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

Light heavyweight is a historically deep division. Galindez is no where near my top ten.

 

Galindez reminds me a lot of Pedroza. A lot.

 

Yeah, it's acceptable in that it could be argued with some weight of evidence - it's not outlandish at all. He's not in my own top 10 but he's not that far off.

 

Is Saad clearly greater though, George? Not saying he isn't greater, just that there isn't that big a gulf between them (if at all)...

 

My favourite division, and probably my favourite ever fighter from it. So it pains me a little to say that Victor, tremendous though he was, doesn't deserve a stop in the top 10.

The lack of a unification match hurts him here - had the WBC been being passed around from one non-descript guy to the other, this wouldn't have been all that much of a problem, but Conteh was a very capable and talented fighter and it's not out of the question that he'd have beaten Galindez in a unification anywhere between 1974 and 1977, though I wouldn't like to call it.

Galindez mixed it with some very, very fine competition during his WBA tenure, but overall the guys he was facing were just that rung below the very highest order. The exception, perhaps, was Eddie Gregory / Mustafa Muhammad who was a tremendous fighter when on full form - and he gave Galindez just about all he could handle in a fight which could have gone either way. I think some of Galindez's epic struggles during those ten WBA defences (and his brief second stint) in which he sometimes flirted with defeat before having to come through in dramatic circumstances are a good indicator of his level - outstanding, but not quite in the elite bracket of 175 pounders.

Brilliant fighter and one of the best value-for-money operators of his time, though. Definitely top 20 at the weight, maybe edging towards the cusp of a top 15.

 

The more I think about it, the more I think he has a better argument than I first thought.

He never thought Conteh, which is a big negative, but there's other issues to consider:

Arguably the best LHW in the world for 5 years.
Upto 1978 he'd beaten everyone he'd fought.
A resume featuring victories over: Hutchings, Fourie, Ahumada, Kates, Lopez, Muhammad, Rossman.

I think he does have a decent argument, all things considered. I can certainly see him ranking above the likes of Jones, Hill, Qawi, Saad, Rosenbloom, O'Brien, Conn, Bivins, Johnson.

I'm not saying I necessarily do rank him above those, in fact I don't, right now. But the more I think about it, is there any good reason to have Conn rated higher than him? And Conn is who I rank the greatest of that little list, but is it an open and shut case that Conn is greater than Galindez?

I could even extend it to Fitzsimmons and Tunney. Are they 100% greater than Galindez?

I reckon he's in the 10-20 range and yeah, a decent argument can be made to have him 10.

Ive completely changed my opinion since this thread started.

 

Good man, Luf.

@scartissue Now the issue seems to be that he was ran close in some fights or, get this, that he had to make a dramatic comeback or show some last minute heroics to gain the victory.

I thought that was a positive, personally. One of the main strengths attributed to the greats and one of the things that made us as fans marvel about the sport and the men we watched and idolized. Their ability to rise above and conquer all odds.

Seems more like a matter of taste or just riding the flow of what’s “in” to say and what’s “out”. Saad did these things time and again as champion. What did we think? Obviously, they were indicators of his champion’s heart, never say die mentality, and undying resolve. But, when Galindez did it apparently it just reeked of his limitations as a fighter.

 

Werent the Lopez, Kates and Mustafa fights all controversial though? I have read that some WBA home cooking may have been involved. We know from how the Rossman rematch was manipulated that Victor was a WBA favorite son.

 

Top 10 since 1960's, yes

 

I know what you mean. Jake LaMotta had to do this often and he's regarded as having a champion's heart. With Galindez its regarded as sneaking by.

 

Yes, there were close fights, but look at the level of fighter he was constantly against and how many times a year he would fight. Not only title defenses but non-titles as well and would always find a way to pull it out. I don't think Harold Skog or Kosie Smith deserved a title fight - that I will say was WBA home-cooking for allowing those. But the rest were top of the line and I can say some were close but I will not say there was any form of robbery.

 

I know that to many Victor Galindez was not a youth phrased vocabulary H20 fighter or whatever they are phrased these days, but he was a good champion, he fought what was put in front of him. Maybe he was not one of these flashy talkative fellows who become fight commentators, who love to smile into the cameras, but he was a champion with heart.

 

Great post as always, Scar, and I think you're on the money here.

Looking at his time coming up as a contender and his first title reign, when he was at his best, you get a fighter who went unbeaten for over 6 years with a record through that time of 42-0-1 (between 1972 and late 1978, I think). To put that in perspective, Roberto Duran went 39-1 during roughly the same time period. He has notable title defenses over Yaqui Lopez (x2), Richie Kates (x2) and Eddie Mustafa Muhammad during that period as well as you have already mentioned.

There are reasonable arguments against a top 10 spot (or at least for other fighters competing for the same spot) but he should be in the conversation, certainly. I currently have him outside my top 10 but it's not a stretch to see him rated there as you do.

 

Probably just outside, but to put in the lower part of the top 10 isn't total insanity or anything.

 

Do you have Dariusz Michalczewski at no. 3?