Where does Orlando Canizales rank on ATG lists?

I'm pretty sure his brother, Gaby, was also a title holder in the same division at the same time at one point which is one of the reasons why he didn't.

 

Ok..understandable not to fight his brother, but who else was occupying a title in that division...and I'm sure that Gaby didn't hold his share of the title that long.

 

Orlando was the definition of a well-rounded fighter. But like everyone said, he's hard to rank because he doesn't have a lot of great scalps.

 

an ATG doesnt have to wait for ten years to get inducted...He is not an ATG

 

Why do 90 percent of your posts consist of you talking directly out of your ass?

Lloyd Marshall isn't in the hall, but you're going to tell me he isn't an atg? :-(

 

he is the only exception i can think...can you name some more?

 

if you would consider canizales as an ATG might as well put tapia and nigel benn as an ATG too

 

not ATG, but in bantamweight he's probably 10-5 from 1960 and +

I don't have any notes on him in my bantamweight rankings, but he is ranked 8th behind jofre, harada, olivares, zarate and a few others.

of course, this is all 1960+ because if we take in account he old bantam's hes probably 15-10.

 

Guys, Asero is the guy that thinks Carbajal was rubbish because he got caught late on against Arce after being ahead on the cards.











I.e he has rarely watched anything he is commenting on, so just try and gain some comic value from his posts, he's not going away lol

 

Only M. Ortiz spent more time at the top of the bantam weight division so that has to account for something. And it wasn't like he was ducking people.


ANywhere from 60-100 for me.

Keith

 

I think he had around 16 title defences too, so he was keeping active during his time on top.

 

Yeah, sometimes that gets overlooked. A lot more ATG's get tripped up by standard defences than they do losing super fights against other ATG's.


Chavez-Randall
Tyson-Douglas


Jofre lost twice, neither was against an ATg.

Keith

 

Fighting Harada, who beat him both times, was most definitely an all time great fighter.

 

I don't have him in my top 100, though I don't consider him a slouch, obviously. I would say there was only three years he was at the top of any division.

But I get your point I probably could have used a more resolute example.

Keith

 

:huhHe was among the best in the world from Flyweight to Featherweight throughout the entire 60's decade.

Had he not been blatantly robbed by all accounts in his first fight with Johnny Famechon near the end of his career he would've won world titles in 3 of the original 8 weight classes (Flyweight, Bantamweight, and Featherweight), similar to Henry Armstrong. Neither Harada nor Armstrong had particularly long primes, but what both accomplished during that space of time, and the ability they showed during it surely classifies them as all time greats.

He proved himself as the man in two weight classes (among the best, and eventually the best, at Flyweight and Bantamweight for a good 3 years a piece), and should've been awarded the victory a third time against the man at an even higher class, when well past his prime. The fact that he never ruled a division for more than 3 years shouldn't count against him when he clearly proved himself at every one. I have to assume you take a lot of credit away from Pacquiao given those kind of ranking perameters.