Khaosai Galaxy - How Fair Is It...

Change that actually..it doesnt make grammatical sense..though I rarely do.

 

It's true he wasn't in the mix with the other big hitters. However as we all know, you can have more than one outstanding champ at one weight - Veeraphol & Rafael Marquez, Brian Mitchell and Azumah Nelson, Celestino Caballero and Israel Vazquez, etc etc. Longevity, consistency and power are what distinsguished Galaxy as perhaps the top man. And he was extremely entertaining. Certainly, if he'd been in that tougher mix, he would have at least one defeat at world level.

The lack of skills thing really annoys me. The savvy, the champion's arrogance, the toughness, strength and power, the fact that he was a physical freak, the savvy he showed in world title fights...Like Darchinyan, the awkwardness, the weird rhythm, the strange things he did in there, would have given more traditionally skilled fighters absolute fits. OK he didn't prove it in the most direct way. You can only fight who's put in front of you, money isn't massive in lower weights and therefore it's smart business sense to have lots of title defenses, some of them very winnable. He didn't have loads of daunting title defenses, but he set a hugely impressive record & often won in spectacular fashion. Boxing is a business and who do you think left boxing the most secure? - Khaosai, Khaokor, Johnny Tapia, Nana Konadu?

(Granted, Khaosai would probably been an even better fighter, he may have shown something extra, in the face of extra adversity.)

 

Im not questioning that he is a great fighter and a great of the division..but his accolades far outweigh his actual accomplishments.

Which are really no better then some of the guys mentioned.

He never struck me as the definition of a skillful boxer.. Doesnt mean he wasnt effective but he certainly relied more on his brute strength, durability and fitness then his technical ability.
We never really got to see how he would have fared against the more skilled fighters of his time..his limitations may well have come to surface in those fights or maybe not.

What pisses me off actually is a very good fighter has been bestowed disproportionate accolades by certain sections of the boxing media for reasons I dont really know...Learned fans are going to question this and there will often be a backlash.
So instead of appreciating the fighter he was, people challenge the fighter he is made out to be.

 

Khaosai was hardly slick, but he had good ring generalship. He moved better, and set up shots better, than given credit for.

I think the real problem was the WBC/WBA title split when Watanabe became The Man. WBA was declared vacant and Khaosai got in. There probably would have been more great fights, more major fights, had Khaosai challenged a unified champion.

I'd say 19 defenses with 16 KOs certainly gives him a case to be more than "no better" than the others (i.e. Konadu, Moon, Roman, Watanabe). He did beat a rival champ, he beat a guy who beat Vazquez, and there were some other good 'uns along with the bad.

Wasn't Roman going to unify with him but then lost to Konadu? Did Mutsumuru - a guy Khaosai gave 2 drawn out beatings to & dropped several times - give one of the top fighters (Roman?) a very hard fight?

The thing with the WBC holders and the top bantams - the titles seem to have been changing hands pretty regularly. If Khaokor was in some of that mix as well, it's no surprise that Khaosai was fighting for a different belt (WBA super flyweight).

When Tapia came along, surely it was up to Tapia to challenge Khaosai, to go to the Thai?

I think Khaosai makes an interesting comparison with Vic Darchinyan. Similar styles, if you ignore Vic's crab stance. They both had more intelligence to set up their power shots than given credit for. Whereas Galaxy had the long, long reign, Darchinyan's body of work has been shorter and more specacular - i.e. more impressive single fights, fights that really showed everything he was made of, fights in which he was surprised, fights in which he surprised us. Personally I prefer this approach, but Khaosai is still awesome.

 

He beat a splinter champ, and the worst of the lot in Pical. Contreras was relatively green when Galaxy beat him, and only well after did he go on to big wins over Vazquez and Espinosa. I certainly don't think the number of title defenses against mediocre opposition ranks him ahead of more skilled fighters who routinely took on better opposition (including the other top fighters of the era).

No. Matsumuru retired 12-7, having done hardly anything of note in his career other than his losses to Galaxy and Moon. And Roman was well past his best by the time he got handled by Konadu.

 

So it was Moon that Mutsumuru gave a tough fight to?

Contreras beat Vazquez AND Espinosa? It turned out to be a solid win, then. Given that the guy went on to do something.

So really, if Khaosai had gone 1 win, 1 draw, 1 defeat and a win or loss on cuts from head clashes vs Watanabe, Konadu, Roman and Moon, for the WBC belt he'd get loads more credit.

But could those guys have gone on such a long run holding the WBA title?

 

Against the quality of opposition Galaxy faced? Certainly, IMO. Moon for example took on Khaosai's brother Khaokor (who, by the way was also much more proven than Galaxy against top flight opposition) twice, a prime Nana Konadu twice, and holds stoppage wins over Gilberto Roman and Hilario Zapata, though the latter two, particularly Zapata, were done by that time.

I think guys like Roman, Moon, and Konadu were much more proven, and Watanabe, while not having a great resume himself, appeared clearly the more skilled fighter.

 

Ony problem with Moon is some of his major fights are marred by head clashes.

I suppose the super flyweights of that time beg the question of, what do you like, quantity or quality.

Re Khaosai - weren't those 2 Castro guys decent challengers?

How do you think Khaosai rates next to, say, Veeraphol Sahaprom? Veeraphol appears to have some underrated wins (along with some absolute garbage punchbag sessions) and some excellent skills that are beyond doubt.

 

re Khaokor proven at a higher class. he's supposed to have been lucky to beat Wilfredo Vazquez and his results certainly were mixed, at best. nothing wrong with that, just an observation.

i think given Khaosai's freakish longevity (despite being vs lesser names), that it's doubtful he would have just folded like his brother (v espinoza) after a few admittedly very hard opponents.

[have to credit khaosai for beating contreras, given that contreras went on to stop vazquez AND espinoza. this has to be one hell of an underrated win.]

to go on that kind of run requires a lot of a fighter, especially when he's battering and overpowering them. fight after fight. i don't care whom you're fighting. (of course, khaosai would not have been able to go 19 world title bouts unbeaten had he bene in the WBC mix)

 

Moon would've sparked Khaosai, and I rate Khaosai more than most.

 

Galaxy is always going to be a mixed opinion fighter. Some of those who follow boxing in Asia have it out for Galaxy.

The one thing everyone agrees on is he had big time power. Galaxy hit several weight classes above bantam. He was a southpaw slugger type who forced his opponents to either retreat or eat leather.

While Galaxy wasn't very fast or skilled, he wasn't a slow or a hack either.

Whether or not Galaxy could beat the best in his era is debatable. Sure he could be out boxed by the elite level fighters, but he could also KO just about anyone too.

In some ways Galaxy was the David Tua of the lower weights, except Galaxy was always in shape and had more all around game than Tua did.

 

Galaxy doesn't even get credit for the world class wins that he has. Longevity is one mark of greatness, so too is "freakishness" - and he certainly had freakish strength and power and most important of all, knew how to use it. I think he gets sold well short. He and his brother do raise the quality vs quantity debate, but some ppl go overboard, giivng Khaokor more credit for, say, 3 hard fights than Khaosai, who went on an awesome run, beat some underrated fighters, and scored a lot of KOs, including some durable guys, some slick boxers.

 

Galaxy had some awesome physical tools, there is no questioning that. I just don't think he put them together well enough to be able to consistently beat the best fighters at that weight, but we can't know for sure.

I'd probably favor most of the other top guys of that era over him, though he obviously wouldn't be without chance in any of them.

Moon I tend to think would've gotten off the big punch first, as he just seemed more adept at landing it, despite his even less impressive style aesthetically. He was just a balls to the wall puncher with power and durability in spades. I think more often than not he catches Galaxy cold first.

Konadu would out-box Galaxy, but like with Moon, it's possible a few big shots could really switch things around. Thing is, Galaxy didn't have the unorthodoxy of Moon, he was more of a plodding straight-shooter with that left hand. So I'm not sure if he'd be able to catch Konadu off guard as effectively as Moon was able to. This one could go either way, but I'd probably side with Konadu. Could be wrong.

Roman, while an excellent technical boxer, in all honesty may have lacked the physical tools to deal with Galaxy. Despite his skills, I think his lack of any outstanding quality makes him a bit more susceptible to just that type of fighter. I'd bet on Galaxy's strength and power eventually overcoming Roman's much more well-schooled boxing style by the end of the night.

Watanabe I think had some of the tools Roman lacked, at his peak anyway. He was a very patient and precise counter-puncher, with excellent footwork and ring generalship, which I think would see him getting the better of Galaxy in the center of the ring, while for the most part steering clear of Galaxy's best weapon, considering both are southpaws. I'd like to have seen more of a consistent jab on Watanabe, though.

If someone like Tapia fought the right fight, I think he could also outbox Galaxy, otherwise he might be biting off more than he could chew if he tried to get cute.

 

Seems like just about everyone "could" outbox Galaxy. Fast fighters, slick boxers, punchers as well. How about Galaxy's success v slick boxers like Griman? For 3 of 4 years Galaxy was in scheduled 15 rounders, and I'd argue his perceived slowness is less of an issue: his methodical slugging, body punching in particularm is an attribute here. With 15 rounds I think he'd have a great chance against some of the best, fastest boxers. In a 12 rounder however, v someone like the tough agile, hard hitting Tapia, this becomes much more of an issue.

Khaosai can obviously fight good punchers as well, given that Contreras went on to stop 2 dent some heavy hitters. I'd argue he has proven more in tough company than ppl let on...Of all the top fighters at super fly and bantam, Khaosai was surely the most popular, surely the fighter with the most star power, so naturally the promoters try to keep the cash cow going for as long as possible. A guy like Contreras is very dangerous, and probably considerably cheaper than say the bigger names who were holding and dropping titles. It's just how boxing is, and I think revisionist history has been too harsh on a guy who perhaps found his niche better than anyone else in the lower weights at the time.

Before Cristian Mijares got destroyed by Darchinyan, it was "Mijares would have schooled Galaxy, Mijares is going to easily beat Darchinyan." I think fights like Hopkins-Tito, Toney-Barkley have done more harm than good to boxing fans. There are many snobs who simply feel a terrific counter puncher always beats a great puncher, a fine boxer beats a great slugger 9 times out of 10.

 

IMO the reaosn he is so well rated is because he was destroying guys and looking extremely exciting - over a sustained period, and consistent. that, and the fact that a handful of his wins are much better than ppl give him credit for.