Khaosai Galaxy - How Fair Is It...

Which of the below fighters would you rate him above if he rates surely in the top 30?

1. Ray Robinson
2. Harry Greb
3. Henry Armstrong
4. Sam Langford
5. Muhammad Ali
6. Ezzard Charles
7. Roberto Duran
8. Mickey Walker
9. Benny Leonard
10. Barney Ross
11. Barbados Joe Walcott
12. Bob Fitzsimmons
13. Willie Pep
14. Joe Gans
15. Tony Canzoneri
16. Ray Leonard
17. Pernell Whitaker
18. Charley Burley
19. Joe Louis
20. Carlos Monzon
21. Archie Moore
22. Jimmy Wilde
23. Gene Tunney
24. Emile Griffith
25. Kid Gavilan
26. Ike Williams
27. Luis Manuel Rodriguez
28. Carlos Ortiz
29. Alexis Arguello
30. Roy Jones Jr.
31. Sandy Saddler
32. Eder Jofre
33. Marvin Hagler
34. Thomas Hearns
35. Jose Napoles

 

First of all I want to say I agree with Raging Bull that the backlash of the overrating of Galaxy is causing him to get slightly underratd by some.

He was a beast at the weight and definitely I consider him one of the best ever there.

But it defies reason why his achievments at the weight dwarf others who were pretty much doing the exact same thing, at the exact same time just with a different belt. Fighters such as Roman, Watanabe, Sugar Baby, Konadu. Didnt fight that bloke who beat his brother, which could have made him a two division champ.
Those guys didnt even make it into the rings top 80 fighters of the last 80 years and with good reason. Why does a man who achieved as much if not less not only make it into that list but he is above guys like Hearns and Benitez?

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.

 

I thought I had a rant about this not long ago

http://www.eastsideboxing.com/forum/showthread.php?t=86112&highlight=Khaosai

 

Excuse me...top 20 in his weight division - definitely not top 20 P4P. Top 50 P4P but that's it.

I like the guy, like how he fought, like his attitude about fighting - that aside, he's not ahead of Hagler, Hearns, Leonard, Jimmy Wilde, etc....

 

Galaxy reminds me of Aaron Pryor in the sense that his physical ability more than made up for some of his technical flaws. The thing I wonder about Galaxy is that if he'd have faced a truly great fighter who could expose some of these flaws, would he be able to adjust and tighten things up a bit. It always seemed like he was just walking in trying to take the guy out. Was he that good or was his competition a little weak or a bit of both?

 

I don't think Galaxy was particularly physically gifted other than strength and chin

he wasn't a quick or overly athletic fighter in most respects.

Power, steadyness and strength were his main assets.

 

Kingpetch and Chionioi is debatable, but Chartchai was never dominant for any length of time either and Kingpetch was the better technical fighter of the two.

 

Watanabe was the one that declined to make the mandatory title defence against Galaxy, but it's Khaosai that's often criticised for not facing off against the division's elite. A attempt was even made to set up a Roman fight, but Gilberto's camp neglected the proposition. Moon came to prominence shortly after Khaosai's time. Considering the relative time of the super-flyweight division, and breadth of quality operators that hung around Khaosai's time, really Galaxy's resume is not as bad a people would have you. Roman and Watanabe fought better quality of opposition in totality IMO, but not significantly better than Khaosai's. On paper, Moon's record looks a who's-who of the era, but in closer inspection, some of the fighters on the ledger were clearly past their prime.

 

Watanabe opted to unify against Poonterat.Galaxy was not yet established remember.

I agree with most of what you say though.The problem with Galaxy getting laid into is the context in which he's often brought up.

If someone was putting moon or Roman above tommy hearns or such, there would no doubt be a lot of people criticising them as well.

 

Technically better, yes, but Kingpetch was never dominant and regardless of his fluidity and technical prowess, he lost a high percentage of his fights.

 

Totally agree.

Those names arent in there with good reason, so I cant see why Galaxy deserves such accolade.

 

Sometimes these threads do my head in.

Someone says, Galaxy fought 20 bums.

Someone else says, Galaxy was crude, had few skills.

The comp: not all opponents were great. However, Contreras KO'd future 3 weight champ Wilfredo Vazquez. Pical was the current IBF champ (stripped of belt) when Galaxy fought him. Kim & Griman were future belt holders. Orono had been a champ. At least give Khaosai credit for bashing up guys that had achieved at world level. Given Khaosai's style, i..e aggressive, give-and-take, his longevity is amazing.

The skills: okay he was no Ricardo Lopez - tight, tidy, neat, correct - but he was sneaky, he was savvy; he would tempt the challenger in before catching them as they went on the attack; he could parry; he could smother, he could pivot to the sides and put his glove on opponent's shoulder so they couldn't catch him as he escaped to the sides; his body punching was savage. He knew exactly how to apply his strength and power. He did have good skills; you just have to get used to the style of fighting.

The ultimate myth: Tapia had skills, Khaosai had no skills, so Tapia wins. Utter nonsense. Tapia rightly gets credit for "quality over quantity" fights i.e. Konadu and Ayala at 118 but don't forget he beat Konadu by a hair and lost to Ayala (Ayala rugged pressure guy but hardly a boxing genius). But it doesn't mean he was better. There are different ways of judging greatness. Internet fans have access to a lot of information, and in the case of Galaxy ppl sadly do abuse this privilege.

 

when's your book going to be available? Will it be published in America/England?

 

So are you saying his rankings by Ring and other publications are justified?


He is ridiculously high and as has been said he never truly distinguished himself as the best in his division...Guys like Roman, Rojas, Konadu, Moon, Watanabe at times had just as much right to that claim.

Why should he be ranked so far ahead of these guys? When someone like Roman was doing pretty much the exact same thing, at the exact same time just with a different belt.

I still think he is an amazingly strong fighter for the weight, displayed some of the best power Ive seen there and a very sturdy chin..He is one of the best superflys ever..But I cant understand how that equates to being over some of the fighters that he is above in the rings 80 best fighters of the last 80 years list.

 

Every time someone asks about Khaosai just copy and paste this statement :good