klompton wrote: ↑24 Sep 2021, 20:14
That consistency you mentioned wasborn on the backs of clubfighters and faded world class fighters. The only truly worldclass fighter he beat who was arguably still in his prime was Laguna and he was clearly fading at the time. Pretending Buchanan was beating all of these killers to rack up some great record as an ATG LW is pure fantasy.
It was a close fight in both of the Ismael Laguna fights. Both fights were very entertaining to say at least. Buchanan showed plenty of great skills in both fights. It was a beauty, but somebody had to win. I wish they would have split in the wins and fight a rubber match. It would have been another technical great war.
The guy was Scottish, British Empire, European and World Champion. That counts for something. The guy Buchanan was very good at lightweight.
Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑24 Sep 2021, 11:12
Barney Ross should be in the top 5. Somehow elmer has it in his head that he was not a lightweight. Beat Canzoneri twice who he has in the top 10. Also beat Billy Petrolle. He doesn't even rank Ross at all.
As for Buchanan - Winning Country, British Empire, Continental titles don't mean anything at all when rating him against great fighters.
Old timers like Lavigne, Blackburn, Holly, Wolgast, Petrolle, Mandell and Welsh were clearly better and he had him higher than all of them.
Ken Buchanan in my view was a fantastic boxer somehow forgotten in British and European circles. We kind of forgot how good and consistent he was before fighting the great Roberto Duran.
When you are the best in your weight class at all levels of pro competition speaks volumes. Especially, in those days when he was fighting.
Kid Lavigne, Jack Blackburn, Ad Wolgast and the others mentioned above do not carry much weight to be considered all-time great lightweights.
Ken Buchanan was a fantastic fighter.
He was not a "fanstastic fighter". Good, maybe very good. Won close decisons over aguna. Not mcuh else.
Winning minor tiles against ordinary fighters doesn't mean anything.
Kid Lavigne beat Barbadoes Joe Walcott
Jack Blackburn had multiple draws with Sam Langford
Ad Wolgast knocked out battling Nelson for the tile.
Those fights mean something. Not some win for a paper title over someone hardly anyone has barely heard of.
klompton wrote: ↑27 Sep 2021, 19:10
Being good and being a top ten or even twenty atg in your weight class are two VERY different things.
I agree Klompton.
Buchanan WAS a very good fighter and undisputed lightweight champion; no one can take that away from his legacy.
Also, in 1970 he was named the American Boxing Writers’ Association’s "Fighter of the Year", ahead of Joe Frazier and Muhammad Ali. Not sure how prestigious that award would have been but unusal for a Brit in that era to be awarded it I would think.
However, I think the word "fantastic" and the title "ATG in your weight class" are stretching it a bit.
Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑24 Sep 2021, 11:12
Barney Ross should be in the top 5. Somehow elmer has it in his head that he was not a lightweight. Beat Canzoneri twice who he has in the top 10. Also beat Billy Petrolle. He doesn't even rank Ross at all.
As for Buchanan - Winning Country, British Empire, Continental titles don't mean anything at all when rating him against great fighters.
Old timers like Lavigne, Blackburn, Holly, Wolgast, Petrolle, Mandell and Welsh were clearly better and he had him higher than all of them.
Ken Buchanan in my view was a fantastic boxer somehow forgotten in British and European circles. We kind of forgot how good and consistent he was before fighting the great Roberto Duran.
When you are the best in your weight class at all levels of pro competition speaks volumes. Especially, in those days when he was fighting.
Kid Lavigne, Jack Blackburn, Ad Wolgast and the others mentioned above do not carry much weight to be considered all-time great lightweights.
Ken Buchanan was a fantastic fighter.
He was not a "fanstastic fighter". Good, maybe very good. Won close decisons over aguna. Not mcuh else.
Winning minor tiles against ordinary fighters doesn't mean anything.
Kid Lavigne beat Barbadoes Joe Walcott
Jack Blackburn had multiple draws with Sam Langford
Ad Wolgast knocked out battling Nelson for the tile.
Those fights mean something. Not some win for a paper title over someone hardly anyone has barely heard of.
None of those guys made history like Buchanan at 135lbs
Ken Buchanan in my view was a fantastic boxer somehow forgotten in British and European circles. We kind of forgot how good and consistent he was before fighting the great Roberto Duran.
When you are the best in your weight class at all levels of pro competition speaks volumes. Especially, in those days when he was fighting.
Kid Lavigne, Jack Blackburn, Ad Wolgast and the others mentioned above do not carry much weight to be considered all-time great lightweights.
Ken Buchanan was a fantastic fighter.
He was not a "fanstastic fighter". Good, maybe very good. Won close decisons over aguna. Not mcuh else.
Winning minor tiles against ordinary fighters doesn't mean anything.
Kid Lavigne beat Barbadoes Joe Walcott
Jack Blackburn had multiple draws with Sam Langford
Ad Wolgast knocked out battling Nelson for the tile.
Those fights mean something. Not some win for a paper title over someone hardly anyone has barely heard of.
None of those guys made history like Buchanan at 135lbs
Gotta admire a guy who makes a living standing alone.
Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑28 Sep 2021, 10:50
He was not a "fanstastic fighter". Good, maybe very good. Won close decisons over aguna. Not mcuh else.
Winning minor tiles against ordinary fighters doesn't mean anything.
Kid Lavigne beat Barbadoes Joe Walcott
Jack Blackburn had multiple draws with Sam Langford
Ad Wolgast knocked out battling Nelson for the tile.
Those fights mean something. Not some win for a paper title over someone hardly anyone has barely heard of.
None of those guys made history like Buchanan at 135lbs
Gotta admire a guy who makes a living standing alone.
Ken Buchanan in my view was a fantastic boxer somehow forgotten in British and European circles. We kind of forgot how good and consistent he was before fighting the great Roberto Duran.
When you are the best in your weight class at all levels of pro competition speaks volumes. Especially, in those days when he was fighting.
Kid Lavigne, Jack Blackburn, Ad Wolgast and the others mentioned above do not carry much weight to be considered all-time great lightweights.
Ken Buchanan was a fantastic fighter.
He was not a "fanstastic fighter". Good, maybe very good. Won close decisons over aguna. Not mcuh else.
Winning minor tiles against ordinary fighters doesn't mean anything.
Kid Lavigne beat Barbadoes Joe Walcott
Jack Blackburn had multiple draws with Sam Langford
Ad Wolgast knocked out battling Nelson for the tile.
Those fights mean something. Not some win for a paper title over someone hardly anyone has barely heard of.
None of those guys made history like Buchanan at 135lbs
LOL. At the very least Ad Wolgast has been mentioned and remember far more and far longer than Buchanan ever will. When your greatest claim to fame is trying to milk a DQ after being hopelessly outclassed by the first prime great fighter you ever met then dont sit there and tell me the guy is an all time great. Short winning two very very close fights against a fading great he didnt do anything noteworthy in the division. Winning regional titles may be a big deal in England and Europe but it doesnt mean dick. Its no different than some fighter here trying to claim hes great because he was New Jersey State Champion. Hed be laughed at.
Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑28 Sep 2021, 10:50
He was not a "fanstastic fighter". Good, maybe very good. Won close decisons over aguna. Not mcuh else.
Winning minor tiles against ordinary fighters doesn't mean anything.
Kid Lavigne beat Barbadoes Joe Walcott
Jack Blackburn had multiple draws with Sam Langford
Ad Wolgast knocked out battling Nelson for the tile.
Those fights mean something. Not some win for a paper title over someone hardly anyone has barely heard of.
None of those guys made history like Buchanan at 135lbs
LOL. At the very least Ad Wolgast has been mentioned and remember far more and far longer than Buchanan ever will. When your greatest claim to fame is trying to milk a DQ after being hopelessly outclassed by the first prime great fighter you ever met then dont sit there and tell me the guy is an all time great. Short winning two very very close fights against a fading great he didnt do anything noteworthy in the division. Winning regional titles may be a big deal in England and Europe but it doesnt mean dick. Its no different than some fighter here trying to claim hes great because he was New Jersey State Champion. Hed be laughed at.
You probably won't understand the level of greatness. Buchanan is a Lightweight great, not a pound per pound all-time great. Let's not confuse one with the other.
Buchanan's accomplishments put him in the hall of fame. Winning titles at all levels of professional competition means something. The guy was a fantastic boxer. His boxing style was fantastic. His record and accomplishments are fantastic. Ad Wolgast cannot compare to Ken Buchanan.
Buchanan was a great lightweight. Not a pound per pound all-time great. Neither Wolgast nor Buchanan are top 100 all-time greats in my view to begin with. Buchanan was not a patsy. He could hang with any Lightweight in history. He was that good. How good? Very good in my view.
Wee Tommy wrote: ↑16 Sep 2021, 21:16
Bucannan is above Roberto Duran at lightweight but just below Oscar De La Hoya. Would have given him a good fight through.
Wee Tommy wrote: ↑16 Sep 2021, 21:16
Bucannan is above Roberto Duran at lightweight but just below Oscar De La Hoya. Would have given him a good fight through.
Bottom line is that Buchanan was "fantastic". He won paper titles against fighters no one has heard of.
Ad Wolgast can't compare. Even though he won the title in a great fight against Battling Nelson who elmer ranks 17th.
Wolgast just didn't win enough minor titles that nobody cares about. Not sure what minor titles he could have won, but I'm sure there is something.
Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑04 Oct 2021, 10:49
Bottom line is that Buchanan was "fantastic". He won paper titles against fighters no one has heard of.
Ad Wolgast can't compare. Even though he won the title in a great fight against Battling Nelson who elmer ranks 17th.
Wolgast just didn't win enough minor titles that nobody cares about. Not sure what minor titles he could have won, but I'm sure there is something.
Ad Wolgast was one of the biggest losers of the Lightweight class.
Ken Buchanan was way much more consistent beating the top lightweights in the world.
When you are the best at pro level at all levels of competition speaks volumes. These are not paper titles. Those titles meant something FOR years! I mean, years!
Ken Buchanan was a fine boxer with an admirable career. I personally wouldn't rate him in my top 20 at lightweight, but that's no slur. The division (much like the middleweights)is incredibly deep.
Ad Wolgast had one official loss in his first 89 fights. Outlasting Battling Nelson over 40 rounds is a singular accomplishment. He defended the title five times, including bouts with Joe Rivers and Owen Moran. Wolgast's name and the phrase "biggest loser" should never appear in the same sentence.
bwu wrote: ↑05 Oct 2021, 20:45
Ken Buchanan was a fine boxer with an admirable career. I personally wouldn't rate him in my top 20 at lightweight, but that's no slur. The division (much like the middleweights)is incredibly deep.
Ad Wolgast had one official loss in his first 89 fights. Outlasting Battling Nelson over 40 rounds is a singular accomplishment. He defended the title five times, including bouts with Joe Rivers and Owen Moran. Wolgast's name and the phrase "biggest loser" should never appear in the same sentence.
bwu wrote: ↑05 Oct 2021, 20:45
Ken Buchanan was a fine boxer with an admirable career. I personally wouldn't rate him in my top 20 at lightweight, but that's no slur. The division (much like the middleweights)is incredibly deep.
Ad Wolgast had one official loss in his first 89 fights. Outlasting Battling Nelson over 40 rounds is a singular accomplishment. He defended the title five times, including bouts with Joe Rivers and Owen Moran. Wolgast's name and the phrase "biggest loser" should never appear in the same sentence.
Agree. Can't believe elmersalsa actually called Wolgast "one of the biggest losers of the lightweight class". Wow. I mean, wow. Even for elmer, that is absurd.
bwu wrote: ↑05 Oct 2021, 20:45
Ken Buchanan was a fine boxer with an admirable career. I personally wouldn't rate him in my top 20 at lightweight, but that's no slur. The division (much like the middleweights)is incredibly deep.
Ad Wolgast had one official loss in his first 89 fights. Outlasting Battling Nelson over 40 rounds is a singular accomplishment. He defended the title five times, including bouts with Joe Rivers and Owen Moran. Wolgast's name and the phrase "biggest loser" should never appear in the same sentence.
Agree. Can't believe elmersalsa actually called Wolgast "one of the biggest losers of the lightweight class". Wow. I mean, wow. Even for elmer, that is absurd.
Ad Wolgast had 13 losses Alp, and 60 wins.
Record 60-13-17. Not that good at all.
Buchanan had only 8 losses in 69 fights
Record 61-8
He was stopped once in 69 fights. And we all know that that wasn't a real knockout
win loss records? Really? Because they are never deceiving?
We are going to count every loss regardless of the stage of a fighter's career? 4 round decisions count? Fights taken on short notice? Bad decisions?
I'm sure that you will weigh Duran's (your favorite fighter) 16 losses against him. I'm you are doing your all time ratings that you don't have him higher than someone with less losses.
OK, play the record game.
You have Jimmy Carter at # 15. His record is just 85-31-9.
You have Joe Brown at #7. His record was just 121-47-14.
Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑07 Oct 2021, 15:51
win loss records? Really? Because they are never deceiving?
We are going to count every loss regardless of the stage of a fighter's career? 4 round decisions count? Fights taken on short notice? Bad decisions?
I'm sure that you will weigh Duran's (your favorite fighter) 16 losses against him. I'm you are doing your all time ratings that you don't have him higher than someone with less losses.
OK, play the record game.
You have Jimmy Carter at # 15. His record is just 85-31-9.
You have Joe Brown at #7. His record was just 121-47-14.
Moran should be ahead of those guys.
Jimmy Carter was a 3-time world Lightweight champion
Can't believe elmersalsa actually called Wolgast "one of the biggest losers of the lightweight class". Wow. I mean, wow. Even for elmer, that is absurd.