Some consider him an ATG, some think he had ATG abilities. He was inducted in the IBHOF in 2009. IBF bantamweight champion with 15 title defenses. He was champion for 7 years. Rated P4P No.3 No.4 No.5 in various years. Let's look deeper into his reign as IBF bantamweight champion. He beat Kelvin Seabrooks for the fairly new IBF title. Kelvin Seabrooks was 25-13 at the time and finished 27-22 (losing almost every fight after OC until he retired) He had 15 successful defenses but his opposition was extremely weak. He only fought two Ring rated bantamweights in his entire reign. Kelvin Seabrooks was Ring No.4 at bantamweight. Billy Hardy who was ranked at No.10 only because he gave Canizales a tough fight but returned to obscurity after their 2nd fight. He never unified and never became undisputed champion. He was a title holder. He was defeated by the two good boxers he fought: Wilfredo Vasquez and Junior Jones. He somehow managed to avoid every good bantamweight of his time except the aforementioned two who beat him at a higher weight. To summarize: IBF champion with 15 successful defenses. Ring rated boxers defeated in boxing career [2]: Kelvin Seabrooks, Billy Hardy Champions defeated [4]: Kelvin Seabrooks, Clarence Adams, Rolando Bohol, Prudencio Cardona 1. Kelvin Seabrooks IBF champion with 3 successful defenses 2. Clarence Adams 18 years old when Canizales defeated him by bull**** stoppage. 7 years later WBA super bantamweight champion with 2 successful defenses 3. Rolando Bohol IBF flyweight champion with with 1 successful defense Lost most of his fights before losing to Canizales and retired soon afterwards. 4. Prudencio Cardona WBC flyweight champion with 0 successful defenses On big losing streak before and after he lost to Canizales. If that is the criteria for being inducted into the IBHOF how many active boxers get in? Reevaluation 1: Eder Jofre http://www.eastsideboxing.com/forum/showthread.php?t=323758
Canizales looked fabulous at bantamweight, and he did put up very good numbers. I wouldn't consider him an ATG, but because of the way he performed against the opposition he faced, I'd be inclined to say he's as worthy some of the inductees. But I'd have a hard time rating him in my Top 10 at the weight at this point.
Yeah its true his resume isn't very strong, mostly quantity and longevity over quality. As has been said the crux of his reputation was the way he looked when he fought. Clearly he was a brilliant fighter and he had the kind of style that delights purists, with measured agression, body punching, head movement, feints, power, footwork, etc etc. I don't really have a concrete answer on where he should rate or if he's overrated, those are just my thoughts. P.S. its a shame the Eddie Cook fight never came off since that could have really validated his standing.
Actually, Casa...Just throwing this out here...But how about doing a compare/contrast with another bantamweight who fought in or around the same era that you feel might be more deserving of accolades. Sahaprom might be an interesting choice.
Yeah I could and I plan on doing a double feature in the future. It's a good comparison. But Sahaprom was an eternal No.2 in his division and was never rated in the Ring P4P. On the other hand Canizales was No.1 from 1991-1994 and was ranked the Ring No.3 No.4 No.5 P4P. You're right, Sahaprom compares favorably to Canizales. Both had similar number of defenses (Canizales: 15 ; Sahaprom: 14) Both were champions for 7 years. Canizales was IBF champion while Sahaprom was a two-time champion (WBA, WBC) Canizales beat 1 champion (Seabrooks) while Sahaprom beat 2 (Chuvatana, Tatsuyoshi) Sahaprom beat more ranked opponents than Canizales. Sahaprom had more longevity. Both looked skillful in the ring. Both somehow managed to avoid almost all the good fighters in their division. More so in the case of Canizales. If you compare them objectively you have to conclude that Sahaprom clearly has the edge. Compared to Canizales he looks very underrated but in reality I think he is only slightly underrated.
I applaud Casa for this thread. Even as a fan of Canizales's skillset, the position he now occupies in the ratings and affections of many is wholly unwarranted, if we do indeed prize resume above all else. I very much look forward to the day the 'Reevaluation' spotlight is turned on the likes of Joe Calzaghe and Kostya Tszyu.
I would agree that there is plenty of valid criticism of ranking him particularly highly, historically. That said, I believe him to be one of the best modern day small men I've seen and have no real personal doubt about him, ability-wise. A great boxer, a great fighter, worthy of HOF notoriety. I certainly think of him as a must see for all serious boxing fans who want to be as versed as possible on all the notable fighters with film on them.
But you ignore one most important thing : Sapharom was stopped during his prime while Canizales was not
Sahaprom suffered because of the bias to american based Bantams.Guys like Austin, Marquez etc all got very overhyped and overestimated as fighters at certain points imo.So one beating the other would be seen as some huge win, when in reality it was no better(arguably worse) than a Chuvatana or Nishioka. As for Canizales, i'd agree anyone rating him as an all-timer is giving him some serious benefit of the doubt.I never really saw him as being rated that highly though...as popkins said more on the overall level of the likes of Calzaghe and the Russian.Supporters and detactors in equal measure. For me, i saw him as an excellent talent that took the easy splinter title paydays route and squandered his chances at a more unequivocal kind of greatness in the eyes of the hardcore fans.PLus, though generally dominant,he did have the occasional flat performance against so-so opponents that can cast a bit of doubt over how he fares against the better fighters the division has to offer.
True but it's a bit different in Thai fighting culture.Many of their better boxers were fully realised prime fighters far quicker than other nations. In sahaprom's case he looked as good as he ever was athletically and technically against Chuvatana.Maybe improved slightly as a ring-general, though it's tough to say without a rematch against Konadu.nana always had a tough style for predominently outside boxing stylists and he caught Sahaprom well early.
Well i wouldn't say moving up to Featherweight and winning the European,Commonwealth and British titles was exactly returning to obscurity.A lot of good judges had him beating Canizales in the 1st fight.
Yeah I'll be holding my breathe for those threads to come out! Unlike the Jofre thread, this one actually has quite a bit of merit. Not because Canizales didn't face 'champions' but because he didn't face the best around him, which is compounded by the fact that they weren't actually all that good either...
It just seems to me that despite of what is listed on boxrec he probably had more than 4 fights because of : 1) he was from Thailand 2) he was not very young by then 3) he got the title shots that "early"
