ARQ Boxing: Gabunilas-Fajardo OPBF duel not yet final
CEBU CITY, Philippines — Contrary to report that came out earlier this week, the Oriental and Pacific Boxing Federation (OPBF) light flyweight title showdown between ARQ Boxing Stable’s John Paul “Angas ng Cebu” Gabunilas and fellow prospect Miel “Silent Assassin” Fajardo have not been approved yet.
This was announced by ARQ Boxing Stable’s strength and conditioning trainer Roger Justine Potot after numerous reports online stated that Gabunilas and Fajardo are set for the collision course for the OPBF title on August 15.
Potot clarified that they are yet to get the OPBF’s approval to sanction the much-anticipated showdown between two top-tier prospects.
Earlier, ARQ announced that Gabunilas and his stablemate, April Jay Abne, are scheduled to fight in two separate OPBF titles next month with the venue still to be determined.
Before Fajardo’s name emerged, Gabunilas was initially pitted against Arvin Magramo for the OPBF title.
Meanwhile, Abne will test his mettle against two-time world title challenger Robert “Super Inggo” Paradero for the OPBF Silver flyweight title.
Despite the uncertainty, a bout against Gabunilas and Fajardo was crucial for both boxers who are aiming to break through the world rankings.
On paper, both boxers are also equally matched.
The 22-year-old Gabunilas of Cebu City has a record of 10 wins with seven knockouts and one defeat. He recently won in March the World Boxing Organization (WBO) Asia Pacific Youth light flyweight title against Indonesian Wandi Priman Hulu.
Meanwhile, Fajardo 23, of San Francisco, Agusan Del Sur has a 10-1-2 (win-loss-draw) record with nine knockouts. He is the reigning Asian Boxing Federation (ABF) flyweight champion.
ARQ will make a formal announcement regarding the much-anticipated showdown between their boxer and Fajardo very soon.
Disclaimer: The comments uploaded on this site do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of management and owner of Cebudailynews. We reserve the right to exclude comments that we deem to be inconsistent with our editorial standards.