Duran & Buchanan

Post Reply

Should Duran have been DQ'd against Buchanan

Poll ended at 17 Feb 2021, 15:42

YES
9
43%
NO
12
57%
 
Total votes: 21

nobleart1978
Super Welterweight
Posts: 722
Joined: 25 Jun 2015, 16:18

Duran & Buchanan

Post by nobleart1978 »

Should Duran have been disqualfied after he hit Buchanan low at the end of the 13th round?
handsofstone
Cruiserweight
Posts: 23089
Joined: 11 Jan 2011, 17:28

Re: Duran & Buchanan

Post by handsofstone »

Yes, you cant win a fight by KO on a foul, ref shat the bed, no doubt Duran was well in front but point still stands, especially seeing as Buchanan was defending champ, would've loved a rematch, you'd fancy Duran to probably do a better number on Buchanan but still think he deserved it
nobleart1978
Super Welterweight
Posts: 722
Joined: 25 Jun 2015, 16:18

Re: Duran & Buchanan

Post by nobleart1978 »

The ref made a total hash of it no doubt about it. Duran should have be disqualified.

Duran would have won the return, but that is not the point.
Tuan_Jim
Heavyweight
Heavyweight

Re: Duran & Buchanan

Post by Tuan_Jim »

It didn't look like that hard of a punch and Buchanan initiated it by hitting after the bell. In the heat of the moment it must have looked to the ref like a losing fighter overplaying his injury to win on a foul.
DrDuke
Lightweight
Posts: 13879
Joined: 29 Nov 2017, 09:15

Re: Duran & Buchanan

Post by DrDuke »

Why he should have been necessarily DQed? First a ref gotta point out, if a low blow is intentional. There should be a DQ, if it is. If it's not, there should be NC. Or maybe TD. It didn't look intentional in that fight.
nobleart1978
Super Welterweight
Posts: 722
Joined: 25 Jun 2015, 16:18

Re: Duran & Buchanan

Post by nobleart1978 »

Yep. No Contest result wudda been about right I reckon....
klompton
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 2738
Joined: 07 Jul 2003, 02:27

Re: Duran & Buchanan

Post by klompton »

No. Buchanan was getting his ass kicked, he hit after the bell, Duran retaliated (and the punch wasnt that hard) and Buchanan tried to milk the DQ. If Duran had been DQd it would have been a terrible injustice.
oogiebe
Light Heavyweight
Posts: 32990
Joined: 01 Jul 2012, 19:35

Re: Duran & Buchanan

Post by oogiebe »

Nope.
pound per pound
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 1605
Joined: 13 Jan 2005, 14:36

Re: Duran & Buchanan

Post by pound per pound »

A very hard call. Since Duran was in the lead and the foul look like an accident, I say no DQ. However for sure there should have been a re-match,
elmersalsa
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 15708
Joined: 02 Feb 2003, 03:50

Re: Duran & Buchanan

Post by elmersalsa »

Gerry Cooney hit twice the great Larry Holmes in the groin in that fight. Nobody cried foul then.
Ambling Alp II
Super Middleweight
Posts: 15185
Joined: 04 Nov 2012, 18:31

Re: Duran & Buchanan

Post by Ambling Alp II »

Wrong. Simply wrong.
Holmes was given time to recover. He could have taken up to 5 minutes. He took about 1 minute and 20 seconds to recover from the first low blow. He could have taken up to 5 minutes. Cooney was penalized two points for the first low blow and one for the second.
elmersalsa
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 15708
Joined: 02 Feb 2003, 03:50

Re: Duran & Buchanan

Post by elmersalsa »

Ambling Alp II wrote: 04 Feb 2021, 21:42 Wrong. Simply wrong.
Holmes was given time to recover. He could have taken up to 5 minutes. He took about 1 minute and 20 seconds to recover from the first low blow. He could have taken up to 5 minutes. Cooney was penalized two points for the first low blow and one for the second.
Well, nobody cried for him to be disqualified for the low blows.

Neither the great Pernell Whitaker had a disqualification when he hit the great Julio Cesar Chavez' balls. Nobody cried foul about that. Then, why should they ask about Duran being DQ'd against Buchanan?
Tuan_Jim
Heavyweight
Heavyweight

Re: Duran & Buchanan

Post by Tuan_Jim »

Does anyone think Kenny got hit harder in the balls than Gerald McClellan by Julian Jackson?

Imagine being hit in the balls by Julian Jackson.

He took his break, got up and knocked the Hawk out. Often it seems to be losing fighters who cry foul.
Ambling Alp II
Super Middleweight
Posts: 15185
Joined: 04 Nov 2012, 18:31

Re: Duran & Buchanan

Post by Ambling Alp II »

Hard to say. Sure it would hurt quite a bit in either case.
Ambling Alp II
Super Middleweight
Posts: 15185
Joined: 04 Nov 2012, 18:31

Re: Duran & Buchanan

Post by Ambling Alp II »

elmersalsa wrote: 05 Feb 2021, 13:44
Ambling Alp II wrote: 04 Feb 2021, 21:42 Wrong. Simply wrong.
Holmes was given time to recover. He could have taken up to 5 minutes. He took about 1 minute and 20 seconds to recover from the first low blow. He could have taken up to 5 minutes. Cooney was penalized two points for the first low blow and one for the second.
Well, nobody cried for him to be disqualified for the low blows.

Neither the great Pernell Whitaker had a disqualification when he hit the great Julio Cesar Chavez' balls. Nobody cried foul about that. Then, why should they ask about Duran being DQ'd against Buchanan?
It was a different situation. A lot of people would have been been irked if Cooney was not called for the foul (like Duran was not) and Holmes had to continue right away.

Rules have changed over the years regarding fouls. In the 1920s and before, a fighter could have disqualified for one low blow. Then it became just a penalty, for one low blow. ( a round taken away in a fight judges by rounds. A point under the 10 point must.)
Later fighters who got hit low got up to 5 minutes to recuperate. (would be interesting to know if that rule was under effect for the Buchanan fight)

In the Duran-Buchanan fight, the referee did not call it a foul. Had he done so, he would have penalized Duran right away. Given that it was well after the bell as well, Duran certainly could have disqualified.
Post Reply