I'm not talking in an all time bantamweight sense here, more along the lines of his worth as a champ in his own era. He was rated number 1 by the ring for some time and he also made the HOF but would you say he deserved to be ranked above the wbc/wba champs of his era? I'm not sure what to make of him as he was a bit before my time and the BW division isn't really my strongest. I am working through it though and currently up to the early 90's hence this thread. Any insight would be great especially from the guys who know the lower divisions like Flea and Lora etc.
He was a poor champion really, not that much better than Khaosai Galaxy for not fighting the best competition around, at least until he got older and past his prime.Coasted along against so-so challengers and never really challenged himself much. Got rated high because of his obvious talent and because the ring tended to give recognition to talented splinter champs in original 8 divisions in the hope of gaining momentum and notice for unification fights.Hence you got guys like Esparragoza and Fenech being played off against each other etc This was kind of done for a while with Canizales and the talented Raul JIbaro Perez, but Perez was not a dedicated fight and went downhill quite quickly.Then the belt was changed over quite quickly between Richardson, Tatsuyoshi, Rabanales etc all of whom would have been at least as good as who Orlando was fighting, but none managed to entrench themselves as champ for long. The WBA was kind of similar in that you had Vasquez-Moon-Khaokor-Espinosa-Contreras-Cook all swap things year after year.Most would have been better fights than the majority of Canizales' challengers, but they didn't establish themselves long enough to create momentum for a unification or to be rated above Orlando in the divisional rankings. he was basically seen as the safe choice to rank as best Bantam for much of that time, but not the man.Perez was the more highly regarded of the two initially, until his form went.He had defeated better fighters than Orlando.
Cheers. Yeah that's actually the specific time I'm contemplating. Perez was a deserved number 1 I think but then he had a close fight with someone and lost to Richardson whilst canizales destroyed hardy and within months the belt was changing hands every other fight whilst canizales rose to top spot. I think, personally, by the time he'd beaten bones he's a clear choice for number 1 but I'm unsure if there's time between the hardy and bones fight when the same can be said. I mean some of the wbc guys had real journeymen records so it seems difficult ranking them above the glitz of canizales.
I agree, his rating was based more on consistency of form and volume of defenses rather than any individual wins. When he did finally fight one of his contemporary co-titlists in Jr. Jones, he was beaten soundly (should've been a UD), and IMO that undermines his prior claim to having been the #1 bantam during his reign. However, I will note that I did think Canizales deserved the nod against Vasquez, which would've been a fairly big scalp on his resume.
I think retrospective ranking is a bit dangerous. For example should Lewis be ranked above holy from 97-99 just because he beat him? Should liston rank above Patterson 59-64 just because he beat him?
I think yes, Lewis does deserve to be credited as the best HW from the late '90s forward based on his win(s) over Holyfield. As far as Patterson goes, he was the HW champ and that distinction should only change hands in the ring, but his loss to Liston confirms that he was not actually the best HW during his reign IMO.
I disagree. I think being the best is something you prove inside the ring not something you receive with hindsight. Until liston beat Patterson there was no reason to rank him as a better fighter. Just like until Lewis beat holy there was no reason to rank him as a better fighter.
I don't quite understand this point - after all, what Liston did to Patterson and Lewis to Holyfield was in the ring, was it not? Why would these fights not be sufficient to prove that they were the better fighters? I think the better question is, why should Patterson or Holyfield be rated as better than two contemporary rivals that they failed to prove they could beat? I don't see how you could say "no reason" when a majority of people actually did rank him as better, and favored him to win when they fought. Liston had plowed his way through a string of top contenders on his way to getting a title shot, including several that Patterson had been criticized for failing to fight (and rightfully so IMO). I think there was as much reason to think Liston was better than Patterson at that time as vice versa. I think there was as much reason to rate Lewis over Holyfield as vice versa. Neither fighter had a surefire claim to the #1 spot, and they each needed to beat the other to get that. The entire purpose of their fight was to conclusively prove, once and for all, who really was the best HW in the world at that time.
My point is that up until those victories they shouldnt be seen as better due to hindisght. Liston is a slightly different example as he was seen as better before. My main point is I dont agree with ranking in hindisght.
