1972 Buchanan vs Duran

ringsider · Post by **ringsider** » 17 Apr 2007, 02:25

I just watch the ESPN Classic of this fight. Duran hit him with a nice right to the groin with about 45 seconds left in the 13th round. The supposed low blow at the end of the round that finished Buchanan, it was hard to tell if if Duran hit Buchanan low or not. The angle of the camera footage did not really allow one to see if Buchanan took one to the groin. Obviously the ref ruled it wasn't a low blow......

Any thoughts?

jimglen · Post by **jimglen** » 17 Apr 2007, 03:14

I've seen this fight a few times and I've never understood what all the commotion was? Duran won that fight quite convincingly and even if Buchanan hadn't suffered the 'blow' I don't see the outcome changing in any manner. Duran was a clear & sure winner.

I met Duran at the WBHOF, in fact he called me to his table when I recieved the award for my granddad (I've got a picture of it), he heard the pipes being played and wanted to talk to the Scotsman, I told him Scotland loved him and he had won that fight anyway and Buchanan knows it.

Likewise a couple of years early when meeting Buchanan, he seems to be happier talking about his fights with Laguna and says "they were harder fights!"

Flump · Post by **Flump** » 17 Apr 2007, 07:38

My take on it is that Buchanan was well behind on points, got hit low and tried to win the fight on a foul by making a meal of it.

According to his autobiography though Buchanan thinks that he was getting the upper hand and that his protector was dented from the blow. More likely is that Buchanan was more upset with himself for not continuing with the fight and that's why he was bitter for many years afterward.

He should have got a rematch though.

KOJOE90 · Post by **KOJOE90** » 17 Apr 2007, 08:06

Flump wrote:He should have got a rematch though.

Maybe, but three months late he looked poor beating the shell of Carlos Ortiz and maybe they both just cancelled each other out as far as another title fight was concerned.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 17 Apr 2007, 08:42

I've always thought it odd though that a champion could lose their title on an illegal blow. An immediate rematch would have been some way to restoring fair play...

Seamus · Post by **Seamus** » 17 Apr 2007, 09:31

Even though I had Duran ahead 11 rounds to 2, I believe he definitely should have lost on a DQ. Just no excuse for what he got away with.

jimglen · Post by **jimglen** » 17 Apr 2007, 10:34

the 'low-blow' was hard to determine accurately as Ringsider stated on the opening thread and the referee obviously made the right call in not calling it. So with a clean win 'why a rematch? I don't think the majority of Boxing fans and personel questioned it like the Buchanan camp and British boxing.

I think duran was the kind of fighter that if he thought he was given a 'present' say, I think he would have wanted the rematch to prove who was the real boss.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 17 Apr 2007, 10:55

jimglen wrote:the 'low-blow' was hard to determine accurately as Ringsider stated on the opening thread and the referee obviously made the right call in not calling it. So with a clean win 'why a rematch? I don't think the majority of Boxing fans and personel questioned it like the Buchanan camp and British boxing.

I think duran was the kind of fighter that if he thought he was given a 'present' say, I think he would have wanted the rematch to prove who was the real boss.

I'm not sure it was as clean as you suggest, jimglen. I think Duran was the greater fighter and was winning the fight but even so... Here's what Gil Clancy has to say about it...

http://www.fightbeat.com/judgejake/clancy.htm

Obviously Gil has his agenda but even so...

Arbachakov · Post by **Arbachakov** » 17 Apr 2007, 11:09

One of the main reasons a rematch never happened was because Duran lost to Dejesus and then had to focus on giving Esteban a shot at the title and avenging his first loss.

Seamus · Post by **Seamus** » 17 Apr 2007, 11:36

DeJesus didn't get a title shot for 16 months, while Duran made 3 title defenses.

Your mental superior · Post by **Your mental superior** » 17 Apr 2007, 17:44

yEAH, IT IS HILARIOUS THAT Duran's legendary reign was founded on an illegal testicle shot.

I Feel Fine · Post by **I Feel Fine** » 17 Apr 2007, 20:38

jimglen wrote:I've seen this fight a few times and I've never understood what all the commotion was? Duran won that fight quite convincingly and even if Buchanan hadn't suffered the 'blow' I don't see the outcome changing in any manner. Duran was a clear & sure winner.

I met Duran at the WBHOF, in fact he called me to his table when I recieved the award for my granddad (I've got a picture of it), he heard the pipes being played and wanted to talk to the Scotsman, I told him Scotland loved him and he had won that fight anyway and Buchanan knows it.

Likewise a couple of years early when meeting Buchanan, he seems to be happier talking about his fights with Laguna and says "they were harder fights!"

I could not agree more.

Did Duran lose more than a round in that fight... at best? He was a force of nature in that fight... and what people never mention is that Buchanan is also at fault. Buchanan hit Duran after the bell, so Duran retaliated.

The ref to my understanding stopped the fight because he felt Buchanan could continue, but because Buchanan didn't he stopped the fight. The ref could have taken 5 points away from Duran if he wanted, Duran would have still won the fight as far as I'm concerned... clear win.

As for Laguna.. I always thought that interesting. Here Buchanan probably figured he had beaten the best thing that will ever come out of Panama, and he turns around and there's Duran... lol

ringsider · Post by **ringsider** » 18 Apr 2007, 00:44

Sir Psycho wrote:
yEAH, IT IS HILARIOUS THAT Duran's legendary reign was founded on an illegal testicle shot.

He did what he had to do to win, low blow or not. I believe it was more reaction.

If you wannabe the champ, then you gotta have the balls.

Buchanan didn't have the balls!

I Feel Fine · Post by **I Feel Fine** » 18 Apr 2007, 15:13

It would be one thing if Buchanan was in the fight. He wasn't. If he was lucky he won three rounds. He had no chance of stopping Duran. And he fouled Duran first. Clear win for Duran.

Arbachakov · Post by **Arbachakov** » 18 Apr 2007, 16:58

I Feel Fine wrote:It would be one thing if Buchanan was in the fight. He wasn't. If he was lucky he won three rounds. He had no chance of stopping Duran. And he fouled Duran first. Clear win for Duran.

Being in the fight or not is totally irrelevant to the ending, whatever you make of it(and i agree Duran was well ahead).

They had been fouling eacn other all night anyway.

I Feel Fine · Post by **I Feel Fine** » 18 Apr 2007, 19:56

Arbachakov wrote:
I Feel Fine wrote:It would be one thing if Buchanan was in the fight. He wasn't. If he was lucky he won three rounds. He had no chance of stopping Duran. And he fouled Duran first. Clear win for Duran.
Being in the fight or not is totally irrelevant to the ending, whatever you make of it(and i agree Duran was well ahead).

They had been fouling eacn other all night anyway.

To me its relevant in that if Duran had lost points because of it, it wouldn't have mattered. I also think that the way many people present it when talking about the fight is that Duran fouled Buchanan and thats why he got the win... which is totally wrong, Duran would have on points easy, and Buchanan had pretty much no chance of stopping him.

I agree they did foul each other a lot.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 19 Apr 2007, 05:01

Decagon wrote:Duran could have lost the fight; let's face facts. He also could have lost Leonard I, Barkley and Castro II. He was VERY lucky to have held titles at 147 and 160, and I often wonder what his legacy would have been like if a few rounds had gone the other way.

I don't agree that he could have lost Leonard I. It was a well fought fight and Leonard proved himself a great warrior but Duran's rounds were very clear.

dr_devious · Post by **dr_devious** » 19 Apr 2007, 05:23

According to "Hands of Stone", Duran's recent biography, Buchanan was genuinely injured after the low blow he suffered in the Duran fight - his balls were swollen for weeks and he found it painful taking a piss for years after the fight. Although this isnt concrete evidence it does point to the fact that Buchanan was injured and badly hurt by the low blow and couldnt continue.

KOJOE90 · Post by **KOJOE90** » 19 Apr 2007, 09:55

Wasn't it Kenny father who was in the corner who told kenny to 'stay hurt' and try and get a DQ win and NOT Kenny himself?

I Feel Fine · Post by **I Feel Fine** » 19 Apr 2007, 13:57

Decagon wrote:Duran could have lost the fight; let's face facts. He also could have lost Leonard I, Barkley and Castro II. He was VERY lucky to have held titles at 147 and 160, and I often wonder what his legacy would have been like if a few rounds had gone the other way.

I don't agree that he was lucky to have held the Welterweight title. He won the fight legitimately, even if it was close. If Leonard had boxed instead of fought then perhaps it would be a different story. I thought Barkley won their fight, but that almost doesn't matter, Duran's performance was what was so impressive in that as an ex-Lightweight at 37 he was able to put on such a great fight against a huge, big punching prime Middleweight (and future Heavyweight) who had just beaten Hearns.

There's no justification for Buchanan winning their fight. If he had gotten a decision it would have been a robbery, and he didn't deserve a DQ either in that he's the one who threw a combination at Duran after the bell which started the whole thing...

dr_devious · Post by **dr_devious** » 19 Apr 2007, 17:05

Decagon wrote:Duran could have lost the fight; let's face facts. He also could have lost Leonard I, Barkley and Castro II. He was VERY lucky to have held titles at 147 and 160, and I often wonder what his legacy would have been like if a few rounds had gone the other way.

Duran's legacy was sealed by his achievements at lightweight Dec.