Virgil Hill

[Ambling Alp II]

I'm sure I'm going to regret this, but here goes:
I guess you spin things they way you want to. Hill did win 21 WBS light heavyweight title fights. If you don't care who the opponents were, that Hill was one of 3 or 4 "champions" during this time, or that Greb never got a shot at the light heavyweight title, then I guess that means a lot to you.

Greb won 4 fights against light heavyweight Hall of Famers. If you count Newspaper Decisions, Greb has I believe 18 wins over light heavyweights who made the Hall of Fame. I believe Hill 0.

elmer, you listed 16 light heavyweights above Hill. You didn't count John Henry Lewis, Philadelphia O'Brien, Bob Fitzsimmons, or Eddie Mustapha Muhammad. All were clearly better than Hill; you have to know that. That gets you to 20 right there, not including Greb, or Langford.

That's also not including several guys that people have mentioned that were roughly even with Hill.

[dempseyfire]

He was clearly better than some fighters in there you just mentioned. Virgil Hill was a 3-time light-heavyweight champion I believe. At least he was light heavy champ twice. And he defended the crown more than 10 times. His quality of opposition was not that good, but, that was not his fault.

Give me a break "3 time champion" means nothing once you hit the 1980s and beyond. There was only one time around 1988-1990 he would've been considered the best light HW in the world, before losing to Hearns and RJJ came on the scene. A Moorer-Hill superfight never happened b/c Michael moved up to HW where the $ was. The division sucked in the post Spinks era . . it was title fights with Donny Lalonde, Bobby Czyz, and a blown-up Frank Tate.

We cannot blame him because of his quality of opposition. .

But we can definitely take it into account when ranking him.

Number of title defenses means DICK post 1980. Hill was never the undisputed champ at 175. And when he did step up to fight true A grade light heavyweights in Darius and RJJ he got wiped out. To say he ranks over Tiger Jack Fox, Harry Greb, or Melio Bettina at 175 is an absurd of all absurdities.

Yes even B-Hop at 175 is over him . . beating Tarver eclipses any win Hill ever had.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

It's vintage Elmer, he acknowledges Rosenbloom, Loughran & gibbons as top 20 guys but completely ignores the multiple wins Greb has over them as significant Light Heavyweight accomplishments. Not even mentioning people like Norfolk, Delaney, McTigue and Levinsky that would all rate over Virgil too.

If you listed the top 15 Light heavy wins between Greb and Hill, it would be 15-0 Harry.

If you list world championship win bouts between Greb and Hill, it would be 21-0 Virgil.

What makes Greb different than Ezzard Charles? He also has zero? Elmer, I know you love your stubborn little convictions after you say something stupid, but you're severely clowning yourself. Even for you.

Defending an alphabet strap against the James Kinchen's of the world means more than Greb beating 4 guys you rate over Hill?

[SaadOffTheDeck]

[
Give me a break "3 time champion" means nothing once you hit the 1980s and beyond. There was only one time around 1988-1990 he would've been considered the best light HW in the world, before losing to Hearns and RJJ came on the scene. A Moorer-Hill superfight never happened b/c Michael moved up to HW where the $ was. The division sucked in the post Spinks era . . it was title fights with Donny Lalonde, Bobby Czyz, and a blown-up Frank Tate.

We cannot blame him because of his quality of opposition. .

But we can definitely take it into account when ranking him.

Number of title defenses means DICK post 1980. Hill was never the undisputed champ at 175. And when he did step up to fight true A grade light heavyweights in Darius and RJJ he got wiped out. To say he ranks over Tiger Jack Fox, Harry Greb, or Melio Bettina at 175 is an absurd of all absurdities.

Yes even B-Hop at 175 is over him . . beating Tarver eclipses any win Hill ever had.

Tarver is another I'd rate over Hill. Honestly, as we flesh out the names. Virgil might not make my top 50. Still a solid fighter, just a brutally loaded division.

[elmersalsa]

I'm sure I'm going to regret this, but here goes:
I guess you spin things they way you want to. Hill did win 21 WBS light heavyweight title fights. If you don't care who the opponents were, that Hill was one of 3 or 4 "champions" during this time, or that Greb never got a shot at the light heavyweight title, then I guess that means a lot to you.

Greb won 4 fights against light heavyweight Hall of Famers. If you count Newspaper Decisions, Greb has I believe 18 wins over light heavyweights who made the Hall of Fame. I believe Hill 0.

elmer, you listed 16 light heavyweights above Hill. You didn't count John Henry Lewis, Philadelphia O'Brien, Bob Fitzsimmons, or Eddie Mustapha Muhammad. All were clearly better than Hill; you have to know that. That gets you to 20 right there, not including Greb, or Langford.

That's also not including several guys that people have mentioned that were roughly even with Hill.

Like I said before Alp. Virgil Hill was not extraordinary. He was nothing to be awed about. If he would have fought in thegreat Ezzard Charles time or in the era of Michael Spinks, Matthew Saad Muhammad, Yaqui Lopez, Dwight Muhammad Qawi, Marvin Johnson or even of the era of the great Bob Foster, Hill would have not crack the top ten contenders of those eras. He was blessed to be in a WEAKER ERA. Should we blame him? No. He did what he had to do and that was that. But he was champion for a long period of time. He did not duck anybody, he fought the best the djvision had to offer and most of the time, he succeeded. Let's give him credit for that. He is a top 20 light heavyweight all time in my view.

You mentioned Philadelphia Jack O'Brien. I mentioned him too. I mentioned John Henry Lewis. We could agree that they were better than Hill. Still that is one slot or two for Hill to be in the top 20.

I don't think Eddie Mustapha Muhammad, a.k.a Eddie Gregory was better than Hill... No way. The great Harry Greb is not even mentioned with the very best of the 175lb class. He makes the cut at 160lbs where he belongs.

[elmersalsa]

It's vintage Elmer, he acknowledges Rosenbloom, Loughran & gibbons as top 20 guys but completely ignores the multiple wins Greb has over them as significant Light Heavyweight accomplishments. Not even mentioning people like Norfolk, Delaney, McTigue and Levinsky that would all rate over Virgil too.

If you listed the top 15 Light heavy wins between Greb and Hill, it would be 15-0 Harry.

If you list world championship win bouts between Greb and Hill, it would be 21-0 Virgil.

What makes Greb different than Ezzard Charles? He also has zero? Elmer, I know you love your stubborn little convictions after you say something stupid, but you're severely clowning yourself. Even for you.

Defending an alphabet strap against the James Kinchen's of the world means more than Greb beating 4 guys you rate over Hill?

I see that you will never get the point. I just don't rank fighters because of whom they beat. I looked in all the areas. You cannot comparé the great Harry Greb with the great Ezzard Charles at 175lbs. Charles was never a champion at 175lbs due to the racial circumstances of the times. But even at that, he CLEANED UP the class more than any champion with a crown at the time he was in. Greb DID NOT CLEANED UP the division. That is the BIG DIFFERENCE between Charles and Greb. Charles is probably the only fighter in history to clean up a weight class without getting a title shot.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Who did Greb not fight and how does Greb have 4 wins over guys in your top 20 while Hill has none? I think Charles is the greatest Light Heavy ever, but Virgil Hill certainly never cleaned out his weight class. Seriously, are you so pathetic that you can't even admit you didn't even dispute enough of my list to make Hill top 20? You're a riot, Harry had many more fights at Light Heavy than Hill did, with greater success against infinitely greater competition.

Hill lost to the 3 best fighters he faced and none of them were competitive. His pinnacle is 40-50.

The funniest part is you pick your dumbest exclusion to harp on. Why not focus on Tony Shucco(whom you don't know)? Hill has no case over him. With Greb, you may as well start talking about Artur Grigorian over Roberto Duran or Omar Narvaez over Fidel LaBarba. I won't indulge you anymore, but you truly are the dumbest fornicate this side of Drunkenpiper.

[Ambling Alp II]

I'm sure I'm going to regret this, but here goes:
I guess you spin things they way you want to. Hill did win 21 WBS light heavyweight title fights. If you don't care who the opponents were, that Hill was one of 3 or 4 "champions" during this time, or that Greb never got a shot at the light heavyweight title, then I guess that means a lot to you.

Greb won 4 fights against light heavyweight Hall of Famers. If you count Newspaper Decisions, Greb has I believe 18 wins over light heavyweights who made the Hall of Fame. I believe Hill 0.

elmer, you listed 16 light heavyweights above Hill. You didn't count John Henry Lewis, Philadelphia O'Brien, Bob Fitzsimmons, or Eddie Mustapha Muhammad. All were clearly better than Hill; you have to know that. That gets you to 20 right there, not including Greb, or Langford.

That's also not including several guys that people have mentioned that were roughly even with Hill.

Like I said before Alp. Virgil Hill was not extraordinary. He was nothing to be awed about. If he would have fought in thegreat Ezzard Charles time or in the era of Michael Spinks, Matthew Saad Muhammad, Yaqui Lopez, Dwight Muhammad Qawi, Marvin Johnson or even of the era of the great Bob Foster, Hill would have not crack the top ten contenders of those eras. He was blessed to be in a WEAKER ERA. Should we blame him? No. He did what he had to do and that was that. But he was champion for a long period of time. He did not duck anybody, he fought the best the djvision had to offer and most of the time, he succeeded. Let's give him credit for that. He is a top 20 light heavyweight all time in my view.

You mentioned Philadelphia Jack O'Brien. I mentioned him too. I mentioned John Henry Lewis. We could agree that they were better than Hill. Still that is one slot or two for Hill to be in the top 20.

I don't think Eddie Mustapha Muhammad, a.k.a Eddie Gregory was better than Hill... No way. The great Harry Greb is not even mentioned with the very best of the 175lb class. He makes the cut at 160lbs where he belongs.

It's not Hill's fault that the division was weak during his era. However, he didn't exactly look awesome. He certainly looked beatable by a great fighter. The loss to Hearns has to count against him as well.

How is Marvin Johnson and Saad Muhammad better than Hill, yet Mustapha Muhammad is "no way"? Mustapha beat both Saad and Marvin Johnson. He also gave Michael Spinks a very tough fight. There is no way that Hill was better.

Just because you keep calling Greb a middleweight, doesn't mean he wasn't a great light heavyweight as well. He could clean up the division because he didn't get a title shot. Counting No-Decisions, he beat 8 different light heavyweight Hall of Famers. Counting official verdicts, he still beat 3. You have to get it out of your head that Greb was just a middleweight.

[dempseyfire]

[
Give me a break "3 time champion" means nothing once you hit the 1980s and beyond. There was only one time around 1988-1990 he would've been considered the best light HW in the world, before losing to Hearns and RJJ came on the scene. A Moorer-Hill superfight never happened b/c Michael moved up to HW where the $ was. The division sucked in the post Spinks era . . it was title fights with Donny Lalonde, Bobby Czyz, and a blown-up Frank Tate.

We cannot blame him because of his quality of opposition. .

But we can definitely take it into account when ranking him.

Number of title defenses means DICK post 1980. Hill was never the undisputed champ at 175. And when he did step up to fight true A grade light heavyweights in Darius and RJJ he got wiped out. To say he ranks over Tiger Jack Fox, Harry Greb, or Melio Bettina at 175 is an absurd of all absurdities.

Yes even B-Hop at 175 is over him . . beating Tarver eclipses any win Hill ever had.

Tarver is another I'd rate over Hill. Honestly, as we flesh out the names. Virgil might not make my top 50. Still a solid fighter, just a brutally loaded division.[/quote]


I've even met Hill before. Very nice man. And he was a class act as a boxer . . always in shape, tried his best. His late run at cruiser is under-rated.
But he was not a great light heavyweight. He was a solid fighter who won title belts when the division was weak and fragmented. The losses to Hearns, Darius, and Jones Jr show he simply wasn't in the elite class.

[Ambling Alp II]

I think there are a lot of things at play here.
First, Hill seemed a like a good guy. I think maybe some people that defend Hill may think that those that don't have him that high don't like him. That's not the case, at least with some of us.

Hill did didn't have very good opposition and that isn't his fault. You can only fight the best out there. The problem is he lost to Hearns (which didn't seem like a fluke) and really just didn't seem that impressive most of the time. He was past his best against DM, but still that seems like a winnable fight. He was best against better against Jones, but a better showing would have helped as well.

Some people get caught up in the WBS title defenses. Others know how insignificant they often are.

There also a lot of guys not that far outside of the Top 20 that are roughly even with Hill; so you can a huge difference of opinion of where to rate him. Given him the benefit of the doubt over everyone that is close and Top 25 is arguable; however you could reasonably have him well outside of the Top 30 as well.

Lastly, I think people often make knee jerk reactions when saying this guy or that guy is Top 10 or Top 20 or whatever. You have to look at everyone else as well.

[drunkenpiper36]

I think there are a lot of things at play here.
First, Hill seemed a like a good guy. I think maybe some people that defend Hill may think that those that don't have him that high don't like him. That's not the case, at least with some of us.

Hill did didn't have very good opposition and that isn't his fault. You can only fight the best out there. The problem is he lost to Hearns (which didn't seem like a fluke) and really just didn't seem that impressive most of the time. He was past his best against DM, but still that seems like a winnable fight. He was best against better against Jones, but a better showing would have helped as well.

Some people get caught up in the WBS title defenses. Others know how insignificant they often are.

There also a lot of guys not that far outside of the Top 20 that are roughly even with Hill; so you can a huge difference of opinion of where to rate him. Given him the benefit of the doubt over everyone that is close and Top 25 is arguable; however you could reasonably have him well outside of the Top 30 as well.

Lastly, I think people often make knee jerk reactions when saying this guy or that guy is Top 10 or Top 20 or whatever. You have to look at everyone else as well.

I won't argue anymore with anyone about where exactly he should be ranked, top 20, top 40, top 60, top 100, whatever.. Regardless of his ranking, I happen to think he was a great fighter. He stayed either at or near the top of his division for the better part of a decade, took on most available challengers and even though he fought plenty of second raters or pretenders, still beat some decent opponents. Its a gross generalization to say that his ENTIRE record consists of bums and tomato cans. He's also a better boxer in actuality than his win lists suggests. Sometimes you have guys like that.

[elmersalsa]

Well said drunkenpiper.

Virgil Hill was not a great p4p great, but he had a great career. He is in the HOF and deservedly so. He is in there by his own merit. No light-heavyweight champ has more world title wins than he. Hill won 21 world title fights at 175lbs and still some in here do not give him credit. What a shame.

[elmersalsa]

Hill won 21 fights that mattered and still does not get respect. The Ring Mgazine has Hill rated at the top 20 best lght heavies in history. I don't see the great Harry Greb there.

[Giancarlo]

[SaadOffTheDeck]

This just goes to show how amazing the great Omar narvaez is. The only fighter in history with 10+ successful defenses in two different divisions. What an amazing ATG fighter he is and don't even get me started on the prodigious record of Samson Boy Dutch Gym.

[Datsue]

This just goes to show how amazing the great Omar narvaez is. The only fighter in history with 10+ successful defenses in two different divisions. What an amazing ATG fighter he is and don't even get me started on the prodigious record of Samson Boy Dutch Gym.