BoxRec

Should he be in the top 10?

Top 15-20 at least...?

Here is my current Top 10 list of 135'ers.

1.Henry Armstrong
2.Roberto Duran
3.Julio Ceasar Chavez
4.Pernell Whittaker
5.Benny Leonard
6.Ike Williams
7.Floyd Mayweather Jr
8.Carlos Ortiz
9.Jack Blackburn
10.Ken Buchanan

Top 10 seems quite clear cut.
Rating beyond that seems alot trickier.
Candidates for the 11-20'ish slot would include...

-Alexis Arguello
-Shane Mosely
-Estaban DeJesus
-Ismael Laguna
-Hector Camacho
-Edwin Rosario
-Juan Manual Marquez
-Freddie Welsh
-Lew Tendler
-Tony Canzoneri
-Livingstone Bramble
-Philip Holiday
-Ivan Robinson
-Vinny Pazienza
-Greg Haugen
-Jim Watt
-Sean O'Grady
-Hilmer Kenty
-Ray Mancini
-Howard Davis Jr

Henry Armstrong could never be #1 at lightweight. He has to pass the greats Benny Leonard, Ike Williams, Pernell Whitaker, Carlos Ortiz and Joe Gans at least.

I consider Ken Buchanan among the 20 top best lightweights of all-time. He got the credentials.

Since Armstrong fought many of his best fights weighing at or below the LW limit, I don't think it's very far fecthed to rate him as the best LW ever.

Dave Holly probably deserves a mention in the top 20.

Neither Mayweather nor Buchanan should be in the top 10 lightweights of all time (Buchanan would make my top 20 though).

Freddie Welsh and Tony Canzoneri in 11-20 somewhere with Sean O'Grady, Vinny Pazienza and Greg Haugen??? Where are Joe Brown, Lou Ambers, and Joe Gans? With all respect, I would suggest studying the history of the division a little more.

elmersalsa wrote:Henry Armstrong could never be #1 at lightweight. He has to pass the greats Benny Leonard, Ike Williams, Pernell Whitaker, Carlos Ortiz and Joe Gans at least.

I consider Ken Buchanan among the 20 top best lightweights of all-time. He got the credentials.

Joe Brown, Joe Gans, Lou Ambers.

I knew i was forgetting a few.

8)

He's not a top tenner IMO. Good, solid fighter, but not one of the greats IMO.

Anyway, here's a rough estimate of what my top 10 lightweights probably looks like:

1) Leonard
2) Armstrong
3) Whitaker
4) Williams
5) Duran
6) Arguello
7) Ross
8) Gans
9) Ortiz
10) Canzoneri

Runners-up: Ambers, Mosley

I agree completely about Buchanan, and I know the man...
Great list though 2sense, however as I rate on who is 'most likely' to beat each other more often than not, I'd rate Canzoneri 3rd with Williams, Ross and Gans, hard to split that bunch though, but well above the rest, certainly over Whitiker and company.

periods should take place over general achievement.

Buchanan was about even with Laguna and DeJesus. Not many people rate them in the Top 20, let alone the Top 10. When you think of all of the great lightweights in history, Top 30 is being generous.

jimglen wrote:I agree completely about Buchanan, and I know the man...
Great list though 2sense, however as I rate on who is 'most likely' to beat each other more often than not, I'd rate Canzoneri 3rd with Williams, Ross and Gans, hard to split that bunch though, but well above the rest, certainly over Whitiker and company.

periods should take place over general achievement.

2nd best boxer from Scotland................................... after you know who

A Buchanan-Mosley pairing would have been intriguing viewing...

Mosley did NOTHING at 135 to be in the discussion of greatest lightweights ever. Excellent fighter, but all his big wins were at 147.

That being said, I agree a hypthetical Mosley-Buchanan matchup is intriguing.

Ambling Alp wrote:Buchanan was about even with Laguna and DeJesus. Not many people rate them in the Top 20, let alone the Top 10. When you think of all of the great lightweights in history, Top 30 is being generous.

I could see Ken Buchanan in the top 20 lightweights of all-time Alp...He was an excellent fighter.

Forgetting a few is a classic understatement. No lightweight top list is complete
without JOE BROWN. On his best day, Brown could beat all of the past lightweight champions.

That's sort of why I think. If you are going to say a guy is an All-time Great, you have to think of all of the other All-time Greats. I think people say "so and so is one of the Top 20" or something like that without actually of all of the others that were better.

The lightweights that are certainly better than Buchanan:
Gans, Leonard, Duran, Armstrong, Ross, Whitaker, Welsh,McFarland, Ambers, Williams, Ortiz,Brown, Angott, Mandell, Canzoneri, Jack, Arguello, Wolgast, Chavez, Nelson, Erne, Lavigne, Petrolle, Holly, Blackburn, and Camacho.

That's 26 guys right there. There is no way that Buchanan deserves to be Top 20.

I would also rate Mayweather, Mosely and De la Hoya higher, but I guess some people wouldn't.

Buchanan is about even with:
Singer, Jurita, DeJesus, Laguna, Carter, Rosario, and Ramirez.

I would put Buchanan slightly higher than Ritchie, Mancini, Bramble, Pazienza, Haugen, Castillo among othersxx. You certainly could make a decent argument for these guys being better than Buchanan.
I'm sure there a few other guys at around this level as well.

Realistically, even if you give Buchanan the benefit of the doubt in every close case, he still isn't higher than #27.

It's a stretch to put Buchanan in the Top 30. You could easily not have Buchanan in the top 40.

I'd also put Rocky Kansas, one of the most underrated fighters of all time, above Buchanan.

Nothing against Buchanan, but like all the original 8 weight classes, there's a heck of alot of talent at Lightweight.

Ambling Alp wrote:
The lightweights that are certainly better than Buchanan:
Gans, Leonard, Duran, Armstrong, Ross, Whitaker, Welsh,McFarland, Ambers, Williams, Ortiz,Brown, Angott, Mandell, Canzoneri, Jack, Arguello, Wolgast, Chavez, Nelson, Erne, Lavigne, Petrolle, Holly, Blackburn, and Camacho.

That's 26 guys right there. There is no way that Buchanan deserves to be Top 20.

It's a division with real depth as the orignal poster belatedly recognised.

Of your list list and only going on what they did at 135, I'd say Arguello and Camacho are possibly not total shoe-ins over Buchanan.

But I do agree that Ken is going it a bit for top 20 of all time.

He was a lovely technician though and had some excellent wins. Coming in at top 30 in that awesome division is no disgrace. Had he not run into one of the best ever at 135 he would probably be better regarded. But he did and the rest is history.

Also, if you ever get a chance sit down and score his fight with Guts Ishimatsu. There is a lovely copy doing the rounds recently replayed by Jap TV. It's a good old scrap.

Zelley wrote:Forgetting a few is a classic understatement. No lightweight top list is complete
without JOE BROWN. On his best day, Brown could beat all of the past lightweight champions.

Nice pick, definately the great Joe Brown is top 10 lightweight best all-time

Ambling Alp wrote:That's sort of why I think. If you are going to say a guy is an All-time Great, you have to think of all of the other All-time Greats. I think people say "so and so is one of the Top 20" or something like that without actually of all of the others that were better.

The lightweights that are certainly better than Buchanan:
Gans, Leonard, Duran, Armstrong, Ross, Whitaker, Welsh,McFarland, Ambers, Williams, Ortiz,Brown, Angott, Mandell, Canzoneri, Jack, Arguello, Wolgast, Chavez, Nelson, Erne, Lavigne, Petrolle, Holly, Blackburn, and Camacho.

That's 26 guys right there. There is no way that Buchanan deserves to be Top 20.

I would also rate Mayweather, Mosely and De la Hoya higher, but I guess some people wouldn't.

Buchanan is about even with:
Singer, Jurita, DeJesus, Laguna, Carter, Rosario, and Ramirez.

I would put Buchanan slightly higher than Ritchie, Mancini, Bramble, Pazienza, Haugen, Castillo among othersxx. You certainly could make a decent argument for these guys being better than Buchanan.
I'm sure there a few other guys at around this level as well.

Realistically, even if you give Buchanan the benefit of the doubt in every close case, he still isn't higher than #27.

It's a stretch to put Buchanan in the Top 30. You could easily not have Buchanan in the top 40.

No way Alp, no way...Ken Buchanan got credentials to be with top 20 greatest lightweights. NO doubt about it. Hector "Macho" Camacho, Alexis Arguello, nor Julio Cesar Chavez were not great lightweights. They did not had enough fights at 135 lbs. Buchanan had at least 60 fights at 135 lbs. Was Britain, Europe and World Lightweight Champion and in his prime, he only lost to 2 fighters, one of them was the great Roberto Duran.

Battling Nelson, Kid Lavigne and Frank Erne were good, but not as good as Buchanan. Nelson had too many losses. Erne was flatten in one round in the rematch against the great Joe Gans. Lavingne? what did he do? Let's see his record carefully. Oscar De La Hoya was not a great lightweight. Neither PBF. They, like Arguello and Chavez, did not had enough fights at 135lbs.

I could see Shane Mosley with the top 20 lightweights. If you say that Shane was better than Buchanan, I could live with that. But Buchanan was definately a top 20 lightweight great. Let's look at his record.

Hello Guys
I agree Ken Buchanan should not be regarded as a top 20 LW taking into consideration the competition he is up against. But i still wish Ken had got the return fight with Duran that he deserved. I am not surprised that Buchanan never forgave Duran for it, although of course it was Roberto's handlers that would not make the match up.

Also when Duran won his title Rodolfo Gonzalez the WBC champ's manager Jacky McCoy tried to make a match up in a decider. But Duran's team did not want it. There answer to Gonzalez camp was. "You keep your title we will keep ours" Duran of course would have fought anyone but his team thought the hard punching Gonzalez was a little to big a risk to take at that stage of the young Duran's career.

I don't agree in nothing of the above post.

elmersalsa wrote:I don't agree in nothing of the above post.

No body asked you to ;;-)

LMAO at Buchanan only being slightly better than Greg haugen.

Ignorance at its best.

Two distinct camps here. I think Collins has it about right.

I didn't mean to say he was a stiff or anything like that. It's just that he wasn't close to being an all time great.
You have to consider all of the other guys mentioned and their positives and negatives.
Then look at Buchanan and do the same. I just don't see how how a guy whose biggest wins (by far) were debatable decisions over Laguna can be that high.
No one seems to rate Laguna that high; it just doesn't seem right that Buchanan should be rated that high either.