Page 1 of 1
Duran v Buchanan - The Low Blow
Posted: 11 Nov 2017, 11:04
by nobleart1978
We all know what happened on the night.
What should have happened is:
1 Referee LoBianco should have ascertained that Duran HAD fouled Buchanan
2 LoBianco should have given Buchanan five minutes recovery time
3 LoBianco should have the deducted a point from Duran thus scoring the completed 13th round "Even"
4 It is likely that Buchanan would have carried on fighting and gone on to lose by decision
What would have happened if Buchanan had been given the five minutes respite and then told the ref that he could not continue.
Would Buchanan retain his title by DQ ?
Re: Duran v Buchanan - The Low Blow
Posted: 11 Nov 2017, 12:22
by BroughtonRulesRefuge
nobleart1978 wrote: ↑11 Nov 2017, 11:04
We all know what happened on the night.
What should have happened is:
1 Referee LoBianco should have ascertained that Duran HAD fouled Buchanan
2 LoBianco should have given Buchanan five minutes recovery time
3 LoBianco should have the deducted a point from Duran thus scoring the completed 13th round "Even"
4 It is likely that Buchanan would have carried on fighting and gone on to lose by decision
What would have happened if Buchanan had been given the five minutes respite and then told the ref that he could not continue.
Would Buchanan retain his title by DQ ?
- Typical revisionist history that is otherwise irrefutable by the video.
Duran was winning the fight handily was the backdrop when the bell rang to finish the round, hence the ultimate decision to award him the fight. However, they were in the middle of a huge flurry with Buch backed to the ropes and they BOTH continued without interruption for about 5 sec before Duran ended it with the lowblow, so they were 5 seconds into CO-FOULING each other, so the notion that Duran was somehow at fault when the ref refused to do his job by ending the round by intervention. That's always tricky because refs do catch some shots and have been knocked out, but technically, at this point with both fouling each other without intervention, he was a fault, but it's a minor fault compared to fraudulent ministrations done by refs in this era that have clearly been recorded in the public sphere.
Basically, rather than fight under protest, Buch quit by refusing to come out. I would've liked the rematch, and can't say why it didn't happen, but bottomline is Buch got beat up, lowblow or not, by a young up and comer who was only gonna knock Buch out in the rematch.
Re: Duran v Buchanan - The Low Blow
Posted: 11 Nov 2017, 15:07
by Kalan
golden oldie wrote: ↑11 Nov 2017, 11:54
I was under the impression that Lo Bianco was inadvertently responsible for the low blow. Duran threw the punch as the bell went and Lo Bianco tried to grap Duran, and this action caused the punch to go low.
If that is true, then the only penalty against Duran is possibly hitting after the bell.
They both hit after the bell.. Buchanan first and then Duran responded.. Buchanan appeared to be faking it with all the pain and suffering due to the low blow.. A real De La Hoya like acting job that rarely gets sympathy -- like flopping in Basketball when you're barely touched to draw a foul call.. I would have given him 5 minutes rest because a low blow did land.. Give the fruit-ball his 5 minutes -- which would include the 1 minute rest and an additional 4 minutes if he "needed" it.. It was a good fight so let it go 15 rounds.. Duran could continue his assault after a nice rest.
Re: Duran v Buchanan - The Low Blow
Posted: 11 Nov 2017, 21:28
by Tinnie
BroughtonRulesRefuge wrote: ↑11 Nov 2017, 12:22
nobleart1978 wrote: ↑11 Nov 2017, 11:04
We all know what happened on the night.
What should have happened is:
1 Referee LoBianco should have ascertained that Duran HAD fouled Buchanan
2 LoBianco should have given Buchanan five minutes recovery time
3 LoBianco should have the deducted a point from Duran thus scoring the completed 13th round "Even"
4 It is likely that Buchanan would have carried on fighting and gone on to lose by decision
What would have happened if Buchanan had been given the five minutes respite and then told the ref that he could not continue.
Would Buchanan retain his title by DQ ?
- Typical revisionist history that is otherwise irrefutable by the video.
Duran was winning the fight handily was the backdrop when the bell rang to finish the round, hence the ultimate decision to award him the fight. However, they were in the middle of a huge flurry with Buch backed to the ropes and they BOTH continued without interruption for about 5 sec before Duran ended it with the lowblow, so they were 5 seconds into CO-FOULING each other, so the notion that Duran was somehow at fault when the ref refused to do his job by ending the round by intervention. That's always tricky because refs do catch some shots and have been knocked out, but technically, at this point with both fouling each other without intervention, he was a fault, but it's a minor fault compared to fraudulent ministrations done by refs in this era that have clearly been recorded in the public sphere.
Basically, rather than fight under protest, Buch quit by refusing to come out. I would've liked the rematch, and can't say why it didn't happen, but bottomline is Buch got beat up, lowblow or not, by a young up and comer who was only gonna knock Buch out in the rematch.
I seem to recall in one of his bio's Ken said he was offered a rematch in Panama, but he turned it down, saying with 2 Panamanian judges he was afraid of being robbed in a hometown decision. I like Ken as a boxer, but when things didnt go his way he blamed everyone but himself. He never did let that Duran thing go.
Re: Duran v Buchanan - The Low Blow
Posted: 11 Nov 2017, 21:38
by Kalan
nobleart1978 wrote: ↑11 Nov 2017, 11:04
We all know what happened on the night.
What should have happened is:
1 Referee LoBianco should have ascertained that Duran HAD fouled Buchanan
2 LoBianco should have given Buchanan five minutes recovery time
3 LoBianco should have the deducted a point from Duran thus scoring the completed 13th round "Even"
4 It is likely that Buchanan would have carried on fighting and gone on to lose by decision
What would have happened if Buchanan had been given the five minutes respite and then told the ref that he could not continue.
Would Buchanan retain his title by DQ ?
No...if you can't continue after the 5 minutes rest you lose.. The 5 minute rule is a compromise they put in to stop fighters from faking fouls -- like Montel Griffin successfully did in his 1st fight with Roy Jones.. I think the rule was put in way before then.. Roy was pissed in their rematch.
Re: Duran v Buchanan - The Low Blow
Posted: 14 Nov 2017, 13:16
by APerno
Re: Duran v Buchanan - The Low Blow
Posted: 17 Nov 2017, 14:45
by Sidney Carton
Buchanan got the sh*t beat out of him.
He had no offense to offer.
Re: Duran v Buchanan - The Low Blow
Posted: 17 Nov 2017, 14:59
by handsofstone
Regardless if Duran was winning the fight, the shot was low and after the bell, you cant win by TKO with an illegal shot, if Flores was the champ when Rigondeaux TKO'd him then no way Rigo would've been allowed to keep the title
Re: Duran v Buchanan - The Low Blow
Posted: 17 Nov 2017, 19:48
by APerno
Watched the replay yesterday, can barely see the the low blow, and the referee,when questioned about stopping the fight, contradicts himself, but most importantly did anyone notice that Duran's people's jackets read "Rocky Duran" ? I never heard of Duran campaigning with the nickname "Rocky."
Re: Duran v Buchanan - The Low Blow
Posted: 17 Nov 2017, 21:11
by elmersalsa
Ken Buchanan is 5'9" or 5'10". Not 5'7".
Re: Duran v Buchanan - The Low Blow
Posted: 18 Nov 2017, 03:31
by APerno
elmersalsa wrote: ↑17 Nov 2017, 21:11Ken Buchanan is 5'9" or 5'10". Not 5'7".
It is hard to see but this pic seems to support the height difference you are referring to; I don't think we have yet found a tale-of-the-tape that hasn't been wrong on at least one measurement, but height, that's an obvious miss.
Unless they have Duran standing a hole, the juxtaposition of their eyes suggests a 5' 9'' or 5' 10" Buchanan
