Is it acceptable in your opinion to have Galindez top 10 at light heavyweight?

He's not top 10. 15-20 would be more likely.

 

Nope, absolutely not.

There's clearly 12 guys who should be above him, no questions asked. Charles, Moore, Tunney, Spinks, Loughran, Foster, Jones Jr, Johnson, Bivins, Lewis, Rosenbloom, Conn etc; ect.

And I love Galindez, I think he's pretty underrated on the whole and love watching him. He's just not quite there. Personally I'd have him at #19, and from his era, I'd say Spinks, and Saad are clearly greater. Maybe Qawi, too.

 

Coz your subconscious knows that Matt is greater.

 

If it's not acceptable then that would mean I would have to revamp my ratings because I have him solidly in my top 10. I noticed over the years how cyclical opinions roll. I remember back 20 years ago if a magazine did some top 10 you would always see Victor Galindez and Pascual Perez. Now, they both seem to have fallen out of favor. Conversely, guys like Sonny Liston and Freddie Steele are more to the liking of the boxing public. Regardless, I always felt Galindez was under-rated and brings such a blend of power, counter-punching and solid 15 round experience with him that I rate him very high.

 

Yeah, I'm going with the consensus to say that he's not top 10.

If you're looking at his career from a totally 'glass half full' perspective, his superiority over Jorge Ahumada looks great in retrospect, the two wins over Ritchie Kates are great too. Galindez got roasted by the boxing press for losing to Mike Rossman, but he devastated Rossman in the rematch (and rubbed it in Rossman's face afterwards).

But on the downside, the guy had several close calls. It seems like he sort of hit the wall at a certain point, whether it's due to too many tough fights in a row, or burnout/lack of motivation, I'm not sure. Also, the period he reigned in wasn't loaded with the caliber of contenders that were emerging just as his career was winding down. I think the division was in a bit of a hangover from Bob Foster's dominance.

So I'd say that although Galindez is a huge part of the history of the light heavyweight division, he's not really Top 10 material.

 

yea, definatly. I don't think many would agree, but Victor was tough, clever fighter.

 

I have no issue with it at all. He was arguably the best of the most stacked decade in the division’s history. Nobody else during that golden age had the kind of consistency or title run he had, and the names on his championship resume are on par with any of the others. And that was after proving himself top dog in the battle royale that was going down on the Argentinian Lt. Heavy circuit. I think he’s very underrated. Not sure if people put more stock in his end career losses or just don’t rate him head to head.

 

Galindez probably has a top 10 light heavyweight title reign, but he does not quite crack the top 10 4 me.

 

Not really. For one he shared his era with Conteh despite never facing Conteh.

Conteh looked every bit as good as Galindez does imo and a fight between them would have split the predictions.

The LHW is unfairly stacked though, because as well as the top LHW champions, the division is unique in that you also have LHW sized fighter who either competed when the division wasn't around, or earnt their stripes as a LHW before going for HW gold.

I mean Greb, Charles, Langford, Bivins, Tunney make the top 10 a hard place to crack.

Is he amongst the greatest 10 LHW champions of all time, not imo, but very debatable.

Archie Moore
Michael Spinks
Bob Foster
John Henry Lewis
Tommy Loughran
Bob Fitzsimmons
Billy Conn
Roy Jones Jr
Harold Johnson
Dwight Qawi

Those last two spots could be taken by a number of champs such as Rosenbloom, Dillon, Saad, Galindez, Conteh, Hill, O'Brien. As well as the two I've plonked there.

So I can imagine him being amongst the 10 best champions, but not the ten best fighters.

 

Not for me .He was part of that very strong lhvy division of the70s,but never a dominating factor in it.
A rough and tough guy who would give anybody a hard nights work.His rallies off the ropes where something to see.

 

I think you hit it on the head with the end-career losses. Quite sometime back there was a subject here, which was re-created several times, and it was Galindez v Saad. And one poster was clearly matching absolute prime Saad with the end of career/scartissued Galindez. He even brought up the Johnson and Burnett fights as part of his argument. So, very tongue-in-cheek I said something like Saad was knocked out by Eric Winbush and could only scrape a draw with Kevin Wagstaff. Oh, man, he just didn't see the irony here and went on about how I was picking a well-chewed Saad instead of a prime one. It was a bit of a laugh at the time, but I do think this sits in peoples minds. You brought up a good point of what he did to get to the title. Wins over Ahumada, Avenamar Peralta, Juan Aguilar, Bossman Jones, Ray Anderson, Eddie Owens and Jose Gonzalez. Then the title fights with Hutchins, Ahumada, Fourie, Lopez, Kates, Mustafa Muhammad, Rossman and non-titles over Billy douglas and Burnett. He handled every kind of a boxer and puncher going. I'm wondering how his legacy would have changed if Bob Foster hadn't run out on their 1977 title fight. Would they have just said, 'well, Foster was washed up by this time.' And they would have been right. He was. But would that win over such a name have helped or hurt? I'm thinking for everytime someone says, 'well, he lost to Johnson and Burnett', could there be a counter of 'well, he beat Foster.' It might be hard to bring those two end-of-career losses up again.

 

I do not like to have a top ten or twenty personally. I prefer to do as we do on our Forum, hypothetical meetings. Because some fighters though talented, did lack longevity as others had that on their side. Many will claim that greats like Roy Jones Jr and Mikey Tyson lost their primes at an early age because they fought since they were teenagers. That sounds more like an excuse. Muhammad Ali started boxing in 1954 as an amateur, he retired from pro boxing in 1981 following his defeat to Trevor Berbick. I do think that Victor Galindez was a top notch World Light Heavyweight Champion of his era. He defeated Len Hutchins for his piece of the pie, after champion Bob Foster refused to fight him in 1974, as Foster refused to fight John Conteh, his other mandatory challenger. Victor was a good counter puncher, and was durable. He defeated the likes of Jorge Ahumada, Richie Kates, Alvaro Yaqui Lopez, Eddie Mustafa Muhammad, Pierre Fourie and Mike Rossman. Galindez was one of those fighters from a barrio or slum that fought anyone early in life in the ring for a meal. He did not pick and choose his opponents, so he started early in life as well as others like Carlos Monzon and countless others. The weakness that plagued Victor during his championship reign was the propensity to cut during a match. But Galindez was a good champion but every generation has their favorites.