Poll: Did Duran Win The Lightweight Title Fairly?

[StarshipTrooper]

OK? Had nothing to do with my last post. Try again.

And the confusion on your part continues....

Naw, bringing up the race paper was just incidental. Tell me another one dude.

Or perhaps you have a hard time comprehending it simply isn't good writing to write "In my opinion" all the time when stating opinions. If it's obvious that it's an opinion, one should simply state what the opinion is. Go back to High School.

When I want your opinion I'll give it to you. I prefer to deal in what people know and they can check their biases at the door: I don't want to hear them.

I understand you dislike me. That's fine. A lot of people online do.

As evidenced by your red bar. Most people don't care for those who make out like they actually KNOW something but can only give biased opinions they pulled out of their anuses.

Anyways, I'm not going back and forth with you on this anymore. I have all the proof in the world to demonstrate I'm not an idiot. But for whatever reason your intrinsic prejudice won't allow you to investigate further.

Hello? Einstein? Anyone home? You haven't figured out yet that I don't talk TO you I talk AT you? Why on Earth would I bother even trying to have anything remotely resembling an intelligent conversation with someone as confused as you are regarding the difference between "opinions" (which like all opinions are full of ****) and facts.

Poet

[Thread Stealer]

No.

Duran was definitely winning, but a foul is a foul, even in retaliation, and you shouldn't win on a shot to the nuts.

See the 1:30 mark for a better angle than the usual one shown.



Buchanan deserved a rematch given the way the fight ended. Carlos Eleta wasn't too thrilled at that notion. Buchanan said he felt Duran was someone who was willing to fight anyone, so he blamed it on Duran's team, not Duran himself.

[Obama]

Naw, bringing up the race paper was just incidental. Tell me another one dude.




When I want your opinion I'll give it to you. I prefer to deal in what people know and they can check their biases at the door: I don't want to hear them.




As evidenced by your red bar. Most people don't care for those who make out like they actually KNOW something but can only give biased opinions they pulled out of their anuses.




Hello? Einstein? Anyone home? You haven't figured out yet that I don't talk TO you I talk AT you? Why on Earth would I bother even trying to have anything remotely resembling an intelligent conversation with someone as confused as you are regarding the difference between "opinions" (which like all opinions are full of ****) and facts.

Poet

Translation:

I don't understand you. I don't want to understand you. And because I don't understand you, you must be an idiot.

If anyone ignores facts and is driven by bias, it's you.

[mickey malone]

Duran was winning the fight when Buchanan threw punches after the bell and Duran responded with a punch that went low. Ken couldn't recover and continue in time and Duran was rightfully given the win, in my opinion.

There should have been a rematch for sure but it never happened. Duran's management may have avoided an immediate match-up with Buchanan but they did eventually offer him a rematch, which Buchanan declined.

Buchanan turned down a rematch!
Wow, that's surprising.. Do you know how soon afterwards, was he offered the rematch?

[TheGreatA]

All I know is Jack Sharkey wishes he fought Max Schmeling in 1972 instead of 1930.

I pretty much count that as a win for Sharkey and the rematch as a win for Schmeling. May sound silly but that's how I see it.

[TheGreatA]

Buchanan turned down a rematch!
Wow, that's surprising.. Do you know how soon afterwards, was he offered the rematch?

I know that he was offered a fight with Duran when he had lost a close decision to Guts Ishimatsu in Japan, maybe earlier. Buchanan chose to retire.

The referee defended his decision by saying that Buchanan couldn't answer the bell for round 14.

[BennyST]

Yeah, sad situation. There was no way Buchanan was going to win the fight, and I don't think he would have stood much of a chance in the rematch considering how brutally he was beaten in the first fight. Buchanan had never been beaten like that in his career.

But, at the same time, it was a foul and at the least there should have been a rematch clause in Buchanan's contract which then could have given him his second shot. The ref genuinely thought that Buchanan was just trying to get out of the fight because he said he didn't see the low blow, hence he gave the decision to Duran.

It should have been ruled a LB, Buchanan given a five minute break and then resumed. It's a pity that Buchanan wasn't given his rematch though as he was a truly great champion who, at the very least, deserved that much but by the time he was offered the rematch a couple of years later he was considering retiring.

It would have been a good rematch even though he would have lost again because he was such a tough bastard. I wish he had been able to get another title shot earlier against the other belt holder (Gonzalez at the time, then Ishimatsu who knocked him out twice), which could have set up a great rematch to unify, which ended being how the De Jesus trilogy worked anyway, so we at least got our great trilogy and unification fights.

Still, when all's said and done, Buchanan was an amazing champ/HOF and deserved better than having his title taken off him by bad refereeing. He was never going to win the fight, but at least he could have finished it after getting a rest for the LB.

For what it's worth, I really don't think it was at all intentional either. He had just slipped under a punch and threw an uppercut a bit too close, which hit before the intended impact moment on Buchanan's thigh. It didn't actually hit him right in the nuts as most thought. It was on top of his thigh. Still doesn't make it any different, but I don't think it was intentional.

[blacklodge]

The referee defended his decision by saying that Buchanan couldn't answer the bell for round 14.

It was low, but the point remains the referee didn't see the low blow (whether he should have or not is irrelevant). He saw the reaction, he saw the corner's reaction, but if he didn't actually see the low blow and designate it as such, and Buchannon doesn't come out, he has to stop it. There was no instant replay obviously, and the referee can't and absolutely shouldn't take a fighter or corner's word for what fouls have occured. I don't mean to imply any questioning of Buchannon's character or bravery, but in that situation he needed to man up like 99.99% of fighters do and finish the fight or take the TKO. It's a bit of a raw deal, but that's the way it is. I don't believe as Bobby Czyz insists that "all low blows are intentional" (they should take away his Mensa card for that one), they are a fact of boxing, it was not a colossal shot (Holmes-Cooney? Trinidad-Vargas?), it was not a clean fight, Duran didn't deserve a DQ (DQ a guy every time he lands a low blow? Yeah, THAT'S a good precident to set), and Buchannon didn't deserve a rematch because he couldn't continue in a fight that he was clearly losing as the result of a foul that officially didn't occur.

[The Noose]

It was low, but the point remains the referee didn't see the low blow (whether he should have or not is irrelevant). He saw the reaction, he saw the corner's reaction, but if he didn't actually see the low blow and designate it as such, and Buchannon doesn't come out, he has to stop it. There was no instant replay obviously, and the referee can't and absolutely shouldn't take a fighter or corner's word for what fouls have occured. I don't mean to imply any questioning of Buchannon's character or bravery, but in that situation he needed to man up like 99.99% of fighters do and finish the fight or take the TKO. It's a bit of a raw deal, but that's the way it is. I don't believe as Bobby Czyz insists that "all low blows are intentional" (they should take away his Mensa card for that one), they are a fact of boxing, it was not a colossal shot (Holmes-Cooney? Trinidad-Vargas?), it was not a clean fight, Duran didn't deserve a DQ (DQ a guy every time he lands a low blow? Yeah, THAT'S a good precident to set), and Buchannon didn't deserve a rematch because he couldn't continue in a fight that he was clearly losing as the result of a foul that officially didn't occur.

But a title shouldnt change hands as a result of a low blow. The decision could have been reversed or at least called a no contest after they saw the replay on video.
Ken deserved the rematch because he was champion and if u are hit low u shouldnt have to stand up before a count of ten.

The ref made a mistake, but even if Duran was ahead, Ken deserved to lose his title fairly.

[blacklodge]

But a title shouldnt change hands as a result of a low blow. The decision could have been reversed or at least called a no contest after they saw the replay on video.
Ken deserved the rematch because he was champion and if u are hit low u shouldnt have to stand up before a count of ten.

The ref made a mistake, but even if Duran was ahead, Ken deserved to lose his title fairly.

The referee lost control of the fight, no doubt. There were a lot of punches thrown well after the bell. One of them was low. It was my understanding that the referee (LoBianco?) waived the fight because Buchanan was unable to continue. I think, despite the foul (which officially wasn't a foul), it would be more unfair to Duran that he not get the title he earned over 13 rounds of fighting than to reward Buchanan for being unable to continue after a low blow that wasn't a low blow. In that sense, when I say Buchanan didn't deserve a rematch, I mean that the WBA (?) shouldn't be obliged to mandate a rematch because the referee didn't see a low blow. That's a bad, bad precident to establish if a governing body can sift through a fight replay and punish a winning fighter after the fact based on the referee's competance. If Ken deserved to lose his title fairly, then he should have gotten up and finished the fight.