Victor Galindez W15 Eddie Gregory (Mustafa), 1977: who here saw it?

[kenmore]

I never got to see Victor Galindez's fifteen round decision win over Eddie Gregory (Mustafa) for the WBA lightheavyweight title in 1977. I'm sure people on this forum have seen it...can you share your impressions and analysis with me?

I've read a lot about the fight, but I don't know what to believe. Was the outcome really as controversial as they say?

Thanks.

[sweet_scientist]

I never got to see Victor Galindez's fifteen round decision win over Eddie Gregory (Mustafa) for the WBA lightheavyweight title in 1977. I'm sure people on this forum have seen it...can you share your impressions and analysis with me?

I've read a lot about the fight, but I don't know what to believe. Was the outcome really as controversial as they say?

Thanks.

I have the fight, but I am yet to watch it. If I have some time later on tonight, I'll give it a gander and give you my thoughts.

[kenmore]

I have the fight, but I am yet to watch it. If I have some time later on tonight, I'll give it a gander and give you my thoughts.

Thanks. I hope you score it by rounds...I'm interested in knowing who you thought should have won.

[My dinner with Conteh]

Never seen the fight. I think Boxing News had Galindez ahead- they tipped Gregory before the fight.

[zadfrak]

Typical Gregory bout---"if only" written all over it. Like if only Eddie would throw combos/if only Eddie would fire some nasty right hands at the guy/etc.

It was definately a winnable bout & Galindez had already had a bunch of tough close fights. Gregory got outworked in a bout he had the tools to win. Galindez was not going to give up the title easily & was guy that dug deep and Eddie just never seemed to dig deep or be willing to put things in 4th gear from time to time and really go after an opponent to get him out of there.

[JohnThomas1]

Typical Gregory bout---"if only" written all over it. Like if only Eddie would throw combos/if only Eddie would fire some nasty right hands at the guy/etc.

It was definately a winnable bout & Galindez had already had a bunch of tough close fights. Gregory got outworked in a bout he had the tools to win. Galindez was not going to give up the title easily & was guy that dug deep and Eddie just never seemed to dig deep or be willing to put things in 4th gear from time to time and really go after an opponent to get him out of there.

Huge fan here but a fair post.

[Lobotomy]

It was an Eddie fight, so I fell asleep after round two. (Wake me up when it's over. Hey, don't blame me. Eddie was snoring during the referee's instructions!)

[sweet_scientist]

Thanks. I hope you score it by rounds...I'm interested in knowing who you thought should have won.
First of all my final tally: 143-142 Galindez

I gave Eddie rounds 1,2,6,7,8,10 and 14. I gave Galindez rounds 4,5( 10-8 round),9,11,12,13, and 15. I had round 3 even.

Quite a few rounds were close here, and there was quite a bit of controversy along the way. In round 5 Eddie hurt Galindez with a body shot that made Galindez wince, and moved in to go for the kill. As he did Galindez landed a counter shot that put Eddie down. Galindez landed a few more shots in the clinch by the end of the round. How do you score such a round? I went 10-8, but it could have easily been a 10-9 round for Galindez because he was hurt from that body shot.

Then in round 13, Eddie was hit with a low blow (Galindez had landed quite a few throughout the fight) and Eddie complained to the referee. The ref told him to stop faking it and continue fighting. They resumed and Gregory gave Galindez a light tap on the thigh, Galindez faked injury and the ref, somehow, ended up taking 2 points from Gregory! DISGRACEFUL! He probably should have been given a point, not have 2 points taken from him. On my card, I gave the round, which was fairly close, to Galindez 10-9. I didn't want to let the ref's call fuck my card over. Fuck that ref.

Now, I'd have to agree with Zadfrak that this was a typical "if only" Eddie bout. He was making Galindez miss badly with some beautiful movement and was landing his jab at will, but he was altogether too passive on the whole. Galindez fought with a fury and took what he could get, hitting Eddie in the clinches, hitting him after the bell, hitting him low, hitting him behind the head and on the side of the head etc. In short, Galindez was desperate to land what he could. He did the better work in the clinches and probably landed enough left rips to the body to take it.

I think you could make a case for Eddie edging it if you score round five 10-9 and discount the bullshit point deductions from round 13, but he should have made a better case for himself by stepping on the pedal and taking the fight to Galindez. Wasted opportunity.

[Mantequilla]

Worth mentioning that Galindez was very much starting to slow down at this point.It was indeed a wasted oppurtunity by Gregory.

[red cobra]

I saw the fight, and a critical moment in it was in the 3rd round, when Mustafa hurt Victor with a couple of body blows, and Galindez, in a flash, decked him with a counterpunch, I think it was a right. After that, Mustafa wasn't nearly as assertive as he should have been, and Galindez did what he did best, and that was fight his countering style of fight, and win those close 15 round decisions that was a hallmark of his title reign. This one was close, but not controversial, as Galindez deserved it, and he had that kd to score that "something extra" in the points score. In an interview later on, Eddie said that he "wasn't ready for a Victor Galindez at that time", so even he acknowledged that he lost. This fight was nowhere near the controversy of the Alvaro Yaqui Lopez fight, for example. Eddie Mustafa, later on, was fully capable of beating Galindez, or anyone else for that matter, IMO.

[red cobra]

First of all my final tally: 143-142 Galindez

I gave Eddie rounds 1,2,6,7,8,10 and 14. I gave Galindez rounds 4,5( 10-8 round),9,11,12,13, and 15. I had round 3 even.

Quite a few rounds were close here, and there was quite a bit of controversy along the way. In round 5 Eddie hurt Galindez with a body shot that made Galindez wince, and moved in to go for the kill. As he did Galindez landed a counter shot that put Eddie down. Galindez landed a few more shots in the clinch by the end of the round. How do you score such a round? I went 10-8, but it could have easily been a 10-9 round for Galindez because he was hurt from that body shot.

Then in round 13, Eddie was hit with a low blow (Galindez had landed quite a few throughout the fight) and Eddie complained to the referee. The ref told him to stop faking it and continue fighting. They resumed and Gregory gave Galindez a light tap on the thigh, Galindez faked injury and the ref, somehow, ended up taking 2 points from Gregory! DISGRACEFUL! He probably should have been given a point, not have 2 points taken from him. On my card, I gave the round, which was fairly close, to Galindez 10-9. I didn't want to let the ref's call fuck my card over. Fuck that ref.

Now, I'd have to agree with Zadfrak that this is was a typical "if only" Eddie bout. He was making Galindez miss badly with some beautiful movement and was landing his jab at will, but he was altogether too passive on the whole. Galindez fought with a fury and took what he could get, hitting Eddie in the clinches, hitting him after the bell, hitting him low, hitting him behind the head and on the side of the head etc. In short, Galindez was desperate to land what he could. He did the better work in the clinches and probably landed enough left rips to the body to take it.

I think you could make a case for Eddie edging it if you score round five 10-9 and discount the bullshit point deductions from round 13, but he should have made a better case for himself by stepping on the pedal and taking the fight to Galindez. Wasted opportunity.
Sweet Scientist, I have a regrettable tendency sometimes to not read the posts just proceeding mine, and in this case, I would have benefitted from doing so, as your post has much more clarity and accuracy than mine. I'm mostly on the same page as you, not counting a few details here and there. I was keeping score too when I watched it and I had Galindez the winner, again, I don't have a clue as to remembering the exact score I had.

[sweet_scientist]

Sweet Scientist, I have a regrettable tendency sometimes to not read the posts just proceeding mine, and in this case, I would have benefitted from doing so, as your post has much more clarity and accuracy than mine. I'm mostly on the same page as you, not counting a few details here and there. I was keeping score too when I watched it and I had Galindez the winner, again, I don't have a clue as to remembering the exact score I had.

No worries mate. :good

What are your thoughts on Galindez-Lopez? That's another bout in my collection that I haven't watched. Who did you have winning that bout?

[red cobra]

No worries mate. :good

What are your thoughts on Galindez-Lopez? That's another bout in my collection that I haven't watched. Who did you have winning that bout?
Honestly, I thought a draw would have been fair, but there was a concensus that Lopez did enought to win. I saw both fights, and though I was pulling for Galindez, it just seemed to me that he squeaked by just barely in the 1st fight, and you know, that good ol' "champions perogative" was in place, and it seemed less than a clear-cut decision. As for that 2nd fight, I think a motivated Lopez may very well have deserved that one. Both fights were somewhat alike, style-wise. I always liked the Argentine champions around at that time, and I always thought that Vic Galindez was better than he was given credit for being, with that counterpunching, laid back, "come to me" style. He was like one of those big viper snakes, like a puff adder, sort of a "sit and wait" style of predator, and not the bomb throwing "caveman" type of fighter he seemed to be in his title winning fight against Len Hutchins back in 1974. Nevertheless, in the last part of his reign, before he met Rossman, he sure was the globetrotter, and had a knack for winning close 15 round decisions.

[Longhhorn71]

I watched most of the great LtHvywt battles of the 70's except some that were overseas and not televised back in the U.S.

I thought Galindez barely won this fight due to Eddie's lack of "going for it" when he had the chance.

I remember that Galindez changed his style from all out "attack" to more of a counter-puncher due to his propensity to cut later in his career.

[Bummy Davis]

Eddie boxed well but he could not pull the trigger, Victor was more aggressive and landed the harder shots...V.G. won the fight

[kenmore]

No worries mate. :good

What are your thoughts on Galindez-Lopez? That's another bout in my collection that I haven't watched. Who did you have winning that bout?

I was going to start a second thread about Galindez-Lopez II. That's an interesting fight because I've read on various forums that it was not necessary the robbery that it was originally reported to be in 1978. Again, I did not see this bout so I cannot say.

Concerning the Galindez-Gregory fight, is it possible that Gregory held back deliberately because he sensed that, had he been more aggressive, Galindez would have hurt him?

People have always said that Gregory blew it by not being more aggressive. I am wondering however if Gregory simply couldn't afford to be more aggressive given Galindez's counterpunching skill and power. Maybe Gregory was already taking as many chances as he could afford to take.

What do you think?

[Bummy Davis]

I was going to start a second thread about Galindez-Lopez II. That's an interesting fight because I've read on various forums that it was not necessary the robbery that it was originally reported to be in 1978. Again, I did not see this bout so I cannot say.

Concerning the Galindez-Gregory fight, is it possible that Gregory held back deliberately because he sensed that, had he been more aggressive, Galindez would have hurt him?

People have always said that Gregory blew it by not being more aggressive. I am wondering however if Gregory simply couldn't afford to be more aggressive given Galindez's counterpunching skill and power. Maybe Gregory was already taking as many chances as he could afford to take.

What do you think?


Good point, A lot of fighters know when to let go and when not to gamble...Eddie felt Victor's power and Galandez had a solid chin

[zadfrak]

It's just so hard to say.

Eddie just rarely put things in 4th gear & just like staying in 2nd gear. 2nd gear against a Victor Galindez---who already had some mileage and tough fights--just isn't going to get you the W. I have no doubt Eddie had the tools to win the bout & he did have youth on his side. Eddie could've done more bodywork & he had a real hard right hand to the body he threw. Galindez was a master at countering off the ropes, but those body punches would have to take a toll on a guy. But beating a Galindez is not an easy nights work & a guy will have to take some chances in there.

[sweet_scientist]

Concerning the Galindez-Gregory fight, is it possible that Gregory held back deliberately because he sensed that, had he been more aggressive, Galindez would have hurt him?

People have always said that Gregory blew it by not being more aggressive. I am wondering however if Gregory simply couldn't afford to be more aggressive given Galindez's counterpunching skill and power. Maybe Gregory was already taking as many chances as he could afford to take.

What do you think?

I'm not sure, you could be right. That said, I don't think he was hurt at all from the knockdown, and he didn't seem really hurt at any time in the fight - other than from Galindez's ball punch in the 13th.

I think Eddie had a good chin and could take some massive shots, as he proved against Michael Spinks, but to me, I don't know, it just seemed that he never had the killer instinct to go after a guy and seize the fight by the throat. Perhaps he had concerns about stamina, I don't know, perhaps he was cautious because he had to respect Galindez as you say, but I think he just lacked that bit of mettle to dig down and get dirty at the moment of truth.

[JohnThomas1]

I think Eddie had a good chin and could take some massive shots, as he proved against Michael Spinks, but to me, I don't know, it just seemed that he never had the killer instinct to go after a guy and seize the fight by the throat.

And that's exactly it. All that fantastic power and no-where near enough aggression or fire to make half decent use of it. Even an Arguello type style would have been excellent for him - passive and smooth early while dissecting an opponent and ramping up as the bout goes on until that final conclusive finish.

[sweet_scientist]

Honestly, I thought a draw would have been fair, but there was a concensus that Lopez did enought to win. I saw both fights, and though I was pulling for Galindez, it just seemed to me that he squeaked by just barely in the 1st fight, and you know, that good ol' "champions perogative" was in place, and it seemed less than a clear-cut decision. As for that 2nd fight, I think a motivated Lopez may very well have deserved that one. Both fights were somewhat alike, style-wise. I always liked the Argentine champions around at that time, and I always thought that Vic Galindez was better than he was given credit for being, with that counterpunching, laid back, "come to me" style. He was like one of those big viper snakes, like a puff adder, sort of a "sit and wait" style of predator, and not the bomb throwing "caveman" type of fighter he seemed to be in his title winning fight against Len Hutchins back in 1974. Nevertheless, in the last part of his reign, before he met Rossman, he sure was the globetrotter, and had a knack for winning close 15 round decisions.

I actually just watched their second fight and thought that Galindez won it by about three points. Lopez did well with the jab but I liked Galindez's shots better. Lopez threw more punches and the commentators kept harping on how Galindez couldn't get off and how Lopez was making the fight, but Galindez still landed the better punches for mine in most of the rounds and showed some really good defense. Lopez hardly hit him with a power shot all night long.

Fuck I hate Gil Clancy's commentary. He makes soom good observations, don't get me wrong, but he is biased as hell. The way he was scoring the fight it was like he had Lopez winning by a landslide. Pure shite.

[sweet_scientist]

Just another point I'd like to bring up, what in the hell happened to Yaqui Lopez between fights one and fights two?

In the first fight he looked like a skinny kid and got mauled pretty bad I thought down the stretch. In the second fight he came out looking like the rock of Gibraltar and Galindez couldn't push him around as nearly as much.

One of the biggest changes in body shapes I have seen in such a short time.

Does anyone know if he made a conscientious effort to pump weights for the rematch? He certainly looked a hell of a lot stronger for it, whatever it was he did.