BoxRec

tiny_acres wrote: ↑14 May 2022, 16:38

The Balletic Bomber wrote: ↑14 May 2022, 01:41

elmersalsa wrote: ↑13 May 2022, 13:22

Ken Buchanan was a fantastic boxer. A great Lightweight. I don't understand the sentiment of some people in here in this forum that he was not a special fighter.

It takes a special fighter to win the Scottish, British Empire, European and World Lightweight championships.

Anybody that dismisses Buchanan as a great boxer gotta be delusional, a hater or doesn't know shiit about boxing. For real!

Elmersalsa, you’re a fireball when to it comes to Duran or Buchanan. Very passionate indeed!

Obviously Elmer's alias..... No one else ever agrees with him that much

So you don't think that Ken Buchanan was any good?

elmersalsa wrote: ↑14 May 2022, 16:56

The Balletic Bomber wrote: ↑14 May 2022, 01:41

elmersalsa wrote: ↑13 May 2022, 13:22

Ken Buchanan was a fantastic boxer. A great Lightweight. I don't understand the sentiment of some people in here in this forum that he was not a special fighter.

It takes a special fighter to win the Scottish, British Empire, European and World Lightweight championships.

Elmersalsa, you’re a fireball when to it comes to Duran or Buchanan. Very passionate indeed!

You don't think that Ken Buchanan was not a great boxer? At least he was very good. He was a professional champion in all levels of competition. That speaks volumes.

I absolutely agree with you that Ken Buchanan
was great. I simply took notice of your passion!

to assume Duran needs to hype up Buchanan's skills or give less credit to hearn's power to make himself look 'better' is just nonsensical in itself and he didn't do neither if you actually read what he stated.

he' s fvckin DURAN and gave his opinion.

all he said was he felt drained and weak versus hearns and could've done better in a rematch.

that that actual knockout punch from hearns in the way it landed would've felled duran (and everybody else) like a log in whatever condition, I guess is out of the question.