does anyone else think khaosai galaxy is overrated?

Of note: One of the most respected writers on this site, Ted Sares, in his book "Boxing Is My Sanctury", has a list of his top 100 boxers since 1950. In that list he rates Galaxy number 14.

FACT: Ted is extremely knowledgeable about the sport and is one of the most unbiased people I know.

How many books have you guys published on boxing?

Yeah exactly!

I suggest you buy his book and find out why he rates him so highly.



For the record. Hearns was by far my favorite fighter of the 80's but no way would I rate him over Galaxy. Hearns had a weak chin and he never unified any division either. The two times he tried (Leonard and Hagler) his weak chin failed him.


What were Galaxy's weaknesses? I don't know what they were, I sure hope somebody here can enlighten me.


Was he just a power puncher who could be outboxed? No!

Was he a powderpuff puncher? No!

Did he have a weak chin? No!

Did he have brittle hands? No!


Other than a fluke loss early in his career which he quickly redeemed by KOing that opponent in a rematch, the guy never even came close to losing. So please let me know the weaknesses in the fighting style of this so call over rated fighter.

He never showed any. He had nothing that even came close to a weakness. So how can anyone claim that he is over rated? To me it seems like people are complaining because a fighter that they really don't know anything about is rated so much higher than their favorite fighter.

 

You continue to dodge the question Calroid. All those others mentioned you seem to overlook with no justification. They were good fighters, who held titles nearly as long as he did in his division, at the same time. Their resumes are arguably better...so what am I missing, why are they so vastly inferior to allmighty Khaosai Galaxy.

Ill give you a weakness. He did not fight the best fighters of his era that were in or around his weight.

Hearns won titles in multiple divisions from 147-175. He took on 3 HOF and KTFO one of the greatest on that list.
Galaxy had need only stack on 6 pounds and he could have potentially won titles in two more divisions. But he didnt he stayed where he was, for the most part fighting safe defences of the same trinket. But the Hearns comparison isnt really my concern here, I just want to know why you think a fighter deserves such a high all time ranking without having fought the best in his division and around his weight range?

Ive seen a stack of film on the guy and what jaco says somes it up very well.
He had an average defense, he wasnt particularly quick and he often looked quite crude flailing away with bad intentions on every punch.
I am in awe of the guys power, strength and physique for the weight but that certainly doesnt make a great fighter. You have got to have a little more than that.

You named 4 attributes that could have belonged to a 1000 fighters who have laced them up over the years.
Punchers have come and gone.
Punchers with chins have come and gone.
Punchers with chins, who dont have brittle hands have come and gone.
That is not exactly a formula of a top 30 all time fighter, you have to actually do something with those attributes, you have to beat the fighters around at the time who challenge your dominance.

Probably the only reason he was never outboxed because he didnt consistently fight guys who were good enough to test that. And Cal..they were not good enough, thats why they had half the fights he had, thats why most of them went on to achieve nothing.

Obviously you feel you know a bit about the guy, so please give us an analysis of his opponants and the state of his division & surrounding divisions at the time. If your arguement is sound, you may well have me sold, this it not the period I am extremely knowledgble about. But all youve come back with is "have you guys published a book?" or "you just internet warriors". We've come back with at least some analysis of the guy on film, his opponants and the other top fighters in his division that he did not fight.


All I want is a response to my question...YOUR justification for why his deserves such high praise for fighting the guys he fought and not fighting the guys he should have. Not Ted Sares' or the Ring's, your reasons..thats all.
And cause "he hits hard" or "had a 85% Ko rate" or "drank his milk and had strong bones" isnt enough. :bart

I await your reply

 

That just about sums it up.:good

And LMAO at Calroid putting down Hearns because of losses to all-time greats like hagler and Leonard...two fighters who were on a totally different planet than anyone Galaxy fought.

 

:rofl You are CLUELESS.

At least in regards to Galaxy anyway. Please, instead of continuously stating how highly some random writer thinks of him, why don't YOU give your personal opinion as to why he was so good? His resume is poor, he doesn't look particularly good on film in comparison, and he failed to fight ANY of the top 115 pounders of his era. So please, explain what I'm missing.

 

Sorry I forgot about this thread......... Galaxy beat Pical who was the IBF champion at the time that Galaxy fought him. Thus Galaxy should have been a dual belt holder at his weight. Surely that means something????

 

Sweet Pea.......Enough of the CLUELESS ****.......You don't know me from Adam. Are you that insecure that you have to resort to **** like that to make yourself feel better?????:verysad

 

Its a while since Ive seen this thread...It does mean something, it was one of his best opponants but really it does not warrant him to be considered that much over the fighters that were mentioned who had similar records.

 

Thanks for the reply........All I can say in my defence is that I saw several of his fights and to me at least, he looked F**King awesome.

You're a good guy and I respect your opinion WhataRock.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.:good

 

what a ridiculous rating... he's higher than lewis, hearns, lopez et al.. what the ****? how many thai bahts did their government pay in order for his rating to get as high as this?

 

galaxy is underated on esb.

i take no notice of ring or any ATG lists they are just fun.

only lists that mean anything IMO are weight class by weightclass they are more accurate than trying to rate a straweight fighter v a middleweight on an ATG list.

i am very familiar with galaxy and the fighters around him at the time period , because ITV and reg gutteridge used to show loads of the smaller weights and asian fights in that time period on the itv world of sport programme, so anyone watching boxing at that time would know galaxy and his rivals well.

as for fighting in thailand, he was a national icon, where else should he fight.

he was shown on free to view national tv in the uk on a programme that got over 10,000,000 virewers in the uk aloneand loads of his defenses were shown as he was an exciting fighter.

he was shown all over the asian continent.

i have no idea if he was shown in america, but he had a big fanbase.

he fought abroad more times than

mayweather/mosley/dlh/forrest/williams/pavlik/jones/hopkins/toney/tarver/ put together ,
and got more worldwide exposure in 1 fight than if you combine the american tv audiences i named for all there last fights and put them together.

so he is not some out of sight out of mind fighter at least IMO.

as to who he fought , top name fighters in and around his division would rather have gone to guantanamo.

i see watanabes name brought up , watanabe vacated hi title refusing to fight his mandatory.

his mandatory`s name was galxay.

when analysing galaxy on abilty people factor out to many things.

his biggest 2 assets.
1/ his size--he was built like a tank in a division of stringbeans and he was a big muscular featherweight in body size fighting bascially skinny flyweights with anorexia and he could and did throw opponents around when and how he wanted.

2/ his left hand had huge weight and power that superflyweights could not handle , especially given that it was a straight down the pipe punch and not a hook , so put your guard up and it still went straight down the middle, its hard to block a southpaw pipe shot.

other boxers had more skill/speed/timing/combos/ etc etc etc

khasoi was not the most skilled/did not have the best defense, but he was one gigantic mofo at the weight and hit very very hard in context to other 115 fighters, had huge intimidation factor and got the job done time after time and went 40 plus fights undefeated.

so IMO
he is underated as a fighter, he was able to walk through/outmuscle/and bludgeon opponents perhaps with more finesse and style than he had and winning is all that counts.

 

Agreed.

His bouts were not televised in America & actually very very few foreign based fighters aside from Mexico are ever televised.

But that doesn't prevent anyone from sending away for his fights as they happened and it was a real treat for me to get them. The guy was an instrument of destruction and you just don't see those types in the lower weight classes. They're almost exclusively boxers because the sluggers sure don't hold up too well.

And galaxy was the rarest of breeds in the sport--southpaw slugger. You flat out don't see successful southpaw sluggers & you seldom see them win bouts against top 10 opposition even get a win or 2 very often. Let alone title defenses.

Lots of folks don't like his level of opposition but then again, I sure don't recall any managers calling the guy out & showing a willingness to put their guy in with Galaxy. On the contrary, you could say he was avoided and pretty much a who needs this guy?

It's a shame in the world of multiple titles, guys like this & another guy coming to mind is Brian Mitchell--that just don't get the high profile international matchups their entire career. But if I managed some of the other champs and challengers, I would've avoided Galaxy as well and taken that path of least resistance.

 

Galaxy wasn't really a slugger imo.He was a methodical stalking fighter that threw calculating straight shots for the most part.

Sung-Kil Moon was the slugger.

Watanabe was stripped because he opted unify against Poonterat(who at the time was more highly regarded than Khaosai), not because he was ducking anyone.There woudl have been no real reason to avoid Galaxy at the time.He was just another mandatory.

 

Nice post Sean...Nice to hear from someone who also saw him fight on ITV. The guy had the same Aura that Tyson had in the 80's. He intimidated his weight class like no one has done since. On top of that he had the intellect to retire at the right time. It was always a treat to see a warrior like Galaxy fight on free TV.

 

There is a ton of film of him on the net...Ive got a few fights of his in my collection aswell. He is great to watch but the whole point of this thread was discussing the validity of him getting ranked there by the Ring or even going into the HOF over the guys mentioned.

Sean..fair post, he was a monster of a fighter but as Mantequilla said Watanabe didnt exactly duck him, he instead fought Poonterat. Plus I think a lot of fighters of that era and lower divisions are underrated on ESB or at the least not talked about much, not just Galaxy.

I think most fights around at the time would have been a toss up and he could have well become the top of the heap...But I think why he didnt fight these guys is irrelevant as Ive said before, the fact is he never truly distinguished himself as the best fighter in his division when he fought and that for a start should mean he should not be ranked that high.