BoxRec

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.

Fair comment, Ken was a superb fighter, but I still feel Arthur has the tools to reach the top..

Captain Hook wrote:Fair comment, Ken was a superb fighter, but I still feel Arthur has the tools to reach the top..

Alex Arthur couldnt carry Ken Buchanan's jockstrap.

..with Scot Harrison to help.

Captain Hook wrote:Fair comment, Ken was a superb fighter, but I still feel Arthur has the tools to reach the top..

Personally, I don't. Arthur still telegraphs his punches & is easy to hit. He may be a force at European level but I doubt he makes it on the world scene.

Arthur would get mugged at world level. He still carries his chin too high.

He's a good solid British pro, with a legitimate case for a shot.

But put him in at elite level with the MAB, Pac, Guzman type fighters and he'd be broken up piece by piece.

He doesn't have the pop or the defence to succeed at that level.

Thats not to say he can't fight, because he can, he just isn't good enough to dislodge one of those guys.

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.

Captain Hook wrote:I said Arthur has the tools to reach the top, which he has IMO.

not the very top.

he wouldn't beat the best guys out there like marquez, pac or barrera.

How much longer will they be around for?

I totally agree he's not in the same league as Barrera, Pacman and Marquez, who will all be Hall of Famers, but besides them I'd give him a good shot against the others.....

Arthur is clearly better than the level he has fought at so far. I think he is capable of becoming a genuine contender on the world stage and should have been pushed there some time ago rather than being stage managed into a world shot at a weak champ/vacant belt.

He has been matched carefully since the Gomez loss - I think he'll come apart again if he is tagged hard.

He is a good fighter but Ken is right, he has changed cornermen too many times.

I got hold of Ken v Duran the other day for 99p, well chuffed.

Great fight....

Captain Hook wrote:I got hold of Ken v Duran the other day for 99p, well chuffed.

Great fight....

and ppl criticise Hatton for mugging and holding...IMO Duran made a poor spectacle of Buchanan and Leonard 1.

There are plenty at 130 that would dismantle Arthur - Pacman, Guzman, MArquez, MAB, Soto, Valero. Actually is Arthur even top10 at the weight?

Fair play, he hasn't got many fans on here has he?!

does anyone know much about the guy he's fighting for the vacant title?

If Ken was around today, he may well have made a top class super feather, with the day before weigh ins and rehydrating. Tell you what, with his speed and jabbing, I'd favor him against this brilliant lineup Morales, Barrera, Soto, Marquez and Pac. One thing is certain - he wouldn't have been calling out "the weakest of the super featherweight champions" (St Clair, Klassen, maybe Fana), or fighting for half of a WBO crown - he'd go for the very top.

for me a prime ken beats all those mentioned. gave arguably the greatest ever lightweight a match and a half and must be included in any top ten reckoning of that division. alex arthur? naaa

Arthur and SN should have taken Ken's criticism on the chin and determined to prove him wrong. Their sensitivity to his comments suggests they know he is telling the truth. But let's face it, not only is AA not in the same class as the Pacs, Barreras, Sotos etc., he'll never be allowed anywhere near them. Ken was in a different league and his comments are valid.

Autobarn wrote:If Ken was around today, he may well have made a top class super feather, with the day before weigh ins and rehydrating. Tell you what, with his speed and jabbing, I'd favor him against this brilliant lineup Morales, Barrera, Soto, Marquez and Pac. One thing is certain - he wouldn't have been calling out "the weakest of the super featherweight champions" (St Clair, Klassen, maybe Fana), or fighting for half of a WBO crown - he'd go for the very top.

But would he? I'm not doubting Ken's heart or ability, he's one of the top boxers Scotland have ever produced.
But if he was around nowadays, the oppertunty is there to earn very good money without fighting the best. with all these 'World Titles' about.

Arthur is talented and has been left to stagnate for too long. His wins over Sinitsin and Gulyakevitch were quality wins and he should have had a world title shot be now. Whya hasn't he? For anyone to pass Hrulov off as a world class is spin, Buchanan is right here and about the cornerman issue too.

Ken is right about the fact that Arthur has stagnated, left it too long, however you want to describe it. I think that's largely because of the way boxing is these days though, what with every show being dependent on TV dates. Compare what happened when Buchanan lost his first fight, to Arthur's loss to Gomez: Ken was back in the ring within a month, and then had another 4 fights before the year's end, one of which was the Laguna fight. Arthur was out of the ring for 5 months, and then didn't fight again for nearly 7 months after that. Fighters just don't fight often enough.

There can be no arguement that Ken Buchanan was true world class and belongs to the elite - You have to listen to him and respect his views - AA is a great boxer with loads of talent and a pleasure to watch but he cant be be compared to KB - Fringe world maybe but not up there with Guzman and co who I think would be just too much.

Phenomenal-Nutrition wrote:There are plenty at 130 that would dismantle Arthur - Pacman, Guzman, MArquez, MAB, Soto, Valero. Actually is Arthur even top10 at the weight?

Pac prefers untested and washed up Mexicans.

Anyone who can counter punch can beat Pac, ask Marquez.

Arthur is a good fighter who will never enter the world of Buchanan due to his management nevertheless his ability. By the same token Ken may reflect on his unlicensed days and wish he could have fought a Michael Kizza instead of a Carlos Ortiz in coming back from a career defining loss.

The crux of Arthur's loss to Gomez, from his perspective, came when he made a decision to engage in a slug-out. His height and defencive gap to the left hook were never going to favour him in that situation. If he is the level he believes he is you have got to question the tactical awareness, given how often he ate repeated left hooks from that (well known) crouch from 10 seconds after the first bell. It is hard to imagine a top world class fighter not adjusting to that within a few rounds if not immediately - never mind them throwing down their armour all together and going at it with little but a hot head. Point being: top world class fighters see the cool light of day even in such a furnace like the Meadowbank was that night. Let's not mention 100 degree outdoor heat in Puerto Rico.

But let's also not forget that Arthur did get his own share of digs in, showed a solid chin and much heart. His jab worked well at the sparse times he was able to establish it, and he picked off some nice shots against a constantly bobbing, marauding target. For lack of better phrasing, he showed 'low' world class in flashes. You could make the claim those flashes have grown - albeit quite slowly - more sustained in some of his subsequent fights.

But even if you look at the Gomez fight as a one off 'mental' loss it still stands as a blown up example of a weakness readily visible in other fights: when pushed back under pressure he seems to become a lot more hittable, even a bit shaky. The Ruiz and Burns fights spring to mind.

He is big and strong at the weight and likes a fight. He CAN slug. But even in his absolute best condition, against a crouching tiger with heart....

Well, let's imagine he is a contemporary of Ken Buchanan... who were the super-featherweight champions then... hmm... scanning for 'low' world class, beatable looking records..... how about this WBA guy, Kuniaki Shibita, wonder what he fights like?............