Japanese boxer Kanamu Sakama dies at 20
Kanamu Sakama (left) and John Paul Gabunilas (right). | ARQ Sports photo
CEBU CITY, Philippines — Japanese up-and-comer Kanamu Sakama passed away on Sunday, March 17, according to the Japanese Boxing Commission (JBC) and Japanese media outlets.
The 20-year-old Japanese boxing prospect was best known for his highly entertaining showdown against Cebuano John Paul Gabunilas last December 26 in the undercard of Naoya Inoue-Marlon Tapales unification bout in Tokyo, Japan.
Sakama won by a fifth-round technical knockout. However, his victory was hounded with controversy after Gabunilas’ camp complained the bout was stopped by the referee prematurely.
READ: Gabunilas’ camp plans to file a complaint after ‘premature’ stoppage of Japan bout
That was his last bout before his untimely passing.
Kanama was touted as one of the best prospects in Japan with a record of nine wins with eight knockouts. He was a JBC Japanese Youth light flyweight champion.
READ: Gabunilas promises impressive fight vs. Japan’s Sakama
Sakama was supposed to fight fellow prospect Hiroki Oki last March 16, but decided to withdraw due to his health condition.
There was no announcement from the Japanese media about the cause of Sakama’s untimely passing.
READ: ARQ’s Gabunilas to spar with Inoue in Osaka
One of those who mourned and extended their condolences was the Cebu-based ARQ Sports that manages and promotes Gabunilas.
In a Facebook post, ARQ Sports honored Sakama by saying, “the Japanese light flyweight youth champion who was seen as having a promising future, has passed away.” It also posted a photo of the latter and Gabunilas taken during their December 26 bout.
Gabunilas described Sakama as a good boxer whom he fought against inside the ring.
“Condolences champ Sakama. Akong ma istorya maayo na nga boxer ug isog pud,” Gabunilas said.
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.
