Page 2 of 3
Posted: 03 Jul 2007, 12:55
by Old bones Ian
I don't know why everyone rates Guzman so much, i've never seen much in him, neat boxer thats it. maybe i'm missing something.
I wouldn't worry if Arthur were matched with him.
Posted: 03 Jul 2007, 13:04
by TerribleTerry
Old bones Ian wrote:I don't know why everyone rates Guzman so much, i've never seen much in him, neat boxer thats it. maybe i'm missing something.
I wouldn't worry if Arthur were matched with him.
His speed alone would tie Arthur up in nots.
His vaunted power has decreased due to long ruinning hand problems but the guy just oozes class Ian - I for one have been a fan from quite some time.
For my money he would beat Arthur like a ginger stepson..but maybe I am guilty of under rating Double A??
Posted: 03 Jul 2007, 13:09
by Autobarn
Old bones Ian wrote:I don't know why everyone rates Guzman so much, i've never seen much in him, neat boxer thats it. maybe i'm missing something.
I wouldn't worry if Arthur were matched with him.
hard puncher, talented, Mayweather-lite style, stamina issues. maybe I'd give Arhtur a chance with Guzman and an old Barrera if they can get 'em over to the UK.
Posted: 03 Jul 2007, 13:14
by BigGar
Put him in there with Valero. That's what I'd like to see!
Posted: 03 Jul 2007, 14:40
by WildWaylon
BigGar wrote:Put him in there with Valero. That's what I'd like to see!
Isnt that the guy that sparks all his opponents? - Not a good move for AA.
Posted: 04 Jul 2007, 07:21
by harrygreb
manos de oro, you claim AA showed a good chin against gomez? he was down a few times wasnt he?
if he wants to slug it out at true world level then i'll give him a shorter career than i did previously. he's a decent boxer, he has to box.
although he is not so wonderful that he'll shake up the world.
leave that to the likes of...ken buchanan
Posted: 04 Jul 2007, 07:33
by MightyWarrior
Anyone taking full blooded left hooks off a fired up Gomez that night, would go down a few times I reckon. No defence was AA's problem, not a shaky chin. And you have to credit him with a fighting heart as well.
I said the day after that loss that AA could come back and win a world title one day - trouble is, he's in a red hot division, but you can usualy bank on FW to find a vacant WBO title somewhere a long the line...
FW will steer him well clear of Guzman though, like they did with Harrison.
Can't see any "disrespect" coming from Arthur to Buchanan though. He's just rightly asking why Ken couldn't say it to him personaly, rather than go to the press. Which is fair enough.
Posted: 04 Jul 2007, 12:23
by Manos de Oro
Yeah, it's worth remembering just how many it took to finally put him down. The fight would (should have?) actually have been stopped with a different ref/lesser title at stake/if AA weren't the hometown 'star' prospect. Might have been the penultimate round where his head just seemed to snap to the left like a floor-to-ceiling ball for the whole duration. That was/is an extremely hard punch Gomez brings up from that crouch, remember the way Gary Thornhill went after a prime single one.
Was going to say in the above post he showed a 'champions' heart but he seemed to go into a part bemused, part self-denying autopilot once he finally went down. Never really clenched his teeth, kept his head straight and saw it through - he looked at the camera and seemed to be locked into following a script that had suddenly gone blank!
Posted: 04 Jul 2007, 12:54
by KOJOE90
Buchanan made some fair comments about AA's career but he should have spoken to Alex directly and not to the press.
Re: Arthur disses Buchanan
Posted: 04 Jul 2007, 15:23
by KO Artist
Autobarn wrote:Sorry to sound like a doghouseboxing hyperlink...But I wasn't keen on comments made by Alex Arthur. Buchanan criticised Arthur for changing cornermen too much, for leaving it too long to go for a world title, that he's unlikely to win a title now, and that the "WBO Interim" belt AA will fight for isn't world class.
Arthur has said he's "very disappointed with Ken" and Warren says Ken's had his career and should let Alex get on with his.
Come again? Ken, a man who has fought Hall of Famers and won Real titles, seems to be right!
Why do SN and their fighters have to be so damn patronising with anyone who criticises them? It's like the Calzaghes when they ripped into Colin Jones.
Arthur will never be 50 % as good as Buchanan. How many rds could Arthur have gone with Ismael Laguna in Puerto Rico? 5? Arthur won't fight the elite of super feather.
Ken was, without doubt, a great fighter and IMO our greatest post war champion.
Alex is a very good level european fighter, bordering on the world class. He is also a very nice bloke.
It is a great shame that they are both lowering themselves to a slanging match.
Cant Mr Warren arrange a reconciliation between the two.
It would be good to have Ken ringside for Alex's challenge.
Posted: 04 Jul 2007, 15:29
by harrygreb
hmm, you may have a point but gomez should have been boxed out of the fight no matter how fired up he was. kevin lear would have beaten arthur.
Posted: 04 Jul 2007, 17:11
by silkov
Captain Hook wrote:I didn't doubt Ken's ability, so why mention his jockstrap?
I said Arthur has the tools to reach the top, which he has IMO.
You must be joking, the likes of Barrios and Guzman would murder him... just look at how Gomez bashed him up!.... Arthur is Europeon level at most.... I doubt he'll ever beat a truly world class fighter.....
Posted: 04 Jul 2007, 17:18
by silkov
KOJOE90 wrote:Buchanan made some fair comments about AA's career but he should have spoken to Alex directly and not to the press.
But if he's asked questions about fighters he's a right to give his opinions... Arthur never complained when Buchanan was praising him... Arthurs comments about Buchanan are out of order and Ken should wash his hands of him and not allow Arthur to get publicity off his back in the future...
Posted: 05 Jul 2007, 04:33
by Captain Hook
Based on what? Have you seen Arthur box, he has talent. And is a step or two above what he's faced so far. He got into the wrong fight against Gomez.
I've admitted he wouldn't beat a Pacquaio or Guzman, but I'd give him a shot against the others...
And reading back on what Arthur and co said about Ken, they only told him to mind his business, they didn't insult him.
Posted: 05 Jul 2007, 05:28
by Captain Hook
Exactly, he wouldn't be a lamb to the slaughter against any of the top 10, he'd give any of them a good fight....
Posted: 05 Jul 2007, 15:00
by silkov
Posted: 05 Jul 2007, 15:05
by silkov
Terry D wrote:I like AA and maybe Ken is not making a lot of money and a big of the green-eyed monster slipped into play.
Fair enough AA lost to Gomez but seemed to have learned a lesson and has looked well since.
I know that his weight struggle is no longer a big factor and like Old Bones Ian I give him a shot versus Guzman.
I love watching AA fight and hope he gets a shot soon. Stylish boxer and he seems a nice guy.
To say that Ken is jealous of Alex is rather short sighted I think!... for one thing Buchanan had a career that Arthur can only dream about and for another Ken has been a staunch Arthur supporter from early on and appeared at his fights and talked to him before fights, trying to give him encouragement and advise... hardly the behaviour of someone suffering from the greeneyed monster... its far more likely that Ken has become disilusioned at how Arthurs career is 'progressing' (which it isnt) and made these comments in the hope that it would help....
But to say Ken is jealous of Arthur is simply silly...
Posted: 05 Jul 2007, 16:56
by harrygreb
agree big time
Posted: 05 Jul 2007, 18:22
by chesh
Ditto
Posted: 05 Jul 2007, 18:50
by WildWaylon
Arthur didnt take Gomez seriously enough that night - Too much confidence was his downfall - He was the home fighter who couldnt lose - Not sure but I think Hatton played a big part and may have helped with his training for that fight - It was a loss that did him no good and I dont think he has found top gear since - Maybe Buchanan sees him as having made no progress since the Gomez fight.
Posted: 06 Jul 2007, 00:31
by Carbo
I don't see what the fuss is all about. Buchanan is 100 percent accurate in his assessment and, what's more, being one of the fines 5 boxers this country has ever produced, he has a right to say what he wants.
He's shared a ring and beaten Laguna and Ortiz, and would have taken the unstoppable Duran 15 if it hadn't been for a blatent and brutal low blow which Duran should have been disqualified for throwing.
F-cking hell, a past his peak Buchanan even beat Watt, who was a WBC lightweight champ in his time.
He can run the rule over Arthur's career as much as he wants, especially when he's right.
Posted: 06 Jul 2007, 04:34
by Captain Hook
Exactly, and nobody has an issue with that, but there are far too many Brits on here who spend all day fornicating slagging off British fighters.
Arthur is a good fighter, all he did is tell Ken Buchanan to mind his own business!
I'm not looking at him through rose-tinted specs either - very patronising.
Learn to deal with somebody having a different opinion
Posted: 06 Jul 2007, 05:28
by Captain Hook
Is Silkov a Scotsman?
I'd better stick with him as he's a fellow Celt
Posted: 06 Jul 2007, 06:11
by KOJOE90
silkov wrote:KOJOE90 wrote:Buchanan made some fair comments about AA's career but he should have spoken to Alex directly and not to the press.
But if he's asked questions about fighters he's a right to give his opinions... Arthur never complained when Buchanan was praising him... Arthurs comments about Buchanan are out of order and Ken should wash his hands of him and not allow Arthur to get publicity off his back in the future...
Of course Buchanan has the right to voice his opinions it's just a shame they they could not have sorted this out in private instead of a public fallout.
It's not as if Buchanan is an active fighter and a rival of Arthurs for World honours.
Posted: 06 Jul 2007, 07:05
by Carbo
But, chaps! Buchanan was probably contacted by a journalist and asked these questions. I'm sure he didn't suddenly decide to have a pop at Arthur and send out a press release.
He was obviously asked a series of questions about Arthur and, considering how fornicating great the man was, I think he has every right to answer them honestly.
I don't think former fighters can win. If they are circumspect we slag them for sitting on the fence, being bland and not telling it how it is. If they are honest and direct then we say it should be done in private.
And besides; does anyone actually disagree with what Buchanan said? I for one think he's pretty much spot on
