does anyone else think khaosai galaxy is overrated?

Let me get this straight:


Based on overall skills set, accomplishments, legacy, quality of opposition faced and defeated and on a head to head match up, you would honestly rank Galaxy above Tommy Hearns, Roy Jones, Bernard Hopkins, Ricardo Lopez, Mike Tyson, Sonny liston???




No way man!



But, just to be logical, lets compare him with tommy hearns.


Now tell me:


Did Galaxy face and beat better opposition?
Was he more skillful?
Did he accomplish more in his respective division/s?
Did he leave a greater, more lasting legacy
Would you favor him in a head to head pound for pound match up?

And in fact, since you consider power and knock out % to be his trump card, would you consider him the bigger pucher?





To me, its an embarassing comparison! Hearns (and any of the afforementioned fighters) by quite a margin!

 

haha, definetely overrated

 

2 more ko's and Valero should be in the top 50 then...he holds a title.

 

Well, Khaoski fought a few good fighters, but there's no way that he should be ranked above a lot of the names he is. One thing I will say for him though is that he was a brutal puncher.

 

What a load of stinking horse****. Why should he rate above the other top Super Fly's of the time like Roman, Watanabe, Moon, Konadu, etc? All of whom fought each other and overall fought much stiffer comp, while appearing much more skilled on film.

He stayed in his home country and beat up on scrubs while they tested and proved themselves. The only people who rate Galaxy that highly or feel he's underrated are the people who simply don't know **** about either him or the lower weights in general.

 

I agree, Galaxy should be closer to the 75-80 slots on that list.

I would rate fighters such as Dariusz Michalcewski and Joe Calzaghe ahead of Galaxy without a thought, and neither of these would be higher than #60.

 

Holy ****!!!!!:shock:

I didn't expect such an emotional response.

I didn't realise there were so many knowledgeble posters here.

I am assuming that all of you experts know all about these "scrubs" that he fought?

Please enlighten me about all of his title defences. I would be interested in reading an depth analysis of all of his opponents from you.:yep



I actually saw many of his title defences. The guy was awesome. I see the experts at The Ring magazine agree.

Hhhhmmmmm!

You guys:think Ring Magazine:think

Amateurs:think Professionals:think

Internet warriors:think People who get paid to analysis professional boxers:think

If I hadn't actually seen the guy fight I would probably have the same opinion as many of you guys.

You guys ain't doing that though, because you're experts and are going to provide me with an indepth analysis of all of his title challengers.:happy

 

I actually would have expected a classier reply from you. Where you drunk when you wrote this? I actually would have liked to have discussed this with someone like you but I ain't even going to entertain the thought of having a serious discussion with someone who starts off a discussion like that. Obviously you feel you are so right about this (because you know everything about it, there is absolutely nothing I could tell you about him that you don't already know) that nothing I could possibly say will even make you slightly wavier from your point of view.

Something along the lines "I disagree with you, why do you feel this way?" would have been a much more appropriate and mature response.

Oh well, not my loss.:hi:

 

Indeed, that argument works wonders.

"Oh, but those judges in the Holyfield-Lewis I fight are paid professionals of the highest calibre, whereas you guys are amateur keyboard warriors who really don't know ****."

 

Bias is in every facet of life. He may have been been put in there for political reasons, because he is asian and there were hardly any asians in that list in front of him, I cant really think of any other reason. For the most part those lists are subjective, but I just do not see how they came to that conclusion.

Im willing to discuss this with you rationally. Just answer this question..How could he be considered so far and above fighters like Gilberto Roman and Watanabe when they did pretty much the exact same thing, at the pretty much the exact same time, in the same division just with a different belt?
These fighters had a claim to say they were the best superflyweight around at the time, but somehow now in reflection The Ring chose to give more weight to Galaxy's career, and not only just a little but a massive gap in recognition.

As I said in another post I give him a lot of credit for the Pical and even the Conteras win.

But Kenji Matsamura...9-3-1 when he fought him in his 10th defence.
One click shows me that Matsamura never went to any heights prior or after that fight.
Byung-Kwan Chung in his 6th defence..the record of when they fought..he goes on to retire with a 11-7 record less than 3 years later.
Ernesto Ford 22-1 when they fought in Galaxy's 16th defence..Nothing of note prior to his title shot, then Ford has one more shot at a title not long after which he gets ko'd in and then retires shortly after that.

A couple of guys he fought had mildly successful careers but not much more than briefly holding a title or challenging more than once for one.

No Sugar Baby, no Raul Perez, No Canizales, No Lacier, No Chitalada, No Quiorga, No Konadu, No Ballas
The reasons he didnt fight these guys is irrelevant the fact is he didnt fight them and certainly didnt fight anyone better or more credentialed in their place. Therefore he couldnt have been undisputed at the weight nor have any kind of legitimate claim for p4p status as there were good fighters below and above him in weight that he never fought.

You would have to expect some reaction from people..thats a definitive list of what a so called expert boxing publication considered the greatest fighters of the last 80 years. To basically say this man's achievements of not really fighting the best around, staying in the same division to defend the same belt are so much more significant than endeared fighters like Thomas Hearns, Azumah Nelson, Roy Jones Jnr and Wilfred Benitez is understandbly going to **** people off.

Thing is he was good and very few hit like him at that weight ever. But this misguided praise turns people the other way, instead of appreciating the fighter he was, they challenge & criticize the fighter he is made out to be. And thats not his fault..Its just the people who put him up on this pedestal when its not warranted.

 

If anyone wants to see this guy go on to his Wikipedia page there are links to a lot of his fights and plus there is a bit on youtube.

He was impressive, no doubt about it. But decide for yourself if he warrants such a high all time ranking.

 

That is ****in criminal :---(

 

I also think he's overrated, he's a very good fighter but no ATG like some believe. Stylewise I'd compare him to George Foreman, he basically tries to overwhelm his opponents with sheer power and strength. His offence consists of throwing wild hayemakers and basicallly trying to decapitate his opponent. He's relatively slow and his defence is almost non existant (At times he doesn't he keep his hands up while not moving his head). His footwork is rather average, although I must admit his power, strength and durability are all very impressive. The thing is I can't see his style working to well against other great boxers with good footwork, such as Jiro Watanabe or Gilberto Roman.

His resume is very thin and lacks alot of quality wins, most of his victories came over C-level fighters in his own country. He did have a few decent wins, however they are few and far between. I wouldn't say he had a better resume than any of the other top 115lbers of his time, who atleast fought eachother. The reasons concerning him not fighting the other champins is irrelevant, the fact is they never happened.

In summary he is a very good fighter, but lakcs the skills and resume to be considered an ATG.

 

Logical, articulate, i like it




Good post :good