant career. Yes Scotland should be very proud of Ken Buchahan.

Answer 4

Ken won a title by decisioning champion Ismael Laguna in Laguna's own home town, then beating Laguna in the rematch as well. Ken Buchanan was good enough to knock out former world champ Carlos Hernandez in 8 and three time world champ Carlos Ortiz in 6.

Ken was good enough to get into the boxing hall of fame.

That's pretty damn good.

Answer 5

Duran said that? Hahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!! Buchanan tougher than Hearns, Leonard, Hagler, Barkley? VERY funny. Buchanan was a good fighter, not great. He has no business in the Hall of Fame. The fact that he made it and Donald Curry didn't is a crock of ______ and really takes away from the IBHOF's credibility. Pipino Cuevas and Randy Turpin and Barry McGuigan dont belong either. Curry's career and prime was longer and better than any of those guys. What crap.

Answer 6

Duran said that Buchanan was the toughest fighter he ever faced. Notice that he never gave him a rematch.

Answer 7

ken buchanan was an exceptional boxer in the lightweight division who was in the right place at the right time, itwas unfortunate that he was challenged by roberto duran.

Answer 8

I totally agree with Brad Morris 9's comments. As an ex world champion, a rematch should have been forthcoming.

Answer 9

ken, was a fabulous textbook fighter right up there with the best britain has ever produced, and was REAL WORLD CLASS.