Hearns. Because Galindez had to nearly cut off a leg to make 175. At 168, he'd have to remove an arm or 2 as well to make weight.
Hearns could have beaten almost anyone had he had the patience to use his jab and set up the right hand and win decisions. But he had to go for broke and swing for the fences because he loved entertaining the crowd and scoring knockouts. Had he been more careful he would have had even greater wins than he already has.
The prime Galindez of '75-'76 against the Hearns who KO'd Dennis Andries - I would have to go with Galindez. Galindez had two styles, the 'Vicious Victor' that would grill you along the ropes or the counter-punching Galindez who lay along the ropes himself. If he lays back to counter, the plan would change after sampling a Hearns right hand. This fight would turn on fast once Galindez got pissed and I see it ending early like a Hagler-Hearns type of fight once it goes to the alley. Galindez in 5. Scartissue
My pick would be Hearns by decision provided he elects to stick and box. If Tommy decided to go to war then anything can happen.
That was Tommy's weakness. His weakness was his impatience to win decisions. He had to test the other guys chin and see if he could knock him out. Almost kamikaze type fighting. I remember when he fought Iran Barkley in 1988. He was doing well and landing body punches and busting up Iran easily, and when he saw he almost had him out he was trying to land the big punches and not caring about being countered. People always mention Duran beating Barkley after Hearns was beaten by him, but the fact is that Hearns was going to stop Barkley at the end of round 3 or beginning of round 4 easily. The fact he hit Hearns was not because Barkley was good it was because Hearns took chances. My point in all this is Hearns was his own biggest problem. He had to take chances and go for broke. Made for exciting fights, but he lost because of it also.
The 28 year old Tommy Hearns who was 173 pounds and looking healthy in 1987 when he parked Denny Andries in round 10 on ABC TV to capture the WBC belt surely has a damn good chance at schooling and battering Victor Galindez...... Vic Galindez had good skills and knew how to counter well, but he was several inches shorter than Hearns in both height and reach...... Plus, Hearns has the edge in speed overall, too...... If Hearns is feeling right, he beats Galindez on points or even a late round TKO....... BUT! Galindez could get lucky and land a bomb or two early on and KO Hearns....... But I still favor that '87 version of Hearns who looked good at 173....... MR.BILL
Moot question, as Galindez would NEVER have made it down to SMW..why not at lightheavy? I recall Hearns beating a guy named Andries and later a guy named Hill. Personally, I think Victor would have been Tommy's undoing..a cut inflictrd by Hearns would have turned on Victor's "beast switch", and he would have roughed up, mauled and finally decapitated Hearns with a sweeping left hook to win a ko...bloodied but unbowed..Vic tor was way too strong for Hearns. Galindez was a much taller order for Hearns than Hill or Andries.
