Was Duran a coward for not rematching Buchanan?

Morning Folks

Over the weekend I watched a re-run of Ken Buchanan vs Roberto Duran. Great fight until the end of the 13th round where Duran smashed Ken in the balls and ended the fight. It was a horrible way for the fight to end and for Ken to lose his title. Why Duran wasnt disqualified is beyond my understanding. Instead Ken lost his title!

No I know Duran has a reputation for being a dirty fighter - but that was a ridiculous way for someone to lose world honours. Duran has since said that Buchanan was the toughest fighter he ever had ever fought.

Steve Bunce was the presenter for the programme (it was ESPN Boxing Superfights). He mentioned that Duran twice failed to go through with a rematch with Ken.

My question is this - was Duran a coward for twice pulling out of the 2 fights he was supposed to fight Ken again? Whats the story there?

Cheers
Dazstarr

Was Duran a coward? Ummm, no.

Scottrf wrote:Was Duran a coward? Ummm, no.

Whats the story of him pulling out the fights? I mean in context of this and nothing else. He is obviously a ring legend.

No, he wasn't a coward.

Also, whilst the shot that ended the fight was dubious to say the least, it must be remembered that Duran was well ahead on the cards at this point, and was never going to be stopped by Ken.

Tough nights work for sure, but the gulf in class was clear, and I don't think a rematch would have proved any different.

Coward is a strong word but recently read Ken's biography and to say he actively chased and wanted the rematch does not even come close to covering it. He also maintained he hurt Duran just before the shot in the balls and whilst obviously these things have to be taken with a pinch of salt he maintains he could have turned things round in the last couple of rounds as he had Roberto going but I have to say I am not sure, because stating the obvious Duran was a hell of a lightweight.

Guess none of us will really know why the rematch did not happen but for me it should have, and what we can say for certain is Ken wanted it, badly.

Think it was his management protecting him. Don't really know the circumstances in detail though.

Bunce said that the fight was made again twice but Duran failed to go ahead with it for whatever reason. I'm wondering what the reason was for Duran to pull out.

Dazstarr wrote:Bunce said that the fight was made again twice but Duran failed to go ahead with it for whatever reason. I'm wondering what the reason was for Duran to pull out.

Ask him: steve.bunce@bbc.co.uk

Scottrf wrote:

Dazstarr wrote:Bunce said that the fight was made again twice but Duran failed to go ahead with it for whatever reason. I'm wondering what the reason was for Duran to pull out.

Ask him: steve.bunce@bbc.co.uk

Quality! I didnt know he works for the beeb! He shall be getting an email shortly!

Duran a coward? The less said about that the better I'm afraid, Daz. He's obviously not everyone's cup of tea, but even his harshest critics would have to concede that he was a rock-hard fighting man, and proved it several times over.

As much as I love Buchanan, it does tend to get forgotten that he deliberatley and knowingly threw a punch after the bell for the end of the thirteenth round, which Duran responded to with that controversial blow. I agree that the fight shouldn't have been stopped on the basis of the final punch landing after the bell, and of course two wrongs don't make a right, but painting Ken as the angel and Duran as the devil in this scenaro isn't a true reflection of things.

As for the possibility of a rematch, well I think it would have been a legitimate return; Duran was ahead, certainly, but after that awful start Buchanan had worked his way in to matters and was perhaps 8-4 behind in rounds going in to the thirteenth. That was a round which could have gone either way, so in my mind Buchanan, had he been able to continue, would have been either 9-4 or 8-5 down, which is a damn sight closer than most other people got to beating Duran at 135 lb.

That said, I don't think we can accuse Duran of 'ducking' the rematch, or criticise him for not having one. The harsh reality is that he'd still been the better fighter that night at Madison Square Garden, and much more important is the fact that Buchanan failed to put himself in to a position where Duran would simply have to face him again. The Ishimatsu fight in 1975 was his big chance, as Duran would later have that WBC belt in his sights, but Buchanan lost and his career went in to freefall after that.

Was Duran a coward? Not in the slightest. Would a rematch have been legitimte? Yes. But as I said, it was never really a fight which 'needed' to happen, either.

The context of the low blow should be considered as well, both men are going hell for leather, the bell goes, Duran throws what appears to be a legal shot at the same time of the referee pulling him away which causes the blow to go low.

Just had a quick search Chris, and someone was saying that Buchanan was actually offered the fight after the Ishimatsu loss, and turned it down.

88Chris05 wrote:Duran a coward? The less said about that the better I'm afraid, Daz. He's obviously not everyone's cup of tea, but even his harshest critics would have to concede that he was a rock-hard fighting man, and proved it several times over.

As much as I love Buchanan, it does tend to get forgotten that he deliberatley and knowingly threw a punch after the bell for the end of the thirteenth round, which Duran responded to with that controversial blow. I agree that the fight shouldn't have been stopped on the basis of the final punch landing after the bell, and of course two wrongs don't make a right, but painting Ken as the angel and Duran as the devil in this scenaro isn't a true reflection of things.

As for the possibility of a rematch, well I think it would have been a legitimate return; Duran was ahead, certainly, but after that awful start Buchanan had worked his way in to matters and was perhaps 8-4 behind in rounds going in to the thirteenth. That was a round which could have gone either way, so in my mind Buchanan, had he been able to continue, would have been either 9-4 or 8-5 down, which is a damn sight closer than most other people got to beating Duran at 135 lb.

That said, I don't think we can accuse Duran of 'ducking' the rematch, or criticise him for not having one. The harsh reality is that he'd still been the better fighter that night at Madison Square Garden, and much more important is the fact that Buchanan failed to put himself in to a position where Duran would simply have to face him again. The Ishimatsu fight in 1975 was his big chance, as Duran would later have that WBC belt in his sights, but Buchanan lost and his career went in to freefall after that.

Was Duran a coward? Not in the slightest. Would a rematch have been legitimte? Yes. But as I said, it was never really a fight which 'needed' to happen, either.

Thanks for the reply Chris - I must clarify I am not calling him a coward - just a bit of Monday morning controversy!

We all know Duran's status as a boxer.

The rematch probably should have happened in late 73 or 74, but I certainly don't think that cowardice was the reason why it didn't.

About six months after Duran beat Buchanan, he dropped a non-title decision to DeJesus, and it's my opinion that avenging that defeat became his abiding concern from then on. He got his rematch in 74, and, after being knocked down in the first got his revenge, but being Duran, he still wanted the ledger in his favour, hence the later rubber match. I think that he imagined that he would fight Buchanan again down the track, whom he always regarded as the best lightweight that he ever faced.

As some of you may know, I'm a huge Buchanan admirer - he remains my favourite boxer. However, he was his own worst enemy at times, and as the rematch kept getting put back further and further, he became moodier and moodier, falling out with all kinds of trainers, managers and sparring partners. By 1975, when he was fighting in odd places like Copenhagen rather a lot, he got a chance at Ishimatsu's WBC title, which would undoubtedly have led Ken to a rematch with Duran for the unified crown. However, Ken was still feeling a bit bitter and twisted, didn't really do as much training as he might have and lost to a much inferior fighter. Re-match therefore scuppered for good.

This is just my take on a matter that I've thought about for years. Ken put up a great show against Duran, but he would not have beaten him in that fight even if he could have continued. He had stunned Duran just before the shot to the balls, which is what prompted the foul in the first place, of course. However, I can't in all conscience claim that Ken would have been favourite to overturn that result if they had met again. He deserved to prove that, without a doubt, but I maintain that it was chance that deprived him of the opportunity, rather than design.

Scottrf wrote:Just had a quick search Chris, and someone was saying that Buchanan was actually offered the fight after the Ishimatsu loss, and turned it down.

Really? That goes against what Jeff said about Ken chasing the rematch.

Dazstarr wrote:

Scottrf wrote:Just had a quick search Chris, and someone was saying that Buchanan was actually offered the fight after the Ishimatsu loss, and turned it down.

Really? That goes against what Jeff said about Ken chasing the rematch.

I don't know the legitimacy of that statement. Comes down to timing. Hagler was more keen to face Leonard initially than after a couple of years of being made a fool of for example.

captain carrantuohil wrote:The rematch probably should have happened in late 73 or 74, but I certainly don't think that cowardice was the reason why it didn't happened.

About six months after Duran beat Buchanan, he dropped a non-title decision to DeJesus, and it's my opinion that avenging that defeat became his abiding concern from then on. He got his rematch in 74, and, after being knocked down in the first got his revenge, but being Duran, he still wanted the ledger in his favour, hence the later rubber match. I think that he imagined that he would fight Buchanan again down the track, whom he always regarded as the best lightweight that he ever faced.

As some of you may know, I'm a huge Buchanan admirer - he remains my favourite boxer. However, he was his own worst enemy at times, and as the rematch kept getting but back and back, he became moodier and moodier, falling out with all kinds of trainer, managers and sparring partners. By 1975, when he was fighting in odd places like Copenhagen rather a lot, he got a chance at Ishimatsu's WBC title, which would undoubtedly have led Ken to a rematch with Duran for the unified crown. However, Ken was still feeling a bit bitter and twisted, didn't really do as much training as he might have and lost to a much inferior fighter. Re-match therefore scuppered for good.

This is just my take on a matter that I've thought about for years. Ken put up a great show against Duran, but he would not have beaten him in that fight even if he could have continued. He had stunned Duran just before the shot to the balls, which is what prompted the foul in the first place, of course. However, I can't in all conscience claim that Ken would have been favourite to overturn that result if they had met again. He deserved to prove that, of course, but I maintain that it was chance that deprived him of the opportunity, rather than design.

Thanks for that Captain - picked up a lot there. I didnt realise you held Buchanan in such high esteem.

Scottrf wrote:

Dazstarr wrote:

Scottrf wrote:Just had a quick search Chris, and someone was saying that Buchanan was actually offered the fight after the Ishimatsu loss, and turned it down.

Really? That goes against what Jeff said about Ken chasing the rematch.

I don't know the legitimacy of that statement. Comes down to timing. Hagler was more keen to face Leonard initially than after a couple of years of being made a fool of for example.

Cheers Scott.

Just a bit, Dazstarr. Your heroes when you're young stay with you for life.

captain carrantuohil wrote:Just a bit, Dazstarr. Your heroes when you're young stay with you for life.

I agree - i reckon I can work out your age now!

44 and counting, I fear.

Crikey you started watching boxing early!

Should say Daz most of what I said came from Ken's biography so fairly obviously only gives his side of the story and obviously does not give any mitigation from the Duran perspective and offer factors such as the De Jesus loss. Think a rematch was in the contract but has to be said even in his own book Ken comes across as prickly so the captains points probably have a deal of validity, particularly as he is a big a fan of Ken as you'd hope to encounter.

rowley wrote:Should say Daz most of what I said came from Ken's biography so fairly obviously only gives his side of the story and obviously does not give any mitigation from the Duran perspective and offer factors such as the De Jesus loss. Think a rematch was in the contract but has to be said even in his own book Ken comes across as prickly so the captains points probably have a deal of validity, particularly as he is a big a fan of Ken as you'd hope to encounter.

Thanks Jeff - i'm starting to get the impression that Ken became his own worst enemy after the Duran loss.

Probably more of a coward for continuously calling for rematches with Hagler and Leonard....

and forgetting Hearns......after all you'd think he would want to avenge his ultimate humiliation...but maybe not!!

As for Buchanan...first fight was one sided ....why waste time with a guy who was trying to get him disqualified..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Probably more of a coward for continuously calling for rematches with Hagler and Leonard....

and forgetting Hearns......after all you'd think he would want to avenge his ultimate humiliation...but maybe not!!

As for Buchanan...first fight was one sided ....why waste time with a guy who was trying to get him disqualified..

Purely for the fact of the manner of defeat. Thought it was customary to give an ex world champ a rematch. Perhaps not.

Not when you've smashed seven shades out of him..

Duran did after all give Leonard an immediate rematch so for the life of me don't think you can use it against him he didn't rematch Buchanan after beating him pretty comfortably

Duran won a contentious decision against Leonard...half the publications had sugar winning....fight of the year as well..

Bit different.

Didn't have to rematch him though did he Truss which is the point, could have taken a far easier defence if he were a coward

Did if he wanted to keep his title.......Rematch clause in the contract...

I also think Duran should have been disqualified for the low blow, Buchanan wasn't even allowed time to recover though I do agree that Duran was well in front and why he wouldn't give Buchanan a rematch I don't know but it wasn't a good way to win a title.

In Duran's biography I think they say something about it being more to do with Duran's management than Duran himself.

Duran andthe word Coward don't belong in the same sentence. Buchanan would say he felt he could turn it round but it's hard to believe.

I still feel the man deserved a rematch straight away due to the controversial finish.

Why did he want a rematch with Leonard and Hagler.....yet never called out Tommy's name again????

Half the publications did not have Sugar winning Truss. In the same way as the second fight was something like 4-3 in rounds to SRL before the no...something spanish...con el payaso moment.

Nothing like revisionist history - but that's too far.

He did but it would have been the same result. I like Buchanan he's arguably Scotland's greatest but Duran was just to good especially at LW.

prettyboykev wrote:He did but it would have been the same result. I like Buchanan he's arguably Scotland's greatest but Duran was just to good especially at LW.

I agree. Still, it would remove discussions like this. Personally don't feel there is any argument about Buchanan, has to be Scotland's greatest for me. No shame in our greatest coming up short against Duran though!

Truss...he was destroyed by Hearns, a man who was all wrong for him. Why would he shout about a rematch?

licence_007 wrote:

prettyboykev wrote:He did but it would have been the same result. I like Buchanan he's arguably Scotland's greatest but Duran was just to good especially at LW.

I agree. Still, it would remove discussions like this. Personally don't feel there is any argument about Buchanan, has to be Scotland's greatest for me. No shame in our greatest coming up short against Duran though!

I'm always caught between him and Lynch Buchanan edges it 6/10 times but I rate both very highly.

Maybe a topic about the best from the home nations is in order?

Fire in mate I don't have the brain power at this time of night.

My knowledge of Welsh boxers lacks severly, I'll stick it on hold till tomorrow!