Galileo Bad, Archimedes Good

Isn't a mathematician arguing that Galileo was a bad scientist because he wasn't as good at deriving the area under some function as Archimedes, a bit like a fish arguing that Galileo was a bad scientist because he couldn't swim as fast as a tuna?

I was going to say this is BS, and that Gaileo's big achievement was not undermined by this argument.

I then found that what I was going to argue was his big achievement was not as original as I had thought: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo's_Leaning_Tower_of_Pis...

On the other hand he still seems to have made a significant contribution to laws of motion in his writing, but I am not sure.