Virgil Hill

[Othro]

Where does he rank among all time light heavy weights? He's seldom talked about aside from the Roy Jones KO despite having to most title defenses at the weight and being a two division champ.

[drunkenpiper36]

He gets a lot of flack for his weak opposition. I myself feel he's at least top 20. That was a hell of a long title reign and a lot of time spent at the top of his division. And some of the guys he beat were not as bad as made out to be like Bobby Czyz, James Kinchen, Leslie Stewart, Henry Maske, Frank Tate and Frabrice Tiozzo. Not a stellar list by any means, but not one comprised of bums either.

[Broomhall]

Good fighter was Hill. Very good technician who could have given any light heavyweight of any era a hard nights work. I think you could make a case for him outboxing and surprising many legends of the division.

[drunkenpiper36]

Good fighter was Hill. Very good technician who could have given any light heavyweight of any era a hard nights work. I think you could make a case for him outboxing and surprising many legends of the division.

I think so as well.

The fact that he was often unimpressive is commonly mistaken for being "ineffective" which I've never believed to be the case. Hill was fast, smart, and usually well conditioned. Thomas Hearns was one of the few men with the right style and set of skills to outpoint Virgil.

[Ambling Alp II]

He gets a lot of flack for his weak opposition. I myself feel he's at least top 20. That was a hell of a long title reign and a lot of time spent at the top of his division. And some of the guys he beat were not as bad as made out to be like Bobby Czyz, James Kinchen, Leslie Stewart, Henry Maske, Frank Tate and Frabrice Tiozzo. Not a stellar list by any means, but not one comprised of bums either.

Hill was pretty good. However, Top 20 is a stretch. Look at who was clearly above him:

Michael Spinks
Ezzard Charles
Gene Tunney
Archie Moore
Bob Foster
Harold Johnson
Tommy Loughran
Bob Fitzsimmons
Billy Conn
Dwight Qawi
Roy Jones
Eddie Mustapha Muhammad
Mathew Saad Muhammad
Victor Galindez
Maxsie Rosenbloom
John Henry Lewis
Jimmy Bivins
Harry Greb
Philadelphia Jack O'Brien
Tommy Gibbons

That is 20 guys right there. People don't really think of Langford and Tommy Burns as light heavyweights, but they were great at 175 as well.

There are at least a dozen other guys that you could make a pretty good case for as being better than Hill as well.

[drunkenpiper36]

He gets a lot of flack for his weak opposition. I myself feel he's at least top 20. That was a hell of a long title reign and a lot of time spent at the top of his division. And some of the guys he beat were not as bad as made out to be like Bobby Czyz, James Kinchen, Leslie Stewart, Henry Maske, Frank Tate and Frabrice Tiozzo. Not a stellar list by any means, but not one comprised of bums either.

Hill was pretty good. However, Top 20 is a stretch. Look at who was clearly above him:

Michael Spinks
Ezzard Charles
Gene Tunney
Archie Moore
Bob Foster
Harold Johnson
Tommy Loughran
Bob Fitzsimmons
Billy Conn
Dwight Qawi
Roy Jones
Eddie Mustapha Muhammad
Mathew Saad Muhammad
Victor Galindez
Maxsie Rosenbloom
John Henry Lewis
Jimmy Bivins
Harry Greb
Philadelphia Jack O'Brien
Tommy Gibbons

That is 20 guys right there. People don't really think of Langford and Tommy Burns as light heavyweights, but they were great at 175 as well.

There are at least a dozen other guys that you could make a pretty good case for as being better than Hill as well.

I don't know enough about some of those guys to argue either for or against their placements, but I concur that the light heavyweight division is historically talent packed. I suspect that there are lot of guys who are interchangeable for some spots. I think a few years ago however, the ring or someone had him at around #19, which on the surface seems fair.

[Broomhall]

He gets a lot of flack for his weak opposition. I myself feel he's at least top 20. That was a hell of a long title reign and a lot of time spent at the top of his division. And some of the guys he beat were not as bad as made out to be like Bobby Czyz, James Kinchen, Leslie Stewart, Henry Maske, Frank Tate and Frabrice Tiozzo. Not a stellar list by any means, but not one comprised of bums either.

Hill was pretty good. However, Top 20 is a stretch. Look at who was clearly above him:

Michael Spinks
Ezzard Charles
Gene Tunney
Archie Moore
Bob Foster
Harold Johnson
Tommy Loughran
Bob Fitzsimmons
Billy Conn
Dwight Qawi
Roy Jones
Eddie Mustapha Muhammad
Mathew Saad Muhammad
Victor Galindez
Maxsie Rosenbloom
John Henry Lewis
Jimmy Bivins
Harry Greb
Philadelphia Jack O'Brien
Tommy Gibbons

That is 20 guys right there. People don't really think of Langford and Tommy Burns as light heavyweights, but they were great at 175 as well.

There are at least a dozen other guys that you could make a pretty good case for as being better than Hill as well.

From that list I would give Hill a good chance of beating Galindez, Spinks, Muhammed and Qawi. To compare the real old timers like Greb, Gibbons, Tunney etc I just feel the sport then and recently is too different to make any real comparisons. When you take a look at Tunneys record for example many of his wins come against guys with less than 10 or 15 fights, and most of those have multiple losses, Tommy Gibbons record is the same. and so is Grebs.

[Othro]

He gets a lot of flack for his weak opposition. I myself feel he's at least top 20. That was a hell of a long title reign and a lot of time spent at the top of his division. And some of the guys he beat were not as bad as made out to be like Bobby Czyz, James Kinchen, Leslie Stewart, Henry Maske, Frank Tate and Frabrice Tiozzo. Not a stellar list by any means, but not one comprised of bums either.

Hill was pretty good. However, Top 20 is a stretch. Look at who was clearly above him:

Michael Spinks
Ezzard Charles
Gene Tunney
Archie Moore
Bob Foster
Harold Johnson
Tommy Loughran
Bob Fitzsimmons
Billy Conn
Dwight Qawi
Roy Jones
Eddie Mustapha Muhammad
Mathew Saad Muhammad
Victor Galindez
Maxsie Rosenbloom
John Henry Lewis
Jimmy Bivins
Harry Greb
Philadelphia Jack O'Brien
Tommy Gibbons

That is 20 guys right there. People don't really think of Langford and Tommy Burns as light heavyweights, but they were great at 175 as well.

There are at least a dozen other guys that you could make a pretty good case for as being better than Hill as well.

From that list I would give Hill a good chance of beating Galindez, Spinks, Muhammed and Qawi. To compare the real old timers like Greb, Gibbons, Tunney etc I just feel the sport then and recently is too different to make any real comparisons. When you take a look at Tunneys record for example many of his wins come against guys with less than 10 or 15 fights, and most of those have multiple losses, Tommy Gibbons record is the same. and so is Grebs.

I have a serious hard time seeing how Hill could beat Qawi or Spinks. I could see him possibly beating Saad Muhammad or Eddie Mustapha Muhammad if it was a lazy day .

[Ambling Alp II]

That what thought immediatley. No way he beats Saad or Mustapha Muhammad the majority of the time.

He would have a chance against some of these guys, but would lose more often than against all of them. I doubt he would win one out 10 against Michael Spinks. Dwight Qawi would have ate him alive.
If he fought all of these guys 3 times, he would gone something like 5-55. Not trying to rip him, but you are talking about great fighters here.

Yes you can make real comparisons with the Old-Timers and more modern fighters. You just have to do a lot of research. You are already comparing Hill to fighters from the late 1970s. You certainly can compare the fighters from the 1970s to the 1960s. Since you can do that, you can compare the fighters from the 1980s to the 1960s. You can compare the fighters the fighters from the 1960s to the 1950s. Since you can do that, you can compare fighters from the 1950 to the 1950s and so on.

Yes you will see fighters with unimpressive records when you look at the Old-Timers. There are reasons for that. At times, there are probably guys who have incomplete records from way back. Fighters didn't get spoon fed automatic wins at the beginning of their careers. Prospects didn't always start their careers 20-0 against no-hopers like they do now. The Top fighters used to fight each other multiple times as well.

If you do take a hard look at Greb, Tunney, Gibbons etc, you see some great wins, far exceeding someone like Virgil Hill.

there are many other fighters who are just behind the guys that I listed previously that many people would argue was better than Hill : Old Timers like Jack Delaney, Kid McCoy, Young Stribling, Georges Carpentier, Battling Levinsky, Paul Berlanbach, Jimmy Slattery, Mike McTigue, Kid Norfolk.

In the 1940s and 1950s there was Lloyd Marshall and Joey Maxim.

From more recent times, guys like Jose Torres, Marvin Johnson, Dariusz Michalczewski Antonio Tarver. There were tough contenders in the 1970s like Richie Kates, Jerry Martin, Yaqui Lopez who would have been title holders later on.

Not trying to rip Hill here, but there are a lot of guys to consider. Looking at Hill on tape and looking at his resume, there really should not be any doubt that he wasn't one of the Top 20.

[Broomhall]

That what thought immediatley. No way he beats Saad or Mustapha Muhammad the majority of the time.

He would have a chance against some of these guys, but would lose more often than against all of them. I doubt he would win one out 10 against Michael Spinks. Dwight Qawi would have ate him alive.
If he fought all of these guys 3 times, he would gone something like 5-55. Not trying to rip him, but you are talking about great fighters here.

Yes you can make real comparisons with the Old-Timers and more modern fighters. You just have to do a lot of research. You are already comparing Hill to fighters from the late 1970s. You certainly can compare the fighters from the 1970s to the 1960s. Since you can do that, you can compare the fighters from the 1980s to the 1960s. You can compare the fighters the fighters from the 1960s to the 1950s. Since you can do that, you can compare fighters from the 1950 to the 1950s and so on.

Yes you will see fighters with unimpressive records when you look at the Old-Timers. There are reasons for that. At times, there are probably guys who have incomplete records from way back. Fighters didn't get spoon fed automatic wins at the beginning of their careers. Prospects didn't always start their careers 20-0 against no-hopers like they do now. The Top fighters used to fight each other multiple times as well.

If you do take a hard look at Greb, Tunney, Gibbons etc, you see some great wins, far exceeding someone like Virgil Hill.

there are many other fighters who are just behind the guys that I listed previously that many people would argue was better than Hill : Old Timers like Jack Delaney, Kid McCoy, Young Stribling, Georges Carpentier, Battling Levinsky, Paul Berlanbach, Jimmy Slattery, Mike McTigue, Kid Norfolk.

In the 1940s and 1950s there was Lloyd Marshall and Joey Maxim.

From more recent times, guys like Jose Torres, Marvin Johnson, Dariusz Michalczewski Antonio Tarver. There were tough contenders in the 1970s like Richie Kates, Jerry Martin, Yaqui Lopez who would have been title holders later on.

Not trying to rip Hill here, but there are a lot of guys to consider. Looking at Hill on tape and looking at his resume, there really should not be any doubt that he wasn't one of the Top 20.

I think we will just have to agree to disagree on this one. I know the majority of fight fans will agree with you rather than me, but too many old time fighters built their records knocking over ill prepared cowboys in country fairs.

Hill had the mobility, athleticism and jab to trouble any light heavy of any era.

[BoxBuzz]

Just because Hill had Tiozzo's number does not make him a top 20 LHW.

[drunkenpiper36]

Just because Hill had Tiozzo's number does not make him a top 20 LHW.

No but maintaining focus for as long as he did to be the #1 light heavyweight around for the better part of 10 years may be. Weak opposition or not. You don't stick around at the top that long by being garbage.

[BoxBuzz]

Well if top 20 is about ticks of the clock....then in that context he's likely top twenty.

[drunkenpiper36]

Well if top 20 is about ticks of the clock....then in that context he's likely top twenty.

Ambling Alp and perhaps a few others are rating Hill based on their "assumption" of how he'd do head to head against the proposed list of fighters. I myself don't rate fighters on the basis of head to head assumptions. For one thing its impossible to prove. For another it doesn't measure the overall abilities of a man nor how he sizes up to the rest of the field... Only what he does on one evening against one opponent. I rate boxers on overall legacy. In that context, there are few light heavyweights who reigned at or near the top of their division as long as Hill did and beat as many contenders, even if those contenders were viewed as being historically underachieving.

[tennessee]

always liked Hill and think he is all time great in a sense. not sure top 20 but close. which aint too bad. don't think he could beat Ward or Kovalev but probably everyone else.

[Senya13]

Yes you can make real comparisons with the Old-Timers and more modern fighters. You just have to do a lot of research.
there are many other fighters who are just behind the guys that I listed previously that many people would argue was better than Hill : Old Timers like Jack Delaney, Young Stribling, Georges Carpentier, Battling Levinsky, Paul Berlanbach, Jimmy Slattery, Mike McTigue.

That advise would have to be returned, to do some research on listed fighters before considering them better than Hill.

[klompton]

Its laughable to suggest that Hill was better than Greb, Tunney, and Gibbons or that these guys were fighting "cowboys" at "county fairs." That last assertion is absolutely ridiculous.

[Broomhall]

Its laughable to suggest that Hill was better than Greb, Tunney, and Gibbons or that these guys were fighting "cowboys" at "county fairs." That last assertion is absolutely ridiculous.

Check their records. Dozens of wins against guys with little or no experience. Over half of Tunneys wins against guys with less than 15 fights, a third against guys with less than ten. The 4 fights before Dempsey his opponents have a combined record of 51 wins with 38 losses. He is fighting guys like Wolf Larson 3-2 jack burke 4-1 ray Thompson 0-5 Whitey Wenzel 8-4 Jack Cillford 0-6 Jim Monahagn 0-1 dan o dowd 0-1-0 Ted Jamieson 0-1-0 the list goes on an on and this isnt when Tunney is a novice pro.

In those days turn up at the fairground, buy some candy, have a ride, get chinned by Greb, Tunney etc get a few dollars for the ride home.

[Dubblechin]

I would give a prime Virgil Hill a very good chance to beat Eddie Gregory and Victor Galindez. Gregory drove people nuts because he could look great in one fight and just completely stink out the joint in another. Galindez was often the same way. He barely edged quite a few challengers during his reign. Virgil was just as good if not better than they were. He's definitely Top 20 all time. No worse than top 25.

[klompton]

Its laughable to suggest that Hill was better than Greb, Tunney, and Gibbons or that these guys were fighting "cowboys" at "county fairs." That last assertion is absolutely ridiculous.

Check their records. Dozens of wins against guys with little or no experience. Over half of Tunneys wins against guys with less than 15 fights, a third against guys with less than ten. The 4 fights before Dempsey his opponents have a combined record of 51 wins with 38 losses. He is fighting guys like Wolf Larson 3-2 jack burke 4-1 ray Thompson 0-5 Whitey Wenzel 8-4 Jack Cillford 0-6 Jim Monahagn 0-1 dan o dowd 0-1-0 Ted Jamieson 0-1-0 the list goes on an on and this isnt when Tunney is a novice pro.

In those days turn up at the fairground, buy some candy, have a ride, get chinned by Greb, Tunney etc get a few dollars for the ride home.

Boxrec records on all of those guys are incomplete. But why pick out their weakest opposition and use that as a measuring stick? Leo Houck Hall of Famer 2x, Battling Levinsky champion and HOfer, Harry Greb champion and HOFer 5x, Tommy Loughran champion and Hofer.

That right there shits all over Virgil Hills resume especially when you consider Hill fought three one HOFer and two others that might get into the HOF and clearly lost to each of them. There is no doubt that Tunney was matched soft a lot of the time but there is also no doubt that he faced SOME great competition and was actually able to beat some of them, Hill couldnt do that.

I wont even go over Greb's resume compared to Hills. Hell, one year of Greb's career would make Hill's entire career blush with envy.

Tommy Gibbons fought and beat Greb, Miske, Levinsky, Chip, and Norfolk among others. All champions or HOFers and all went down in defeat to Gibbons at one point or another. No doubt about it Tunney, Gibbons, and Greb were in a different class from Hill who was one of the weakest LHW champs. Yeah he had a lot of defenses but look at who he fought. How could you not have a ton of successful defenses? It was no secret why 33 year old punchy Hearns fighting nearly 30 pounds above his best weight chose to go after Hill.

[drunkenpiper36]

Boxrec records on all of those guys are incomplete.

That's fair enough and I think most people here realize that to some degree. But why do we constantly sh-t all over the resumes of men who actually have "verified" records, while giving those who don't the benefit of the doubt. I fully understand that men who fought between 1880-1920 sometimes had a lot more fights than what was recorded, but why make assumptions about something that isn't available at least on paper let alone film?

[Senya13]

guys like Wolf Larson 3-2 jack burke 4-1 Jack Cillford 0-6

Magnus Larson was a bar-room fighter skill-wise, although he supposedly had some amateur career, but it had done him no good. Jack Burke won a national amateur tournament in 1920, but was less than mediocre as a pro. Clifford was thrown out of Dempsey's training camp, found to be too poor to even be a sparring partner, but was signed up immediately to fight Tommy Gibbons to increase his famous series of KO's vs tomato cans in 1921.

[Ambling Alp II]

Well if top 20 is about ticks of the clock....then in that context he's likely top twenty.

Ambling Alp and perhaps a few others are rating Hill based on their "assumption" of how he'd do head to head against the proposed list of fighters. I myself don't rate fighters on the basis of head to head assumptions. For one thing its impossible to prove. For another it doesn't measure the overall abilities of a man nor how he sizes up to the rest of the field... Only what he does on one evening against one opponent. I rate boxers on overall legacy. In that context, there are few light heavyweights who reigned at or near the top of their division as long as Hill did and beat as many contenders, even if those contenders were viewed as being historically underachieving.

Well I wasn't rating him based on how I think he would have done against a proposed list of others. I was actually answering another poster (Broomhall) comment about how Hill would do against other light heavyweights.

I don't rate fighters on overall legacy. You shouldn't. Having a long reign in a weak era for a long time doesn't mean you are better than someone who didn't in another era.

You have to to look at the best fighters they fought, how they did against them. The wins over tomato cans and mediocre fighters don't mean anything for anyone of any era. You yourself have said that you don't know much about many old-timers, yet you have no problem rating Hill a head of them. Guess what, the world began before you and I were born.

[Ambling Alp II]

Its laughable to suggest that Hill was better than Greb, Tunney, and Gibbons or that these guys were fighting "cowboys" at "county fairs." That last assertion is absolutely ridiculous.

Check their records. Dozens of wins against guys with little or no experience. Over half of Tunneys wins against guys with less than 15 fights, a third against guys with less than ten. The 4 fights before Dempsey his opponents have a combined record of 51 wins with 38 losses. He is fighting guys like Wolf Larson 3-2 jack burke 4-1 ray Thompson 0-5 Whitey Wenzel 8-4 Jack Cillford 0-6 Jim Monahagn 0-1 dan o dowd 0-1-0 Ted Jamieson 0-1-0 the list goes on an on and this isnt when Tunney is a novice pro.

In those days turn up at the fairground, buy some candy, have a ride, get chinned by Greb, Tunney etc get a few dollars for the ride home.

Boxrec records on all of those guys are incomplete. But why pick out their weakest opposition and use that as a measuring stick? Leo Houck Hall of Famer 2x, Battling Levinsky champion and HOfer, Harry Greb champion and HOFer 5x, Tommy Loughran champion and Hofer.

That right there shits all over Virgil Hills resume especially when you consider Hill fought three one HOFer and two others that might get into the HOF and clearly lost to each of them. There is no doubt that Tunney was matched soft a lot of the time but there is also no doubt that he faced SOME great competition and was actually able to beat some of them, Hill couldnt do that.

I wont even go over Greb's resume compared to Hills. Hell, one year of Greb's career would make Hill's entire career blush with envy.

Tommy Gibbons fought and beat Greb, Miske, Levinsky, Chip, and Norfolk among others. All champions or HOFers and all went down in defeat to Gibbons at one point or another. No doubt about it Tunney, Gibbons, and Greb were in a different class from Hill who was one of the weakest LHW champs. Yeah he had a lot of defenses but look at who he fought. How could you not have a ton of successful defenses? It was no secret why 33 year old punchy Hearns fighting nearly 30 pounds above his best weight chose to go after Hill.

That is pretty much what I think. The point about picking out the weakest competition is really important. I think we can all agree that Hill would have beat some of their opponents easily. Hill himself fought guys what were 0-0 (finished his career 0-8) 5-5,4-5, 5-3-1, and 7-31. Were those guys better than guys that Gibbons, Tunney Greb fought that may have only has a handful of fights? Who knows? Why would anyone care?

Compare their wins/losses and performances against the best fighters that they fought; that will tell you a lot more.

[drunkenpiper36]

Well if top 20 is about ticks of the clock....then in that context he's likely top twenty.

Ambling Alp and perhaps a few others are rating Hill based on their "assumption" of how he'd do head to head against the proposed list of fighters. I myself don't rate fighters on the basis of head to head assumptions. For one thing its impossible to prove. For another it doesn't measure the overall abilities of a man nor how he sizes up to the rest of the field... Only what he does on one evening against one opponent. I rate boxers on overall legacy. In that context, there are few light heavyweights who reigned at or near the top of their division as long as Hill did and beat as many contenders, even if those contenders were viewed as being historically underachieving.

Well I wasn't rating him based on how I think he would have done against a proposed list of others. I was actually answering another poster (Broomhall) comment about how Hill would do against other light heavyweights.

I don't rate fighters on overall legacy. You shouldn't. Having a long reign in a weak era for a long time doesn't mean you are better than someone who didn't in another era.

You have to to look at the best fighters they fought, how they did against them. The wins over tomato cans and mediocre fighters don't mean anything for anyone of any era. You yourself have said that you don't know much about many old-timers, yet you have no problem rating Hill a head of them. Guess what, the world began before you and I were born.

Okay then. Well just dismiss the fact that the guy was the best of a division for the better part of 10 years as though it was just a fart in the wind. BTW, if comparing fighters based on the "best fighters they fought" then how do we evaluate THOSE fighters if legacy means nothing? How many fights have YOU seen of light heavyweights who's careers go back to 1900? Any verification on any of their records or "the best guys they fought?" Hill's resume isn't stellar but it is solid. He beat very good light heavyweights in Bobby Czyz, Leslie Stewart, and Henry Maske. He has more lightheavy title wins than anyone except for maybe Archie Moore. The only prime loss he has is to a hall of famer. He was an olympic medalist and a two division champion to boot. If that makes him a bum, then I'd say you have very high standards.