Duran - Buchanan Question.

[keithmoonhangover]

I was watching this fight again the other day. I'm not hating on Duran, he is an all time great and a much better boxer than Ken Buchanan, but here is my question.

How can someone win a fight when the last punch he landed was a clear low blow after the bell?

[raylawpc]

I was watching this fight again the other day. I'm not hating on Duran, he is an all time great and a much better boxer than Ken Buchanan, but here is my question.

How can someone win a fight when the last punch he landed was a clear low blow after the bell?

That's a question Ken Buchanan fans have been asking since 1972 . . .

Another question: Why did Buchanan never get a rematch? He was a top contender until 1975.

[Seamus]

Duran should have lost on a DQ.

[Counter-puncher]

I was watching this fight again the other day. I'm not hating on Duran, he is an all time great and a much better boxer than Ken Buchanan, but here is my question.

How can someone win a fight when the last punch he landed was a clear low blow after the bell?

That's a question Ken Buchanan fans have been asking since 1972 . . .

Another question: Why did Buchanan never get a rematch? He was a top contender until 1975.

this is a question for bennie, Ray.

i seem to recall reading that Buchanan wasn't, promotionally-speaking, very easy to deal with, or possibly he was badly-served in that regard. too much risk for too little reward maybe|?

[keithmoonhangover]

I was watching this fight again the other day. I'm not hating on Duran, he is an all time great and a much better boxer than Ken Buchanan, but here is my question.

How can someone win a fight when the last punch he landed was a clear low blow after the bell?

That's a question Ken Buchanan fans have been asking since 1972 . . .

Another question: Why did Buchanan never get a rematch? He was a top contender until 1975.

this is a question for bennie, Ray.

i seem to recall reading that Buchanan wasn't, promotionally-speaking, very easy to deal with, or possibly he was badly-served in that regard. too much risk for too little reward maybe|?

I can't imagine Mills Lane letting the fight end that way.

[klompton]

Unless you know nothing about boxing you should be able to answer this question yourself. You dont automatically get DQd on a low blow. Particularly not if you havent been warned. The fighter hit low is given time to recover. If he cant continue he loses. Period. Buchanan refused to come out, trying to milk what was a fairly light blow (and one which has never been established conclusively as being low), which was inflicted in a mixup after the bell (which Buchanan was readily a part of). Boggles the mind how people get so defensive over Buchanan-Duran, when Buchanan was CLEARLY losing the fight, was NOT going to win, was NOT going to win a rematch, and was never a better fighter than Duran. Buchanan knew what he was doing. He was getting beat, and pretty handily, and he was trying to take the easy way out win on a DQ, the only way he could have ever won. Its given his deluded fans something to gripe about for forty years now. Had he stayed on his feet for another couple of rounds nobody would be talking about Buchanan today and besides that one fact history would not have been altered one iota.

[keithmoonhangover]

Unless you know nothing about boxing you should be able to answer this question yourself. You dont automatically get DQd on a low blow. Particularly not if you havent been warned. The fighter hit low is given time to recover. If he cant continue he loses. Period. Buchanan refused to come out, trying to milk what was a fairly light blow (and one which has never been established conclusively as being low), which was inflicted in a mixup after the bell (which Buchanan was readily a part of). Boggles the mind how people get so defensive over Buchanan-Duran, when Buchanan was CLEARLY losing the fight, was NOT going to win, was NOT going to win a rematch, and was never a better fighter than Duran. Buchanan knew what he was doing. He was getting beat, and pretty handily, and he was trying to take the easy way out win on a DQ, the only way he could have ever won. Its given his deluded fans something to gripe about for forty years now. Had he stayed on his feet for another couple of rounds nobody would be talking about Buchanan today and besides that one fact history would not have been altered one iota.

Firstly, I'm not a Buchanan fan let alone a deluded fan.
In response.
Duran was warned.
The fighter should be given as much time as neccesary to recover - Buchanan got less than a miunute.
Buchanan 'milked' it. How do you know how much the blow did or did not effect him?
There's no need for your mind to boggle, as I am not defending Ken Buchanan.
I agree that Buchanan was clearly losing the fight and that is not something I am debating.
I also think he would have lost a rematch,
'Buchanan knew what he was doing' and 'trying to take the easy way out win on a DQ' again, that is just speculation.
Buchanan was hit with low blows in pretty much every round and unless you "know nothing about boxing" you would know that is against the rules.

[dempseyfire]

He should have been given 5 minutes to recover, although I'm not sure that rule existed in 1972 . . anyone know?

But he was getting beat handidly so I think the argument is fairly mute. Like people who claimed that Louis knocked Buddy Baer out after the bell . . that fight would've been stopped well before that bell by many refs, Baer was getting beat so badly . . what a non-controversey.

[raylawpc]

Unless you know nothing about boxing you should be able to answer this question yourself. You dont automatically get DQd on a low blow. Particularly not if you havent been warned. The fighter hit low is given time to recover. If he cant continue he loses. Period. Buchanan refused to come out, trying to milk what was a fairly light blow (and one which has never been established conclusively as being low), which was inflicted in a mixup after the bell (which Buchanan was readily a part of). Boggles the mind how people get so defensive over Buchanan-Duran, when Buchanan was CLEARLY losing the fight, was NOT going to win, was NOT going to win a rematch, and was never a better fighter than Duran. Buchanan knew what he was doing. He was getting beat, and pretty handily, and he was trying to take the easy way out win on a DQ, the only way he could have ever won. Its given his deluded fans something to gripe about for forty years now. Had he stayed on his feet for another couple of rounds nobody would be talking about Buchanan today and besides that one fact history would not have been altered one iota.

I'm not sure that was the rule in 1972. I'm too lazy to try to find the NYSAC rules from 1972, but I do remember guys losing on a low blow in some states back in the early 1970s. But you are right; Buchanan was clearly losing the fight. (However, think about the implications for the rematch if LoBianco had disqualified Duran. Can you imagine the build up for the rematch?? It would have been one of the mostly highly anticipated rematches in boxing history.)

I disagree with your comment about a rematch. Buchanan worked his way up to one of the top two contenders in his division as an ex-champion, and I think he clearly earned a shot. Going by your rational, Tunney should have never gotten a rematch with Greb, so badly beaten was he in the first fight. But he did, and he won.

[klompton]

No he didn't. He got a criminal gift decision thru the machinations of a manager he hired specifically for the purpose. A gift decision which was universally panned by non-core new York writers (most of shone were on the take). Horrible analogy anyway.

[Seamus]

Buchanan later said that he suffered permanent damage to his testicle from Duran's low blow in the 13th. Has anyone in the UK seen confirmation of this in the newspapers there ?

[SaadOffTheDeck]

That is certainly milking it.

[BoxBuzz]

FACT: Duran gave Buchanan a hyding
FACT: Low blow= bad
FACT: Shit happens.

[keithmoonhangover]

Buchanan later said that he suffered permanent damage to his testicle from Duran's low blow in the 13th. Has anyone in the UK seen confirmation of this in the newspapers there ?

I've heard Buchanan mention it in an interview and he would know better than the people on here. It was him who got punched in the knackers, so he'd know.

[klompton]

Buchanan can say anything he likes. Hes had forty years of complaining, something he has proven good at. But, the punch has never been conclusively proven to be low. What is known is that Buchanan was losing, in the last few rounds he was visibly tiring badly, hanging on, and getting tagged (and for the record he hits low in several of the clinches, which he was doing excessivly). Just prior to the low punch Buchanan was throwing everything he had left at Duran and Duran wasnt budging, he was right in Buchanans face. The bell rings and Buchanan keeps throwing. Nobody ever mentions it was Buchanan who instigated the after the bell fighting. Some are saying he should have been given time to recover BUT, there was never an opportunity. In between rounds, before the minutes rest was even up Lobianco stops the fight because Buchanan cant continue, Lobianco stated afterwards THERE WAS NO LOW BLOW. Buchanan immediately jumped up and began trying to get the ref to DQ Duran. He sure didnt look like he had a ruptured testical when he jumped up and started arguing with the ref to DQ Duran. In high school I saw a kid get kicked in the nuts during volleyball rupturing his testical and he was carried out of the gym 30 minutes later on a stretcher having been down on the floor in the fetal position the entire time crying. But Buchanan can just jump up and stand straight as an arrow and argue with the ref like nothing despite being so severely injured. Come on...

[keithmoonhangover]

Buchanan can say anything he likes. Hes had forty years of complaining, something he has proven good at. But, the punch has never been conclusively proven to be low. What is known is that Buchanan was losing, in the last few rounds he was visibly tiring badly, hanging on, and getting tagged (and for the record he hits low in several of the clinches, which he was doing excessivly). Just prior to the low punch Buchanan was throwing everything he had left at Duran and Duran wasnt budging, he was right in Buchanans face. The bell rings and Buchanan keeps throwing. Nobody ever mentions it was Buchanan who instigated the after the bell fighting. Some are saying he should have been given time to recover BUT, there was never an opportunity. In between rounds, before the minutes rest was even up Lobianco stops the fight because Buchanan cant continue, Lobianco stated afterwards THERE WAS NO LOW BLOW. Buchanan immediately jumped up and began trying to get the ref to DQ Duran. He sure didnt look like he had a ruptured testical when he jumped up and started arguing with the ref to DQ Duran. In high school I saw a kid get kicked in the nuts during volleyball rupturing his testical and he was carried out of the gym 30 minutes later on a stretcher having been down on the floor in the fetal position the entire time crying. But Buchanan can just jump up and stand straight as an arrow and argue with the ref like nothing despite being so severely injured. Come on...

Make your mind up mate.

[keithmoonhangover]

FACT: Duran gave Buchanan a hyding
FACT: Low blow= bad
FACT: Shit happens.

So it's OK to land as many low blows as you like?

[klompton]

Oh excuse me, for all the literalists... and defensive brits: alleged low blow

[klompton]

Buchanan later said that he suffered permanent damage to his testicle from Duran's low blow in the 13th. Has anyone in the UK seen confirmation of this in the newspapers there ?

I've heard Buchanan mention it in an interview and he would know better than the people on here. It was him who got punched in the knackers, so he'd know.

He would also be the one who would have the most to gain by lying about it.

[keithmoonhangover]

Buchanan later said that he suffered permanent damage to his testicle from Duran's low blow in the 13th. Has anyone in the UK seen confirmation of this in the newspapers there ?

I've heard Buchanan mention it in an interview and he would know better than the people on here. It was him who got punched in the knackers, so he'd know.

He would also be the one who would have the most to gain by lying about it.

Just admit it, Duran landed at least 10 low blows, including one after the bell, as well as elbows and heads.

[raylawpc]

No he didn't. He got a criminal gift decision thru the machinations of a manager he hired specifically for the purpose. A gift decision which was universally panned by non-core new York writers (most of shone were on the take). Horrible analogy anyway.

How is it a horrible analogy? Because it refutes your thesis?

As far as I know, Tunney still has the "W" on this record. But that wasn't the point: If you disqualify a fighter from a rematch by how bad a beating he took in the first fight - as you suggest was appropriate in Buchanan's case - then Tunney would never have received his rematch.

(And, actually, the New York writers were split on the correctness of the Tunney-Greb II decision - 4 for Tunney; 4 for Greb; 5 calling it a draw. Source: New York Tribune. Two prominent New York writers, Grantland Rice and Hype Igoe, favored Tunney. The Pittsburgh writers, however, universally wrote that Greb won. Who's prejudiced now?)

[klompton]

No he didn't. He got a criminal gift decision thru the machinations of a manager he hired specifically for the purpose. A gift decision which was universally panned by non-core new York writers (most of shone were on the take). Horrible analogy anyway.

How is it a horrible analogy? Because it refutes your thesis?

As far as I know, Tunney still has the "W" on this record. But that wasn't the point: If you disqualify a fighter from a rematch by how bad a beating he took in the first fight - as you suggest was appropriate in Buchanan's case - then Tunney would never have received his rematch.

(And, actually, the New York writers were split on the correctness of the Tunney-Greb II decision - 4 for Tunney; 4 for Greb; 5 calling it a draw. Source: New York Tribune. Two prominent New York writers, Grantland Rice and Hype Igoe, favored Tunney. The Pittsburgh writers, however, universally wrote that Greb won. Who's prejudiced now?)

You are wrong in so many ways: First Buchanan was never as good as Tunney, nor did he show anything afterwards that would lead anyone to favor him over Duran. Greb was an aging fighter past his prime who was blind in one eye and fighting 17 pounds north of his natural weight class whereas Duran was in his prime and just at the beginning of a legendary run. Furthermore, Grantland Rice DID NOT vote for Tunney. In fact he called it a poor decision in his column for the New York Tribune. Furthermore, your little quote (which you stole from Jack Cavanaugh's bio on Tunney) about four newspapers voting for Greb and four for Tunney. was actually an incorrect quote from the New York Trib by Cavanaugh. You see Ive actually done my due diligence and the poll Cavanaugh INCORRECTLY quoted stated that FIVE papers voted for Greb, THREE to Tunney, with FOUR voting a draw. BUT, lets not stop there. Ive surveyed 32 newspapers (maybe more at this point) who had a writer present at the fight. Of those 32 only only six voted for Tunney. All of those six coming from the core of New York City proper (Tunneys Hometown) writers like James Dawson et al who were known to be on the take and write favorably for the highest bidder. Not a single paper outside of New York voted for Tunney, and thats not reserved to Pittsburgh. That includes Newark, Jersey City, Staten Island, Pittsburgh and many others. If you wanna leave hometown newspapers for both fighters out of the equation NOT A SINGLE PAPER VOTED FOR TUNNEY. You wanna argue history with me particularly as it pertains to Greb? You better hit the books and do better than a flawed piece of work like Jack Cavanaugh...

[raylawpc]

No he didn't. He got a criminal gift decision thru the machinations of a manager he hired specifically for the purpose. A gift decision which was universally panned by non-core new York writers (most of shone were on the take). Horrible analogy anyway.

How is it a horrible analogy? Because it refutes your thesis?

As far as I know, Tunney still has the "W" on this record. But that wasn't the point: If you disqualify a fighter from a rematch by how bad a beating he took in the first fight - as you suggest was appropriate in Buchanan's case - then Tunney would never have received his rematch.

(And, actually, the New York writers were split on the correctness of the Tunney-Greb II decision - 4 for Tunney; 4 for Greb; 5 calling it a draw. Source: New York Tribune. Two prominent New York writers, Grantland Rice and Hype Igoe, favored Tunney. The Pittsburgh writers, however, universally wrote that Greb won. Who's prejudiced now?)

You are wrong in so many ways: First Buchanan was never as good as Tunney, nor did he show anything afterwards that would lead anyone to favor him over Duran. Greb was an aging fighter past his prime who was blind in one eye and fighting 17 pounds north of his natural weight class whereas Duran was in his prime and just at the beginning of a legendary run. Furthermore, Grantland Rice DID NOT vote for Tunney. In fact he called it a poor decision in his column for the New York Tribune. Furthermore, your little quote (which you stole from Jack Cavanaugh's bio on Tunney) about four newspapers voting for Greb and four for Tunney. was actually an incorrect quote from the New York Trib by Cavanaugh. You see Ive actually done my due diligence and the poll Cavanaugh INCORRECTLY quoted stated that FIVE papers voted for Greb, THREE to Tunney, with FOUR voting a draw. BUT, lets not stop there. Ive surveyed 32 newspapers (maybe more at this point) who had a writer present at the fight. Of those 32 only only six voted for Tunney. All of those six coming from the core of New York City proper (Tunneys Hometown) writers like James Dawson et al who were known to be on the take and write favorably for the highest bidder. Not a single paper outside of New York voted for Tunney, and thats not reserved to Pittsburgh. That includes Newark, Jersey City, Staten Island, Pittsburgh and many others. If you wanna leave hometown newspapers for both fighters out of the equation NOT A SINGLE PAPER VOTED FOR TUNNEY. You wanna argue history with me particularly as it pertains to Greb? You better hit the books and do better than a flawed piece of work like Jack Cavanaugh...

Congratulations on your thorough research on Harry Greb.

But you miss the point: After losing the Duran fight, Buchanan won 13 straight fights, picked up the British and European titles, and was never ranked world-wide lower than 3rd (if I remember correctly). Yet, according to Buchanan, he never got close to a rematch with Duran. My question is: Why?

Your reason: Because he lost the first fight in rather convincing fashion. Sorry, but that doesn't fly. By 1974, he certainly had done enough to merit a rematch.

I think Duran is an ATG lightweight. But I also think two of the biggest blemishes on Duran's record are his failure to give Buchanan a rematch, or engage in a unification fight with El Gato Gonzalez. El Gato told me at the 2009 CBHOF banquet that they did everything in their power to lure Duran into a unification bout, but Duran's people always refused. I think El Gato would have given Duran a great fight.

[keithmoonhangover]

How is it a horrible analogy? Because it refutes your thesis?

As far as I know, Tunney still has the "W" on this record. But that wasn't the point: If you disqualify a fighter from a rematch by how bad a beating he took in the first fight - as you suggest was appropriate in Buchanan's case - then Tunney would never have received his rematch.

(And, actually, the New York writers were split on the correctness of the Tunney-Greb II decision - 4 for Tunney; 4 for Greb; 5 calling it a draw. Source: New York Tribune. Two prominent New York writers, Grantland Rice and Hype Igoe, favored Tunney. The Pittsburgh writers, however, universally wrote that Greb won. Who's prejudiced now?)

You are wrong in so many ways: First Buchanan was never as good as Tunney, nor did he show anything afterwards that would lead anyone to favor him over Duran. Greb was an aging fighter past his prime who was blind in one eye and fighting 17 pounds north of his natural weight class whereas Duran was in his prime and just at the beginning of a legendary run. Furthermore, Grantland Rice DID NOT vote for Tunney. In fact he called it a poor decision in his column for the New York Tribune. Furthermore, your little quote (which you stole from Jack Cavanaugh's bio on Tunney) about four newspapers voting for Greb and four for Tunney. was actually an incorrect quote from the New York Trib by Cavanaugh. You see Ive actually done my due diligence and the poll Cavanaugh INCORRECTLY quoted stated that FIVE papers voted for Greb, THREE to Tunney, with FOUR voting a draw. BUT, lets not stop there. Ive surveyed 32 newspapers (maybe more at this point) who had a writer present at the fight. Of those 32 only only six voted for Tunney. All of those six coming from the core of New York City proper (Tunneys Hometown) writers like James Dawson et al who were known to be on the take and write favorably for the highest bidder. Not a single paper outside of New York voted for Tunney, and thats not reserved to Pittsburgh. That includes Newark, Jersey City, Staten Island, Pittsburgh and many others. If you wanna leave hometown newspapers for both fighters out of the equation NOT A SINGLE PAPER VOTED FOR TUNNEY. You wanna argue history with me particularly as it pertains to Greb? You better hit the books and do better than a flawed piece of work like Jack Cavanaugh...

Congratulations on your thorough research on Harry Greb.

But you miss the point: After losing the Duran fight, Buchanan won 13 straight fights, picked up the British and European titles, and was never ranked world-wide lower than 3rd (if I remember correctly). Yet, according to Buchanan, he never got close to a rematch with Duran. My question is: Why?

Your reason: Because he lost the first fight in rather convincing fashion. Sorry, but that doesn't fly. By 1974, he certainly had done enough to merit a rematch.

I think Duran is an ATG lightweight. But I also think two of the biggest blemishes on Duran's record are his failure to give Buchanan a rematch, or engage in a unification fight with El Gato Gonzalez. El Gato told me at the 2009 CBHOF banquet that they did everything in their power to lure Duran into a unification bout, but Duran's people always refused. I think El Gato would have given Duran a great fight.

I agree. Ali gave rematches to people he beat convincingly.

[klompton]

You mean like Terrell who he unified with? Or were you referring to foreman? He'll even when he rematched Patterson and chuvalo it was for tuneups not because people were actually calling for those fights. I don't recall any ground swell of support for a rematch outside of the uk if there was any there.