Was Galento Better Technically Than Czyz?

Not sure who is technically better between the two. But, Galento is the more EFFECTIVE fighter, regardless of technique. Galento is certainly the better fighter at Heavyweight.

 

czyz UD galento.

 

Czyz was the better boxer. He was competitive with Holyfield ... well, for a while.

 

I always liked Bobby Czyz and I reckon he was more technically sound than Tony Galento. He was more technically sound than Hamsho as well and I figure Galento would beat him, too, but probably by tko at some point.

 

I never respected Czyz much. He always lost to the better fighters and once insulted Roldan for quitting on his stole because of a closing swollen eye. And then a week later, he quits on the stole the same way with Charles Williams.

 

Czyz was more "traditiional" but Galento had the x factors of power and durability.

 

Galento creams the puffed up MW.

 

No Czyz was a very skilled fighter...his issue was never talent it was commitment, discipline and alcohol...there were alot of expectations...IMO if he had the mean attitude of Hamsho he would have beaten the hell out of him instead of shelling up he had the skill, chin and power

This is a tough question a 5'9" 230 fighter had to be somewhat skilled to get to where he was but we never saw Galento outside of a few fights

Galento was better suited for Sullivan's and Jeffries era

 

They both came along about 40 years too late for optimal HW runs.

 

Czyz fought well vs. lesser guys and moving up he really fell apart. He always wanted to fight Hearns, and yet Hearns beat both Hill and Andries, guys who beat Czyz easily.

 

The question is who is better technically and the answer is clearly czyz because galento is technically the worst top 10 heavyweight since the wild bull of the pampas. Who would win i have no idea, but galeno had a way of making fighters fight his fight, c.f. Baer.