Anyone remember how the Galindez vs Fourie fight played out?.
That's one of Victor's fights i still need to get hold of..
Anyone remember how the Galindez vs Fourie fight played out?.
That's one of Victor's fights i still need to get hold of..
I believe Yaqui when he said he needed more time to acclimatise to the Denmark cold for the Conteh fight. He arrived a week before the fight, and Denmark is cold, real cold.
Yaqui was definitely under par against Conteh (especially when you look at his other displays).
DeathKing - For Conteh "At Prime" performances would/should have been the Bennett And Hutchings Fights, But as impressive as the results read, they were tainted, for Conteh's misbehaviour with his head, They are impressive though for evidence of John's ruthless streak ! I like to see John's Pre-Peak Title winning effort Against Ahumada, with John only 23, and Ahumada bang in his prime at 28 ( it must be remembered that whilst Victor Galindez had Jorge's Number, his hardest fight With Jorge, over 15 rounds, came Subsequent to Conteh's Victory (Victor getting bored seeing Jorge ? )
Also a post-prime Conteh's resurrection of his boxing Skills (if not the aggression and Venom) Against Saad in Fight 1 These to fights give an indication of the talent Conteh had at his disposal between these periods but ultimately dissipated,
Pre Parlov, Conteh's one punch dismissal of Leonardo Rogers is interesting but donít know if its out there anywhere ?
DeathKing - Oops Sorry, Re Galindez, Victor did sleepwalk through many of his fights, but had the skills to do so, no mean feat considering the calibre of his opporsition, Its quite interesting to see this sqwat Guy, built like a battleship, actually Back off, play posseum, to lure his opponents on, of course when Victor did open up he could throw heavy and accurate withering combinations, he looked quite special, As to fights Rossman 1st Shows Victor at his worst, but for the rematch Victor was fired up, its a rejuvenated Galindez who Shows Rossman what a True Victor looks like
Also if you feel a bit cruel, Victors Fight with Muscular and willingly brave upstart Ray J Elson is worth watching,
with no respect for reputations, Ray J Steamed into Victor from the Off, with Victor taking the scenic route,But when Victor suddenly switched into the fast lane, Ray J was left battered and bruised on the Hard Shoulder, for a mid fight stoppage
Two interesting fights of an interesting Fighter
thanks sagebush, I always felt that many uderrated Galindez
speed, and power because he had a couple of close fights
( Pierre Fourie both, Eddie Gregory and Yaqui" Lopez 2). But what most people don't understand, is that Most of the Light-Heavyweights of that time had a coplue of close fights.
I am sure a copule John Conteh fights were close, because 3 of them were split descisions. I am not judgeing Conteh( because i haven't seen any of his fights) but what is so bad of having a close fight. I think close fights what makes boxing great, because it always brings up a debate.
As for galindez, I always felt that he should belong in the top 10 all-time Light-heavyweights. I felt that his second fight with Rossman, proved that an 100% full focus Galindez, was one of the greatest light-heavyweights we well ever see.
IMO, Galindez was nowhere close to all-time top 10 light-heavy. He was a tough guy who came to fight, but he simply did not have the talent to compete with the real elite fighters in the division's history. He took a great shot and he could go hard for 15 rounds, but he was too slow, too easy to hit, too easy to cut, and he didn't hit hard enough to make up for those short-comings. I cannot imagine him ever beating Dwight Muhammad Qawi or, Heaven forbid, Michael Spinks.
Just my opinion.
I saw the Conteh-Lopez fight in 1976 on the CBS Sports Spectacular. It was televised here in the States. Sagebrush is quite correct- Conteh clearly won the fight, using only one hand! His educated left carried the day for him. On the other hand, the first Lopez -Galindez fight was close, but the rematch was highway robbery as Lopez was clearly shafted. You cant always go by the results that are listed in the Boxing Record Website as their are some errors listed. I feel a prime Conteh beats Galindez- with or without butting Victor- as long as Stanley Christodoulu isn't the ref!
I agree that Conteh deserved the decisions against both Lopez and Parlov.
I also agree that Lopez got robbed blind in the Galindez rematch.
Parlov had one of the worst styles ever.He was awful to watch.
Parlov was painful to watch. The man he beat, Cuello, had to be one of the worst champs ever. He hit Cuello w/ a straight shot, not much pop, and Cuello collapsed like he was poleaxed. I believe Cuello retired after this fight.
I think today so many people are so enamored with numbers and undefeated records and scoff at a fighter who did have a tendency to cut (not severely though, until late in his career) yet toed the mark with every top guy on the planet. We all know Galindez enjoyed a lengthy reign against the very best (Hutchins, Fourie twice, Ahumada, Kates twice, Lopez twice, Gregory, Rossman and Rossman's little brother). However, let's look at really how tough this bad boy from Argentina was. He went into the Hutchins fight with a record of 33-6-4 with 2 no contests. In those 45 fights he had a 9 bout series with Juan Aguilar (the same guy who held Monzon toa draw) finishing 4-2-2 and 1 NC. A 6 bout series with Avenamar Peralta (starting the series with him with 11 fights under his belt whereas Peralta was a 60 bout veteran) finishing 3-3. Before their title fight, a 4 bout series with Jorge Ahumada finishing 3-1. Not to mention beating up on Bossman Jones, Eddie Owens, Ray Anderson, Jose Gonzalez and Eddie Duncan (the same Duncan who beat Conteh a year earlier fell in 2 to Galindez). Now look at the cushy title defences Virgil Hill had in his 'record breaking' reign. Please, do not sully the Galindez rep. His pre-title fights were way deeper than anything Hill fought outside of Hearns. But hold on, I'm not done yet. If that wasn't enough, during his 11 title defences during his first reign, let's not forget that he also packed in 9 non-title fights. It's easy to look at Galindez at the end of his career and say so and so would have stopped him, but this guy packed alot into a short time against boxer, puncher and counter puncher and it was my pleasure seeing him in his prime between '74 and '76, not the heavy scar-tissued fighter that most remember. For my money, Galindez is easily in my all-time top ten at 175.
Victor was one of the most fascinating (and confusing)
boxers to ever lace on the gloves because of his spring
forward and fall back style. It was hard to judge how good he really was sometimes.
Does any video exist of his fight with "Stinger" Hutchins
Dan Hanley, i feel the same way you do, Galindez was a one of te hreatest Light-heavyweights of all time, i guess people only see his close fights, but tend to forget that he beat Lopez, in there first fight fair, and sqaure, and beat alot of the top dogs, at 174ibs.
Boxing News correspondent Graham Houston blamed the TV commentary for the controversey in the second Galindez-Lopez fight. By all accounts, the commentators had Lopez winning hands down when Houston, who I respect greatly, had Galindez winning handily. The headline of his report of the fight in Boxing News read: "You see it your way..."
I never listen to the commentary when I watch a fight. Turn the sound down and you get a much clearer picture of what's happening. In the recent Hatton-Tszyu fight for example, you could see Tszyu looking close to exhaustion on his stool at the end of the 11th, and moments later the fight was waved over. No surprises. I then turned the sound up to hear the crowd reaction in Manchester and the stupid commentators were expressing real surprise at Tszyu's decision to retire.
Assuming both fighters fought their best, I would pick Conteh to beat Galindez.
It would have been a very competitive fight, but ultimately Conteh's boxing ability, speed, left jab, and sizzling combition punching would have won the day.
Unless Galindez was badly cut, the bout would go the distance.
I believe a prime Conteh would have won this fight because I saw Galindez have a great deal of trouble with competent long range boxers such as Ritchie Kates, Yaqui Lopez, and Jesse Burnett.
Conteh had advantages over Galindez in height, reach, hand speed and long-range boxing ability.
I might add though that although I pick Conteh to won this fight, if I were a betting man, I would not have wagered to much on the result. This is because Galindez was strong enough, powerful enough and dogged enough to perhaps have beaten Conteh if the Englishman made a mistake.
I would say Conteh had a 70% chance of victory against Galindez, assuming both were in their prime.
the thing with Conteh is that, is prime was cut short. he had hand problems, in most of his fights. Galindez had little trouble with Kates, in the later rounds he destory him(first fight). Lopes held a split descision, against lopez, and many were spli to whom have won.
Heh. Houston had to have been a pretty big Galindez fan to (1) have him winning and (2) have come with such a creative explanation as to why nobody ELSE on the face of the Earth had him winning. Lopez got flat-out robbed.Boxing News correspondent Graham Houston blamed the TV commentary for the controversey in the second Galindez-Lopez fight. By all accounts, the commentators had Lopez winning hands down when Houston, who I respect greatly, had Galindez winning handily. The headline of his report of the fight in Boxing News read: "You see it your way..."
1) Some are swayed by the verbal diarrhoea emenating from those God-awful US-TV commentators (do your commentators ever shut up!)
2) Some aren't
E: I have the second fight and Yaqui didn't do nearly enough to win the second fight with Galindez.
It was a very boring fight.
I agree with beddows here regarding the commentary of the announcers.
I usually turn the sound off and turn on some good music and make my own observations like I did Saturday when I had Rocky only winning 2 and and the outside 3 rounds.
I feel asleep during the Vargas "fight".
Just for the record, I find ALL commentators annoying and often plain wrong in their sentiments, and I no longer listen to them. We had a commentator over here, Harry Carpenter, who could make you believe a British fighter was winning a fight when in fact he was getting pounded. A case in point is the Wilfred Benitez-Maurice Hope fight in 1981. Benitez handed out a slow and precise beating to poor Mo - it was one-way traffic - but Carpenter called it close right up to the spectacular finish. My biggest bugbear with commentators is their inability to acknowledge the work of cute fighters (ala Galindez), of body punchers, and of those who land knockout blows to the temple or the top of the head. When Naseem Hamed floored Steve Robinson with a vicious shot to the temple, for example, Ian Darke, our best commentator, said Robinson had slipped and expressed amazement when the referee then made a humane, perfectly-timed stoppage.
Like I say, he's our best commentator. >:
About two weeks ago, a weak-chinned, highly over-hyped former "amateur sensation" named Verquan Kimbrough fought a run-of-the-mill traveling loser called Marty Robbins (not the dead singer; this Marty Robbins has a below .500 record mostly against fellow journeymen). For nine rounds Kimbrough cruised, but in the tenth he tired out and started to get pounded by Robbins. Kimbrough was dropped five times (the first and third were called slips by the friendly ref) in the round and somehow staggered to the final bell and a decision win.
During the dreadful final stanza, one of the three local guys providing commentary on the broadcast repeatedly and frantically yells "Clench!" to the loopy "sensation." It's nice to know that personal bias has no place in the makeup of today's television announcer, isn't it? PeteLeo.
I respect the poster's on this board. I find it fascinating how two people who are both knowledgeable fans can feel so differently about the outcome of a fight. For example, I feel that Conteh clearly beat Lopez, and Lopez clearly beat Galindez in the second fight.
I didn't see Galindez vs. Lopez II, but I remember reading the AP account of the fight in the newspaper the next day. The AP made it sound like Galindez won without any controversy, citing his superior body work. Naturally I was confused when the boxing magazines later ran stories picking Lopez as having won by a wide margin.
What about Galindez vs. Gregory...I know that was supposed to be controversial as well. Did anyone see it differently, picking Galindez as the clear cut winner?
It was close.Gregory was at his most lethargic and let the fight slip away.
Gregory was dropped early in that one and was even more cautious than usual afterwards, though he still had the natural ability to make it close.
That guy was a big waste of talent.