Virgil Hill: A Top 20 All-Time Light-Heavyweight?

[elmersalsa]

This is my list of the top 20 light-heavyweight boxers of all time:
1. Ezzard Charles
2. Archie Moore
3. Tommy Lougran
4. Gene Tunney
5. Michael Spinks
6. Billy Conn
7. Bob Foster
8. Maxie Rosenbloom
9. Roy Jones, Jr.
10. Harold Johnson
11. Jimmy Bivins
12. Lloyd Marshall
13. Victor Galindez
14. Matthew Saad Muhammad
15. John Henry Lewis
16. VIRGIL HILL
17. Jack Dillon
18. Joey Maxim
19. Dwight Muhammad Qawi
20. Marvin Johnson

What you think, Ambling Alp?

You missed out Harry Greb. The guy who beat Tunney twice and held the same light heavyweight title Tunney did. He also beat Loughran, Rosenbloom, Dillon, Billy Miske, Tommy Gibbons and gunboat Smith. Well ahead of Virgil Hill. How on earth do you have Qawi below Hill?

I don't understand why some people want to include the great Harry Greb as a light-heavyweight great?. He is a middleweight great and let's leave it at that.

Hill was champion longer than Qawi, tomasino.

[Ambling Alp II]

Because Greb beat a lot of really good light heavyweights. Some people like to use their brain and think about how good he was at light heavyweight. Like many fighters Greb had no problem moving up in weight.

So Hill should be rated higher than Qawi because he was champion longer? Well, then all we need to to is look at how long a fighter was champion to know who was the best. Why are we all even debating this?

Victor Galindez should be higher than Harold Johnson since he held the title longer, right?
Several other mistakes in there as well on elmers list since he is going by now long a fighter held the title.


btw- I assume that we can all agree Johnny Kilbane was the greatest featherweight of all time since he held the title for the longest period of time.

[Seamus]

Why can't fighters be rated at multiple weights ? You beat the best of a division in a few fights you should also be rated there.

[elmersalsa]

Well, let's examine the great Harry Greb's record and see if he was a legit 175pounder. I think I saw it, and it didn't convince me that he belongs at the 175lbs all time best

[BoxBuzz]

....I know what your gettin' at Elmer.....

But when MW's skip the LHW division to clobber HW's does that necessarily mean they should be left out of the discussion?

Answer is...YES....if that's how you want factor things.


But to do so...sort of leaves a 160 pound gorilla in the room don't it?


Maybe you should simply define the rules of HOW you want this assessment to play out. Jettison all those you don't want "in" the circle of discussion, by defining your parameters. A lightweight that nails it in MW competitions....take for example RD....is probably a damn good super lightweight.....even if never fought a fight at that weight. Should we leave him out?

Answer is YES if that's how you want to factor things.

But it leaves RD as perhaps a low level super lightweight/Jr Welter...or jr Middle I guess.


All very subjective.....which is ok, as long as you set the "assessment parameters" in advance of the discussion.

[Ambling Alp II]

We do need to take out any fight where his opponent was a middleweight or smaller. So beating Walker for example, does not count.

He had a huge amount of fights against light heavyweights, so there is a lot to go through.
Here are the relevant fights at this weight class:

Against Gene Tunney: Lost two official decisions. Won a newspaper decision and lost one. Won an official decision. This is the only official loss in Tunney's career.

Against Tommy Loughran- Lost a decision. Won a decision. Greb won 3 Newspaper decisions.

Against Kid Norfolk: Lost once by DQ. Won a newspaper decision.

Against Tommy Gibbons: Won an official decision. Lost a newspaper decision. Won a newspaper decision.

Against Mike McTigue: Won a newspaper decision.

Against Battling Levinsky: No official decisions. Greb won (I believe) all 6 newspaper decisions.

Against heavyweights (when Greb was just a light heavy):
Won newspaper decisions against Contenders Billy Miske and Bill Brennan. Won an official decision against Charlie Weinert, a heavy weight contender.

Against opponents who were light heavy weights or bigger, he officially beat at least 3 HOFers. Unofficially, he beat at least 6.
Not bad.

[elmersalsa]

I am going to check the great Harry Greb's campaign at light-heavyweight division and see if he really qualifies as an all-time top 20 of that division. I will check fight per fight...Everything

[dempseyfire]

Light heavyweight is one of the most historically stacked divisions in the sport. Hill probably doesn't even make my top 40, let alone 20. He wasn't even the top light HW in his OWN era.

[elmersalsa]

Are you sure about that, dempseyfire? You have opened a can of worms by saying that Virgil Hill was not the best 175pounder of his era. He won 22 fights that mattered. NOBODY HAS WON MORE IN THAT CLASS

[elmersalsa]

The great Harry Greb, in my view, could qualify at the top 20 light-heavyweights ever. It's a borderline case for him.

at light-heavyweight, he had a total of 71 bouts. But, 36 of them were No Contests or Non Decisions. He only won 30 fights at that weight. If he qualifies at 175lbs on my list, someone will have to be put out, and definitely it won't be Virgil Hill. Hill won 22 fights that mattered. For the WBA World Light-heavyweight title.

He clearly beat 3 hofs: Gene Tunney, Tommy Loughran, and Tommy Gibbons. But, he lost to Tunney twice, and had also a loss to Loughran and Kid Norfolk at 175lbs. It's a good resume. Not an overwhelming one like he did at middleweight where he won 66 fights and lost only 3.

That's like saying the great Roberto Duran should be a top 20 all-time great at welterweight. To me, he couldn't be a top 20 in that class. He only had 8 fights there. Your thoughts Ambling Alp or anybody else that wants to speak on this subject.

[Giancarlo]

[actjac]

Absolutely...I would place him at the 15-20 level.

[Ambling Alp II]

I second that.

[razzledaz]

Hill's way above Toney at LHW.

Well he accomplished more....but since Toney didn't spend a lot of time there, and started as a middleweight, and would be an odds on favorite to beat Hill....I thought I'd toss him in, to lure you to the conversation.

Another fighter who didn't stay at LHW long was Michael Moorer but I would definitely pick him to beat Hill.

[elmersalsa]

What is the laughing matter at this? Ain't I'm right?

[elmersalsa]

Absolutely...I would place him at the 15-20 level.

I second that. Ambling Alp, see? Some guys believe Virgil Hill is worthy of being one of the top 20 best of the 175lbs division

[Ambling Alp II]

I'm sure there are people who thinks he belongs. There are people who don't believe man has been on the moon as well.

You went through Greb's career, see who has beaten, and you come to the conclusion that Hill should be rated higher. It shows that you have no ability to evaluate someone's career.
Greb beat the #3 and #4 fighters on your own list. Yes he lost to them as well, but it shows that he has to be up there. He also beat Tommy Gibbons as well.
Hill beat no one even remotely close.

That is the reason for

[elmersalsa]

I'm sure there are people who thinks he belongs. There are people who don't believe man has been on the moon as well.

You went through Greb's career, see who has beaten, and you come to the conclusion that Hill should be rated higher. It shows that you have no ability to evaluate someone's career.
Greb beat the #3 and #4 fighters on your own list. Yes he lost to them as well, but it shows that he has to be up there. He also beat Tommy Gibbons as well.
Hill beat no one even remotely close.

That is the reason for

That doesn't mean he should be in. Duran beat Leonard and I don't believe he belongs in the top 20 welters.

The great Julio Cesar Chavez did well at lightweight, and I don't consider him a top 20 lightweight

The great Harry Greb did beat some great light-heavys, but, he lost 4 times against them. He had 41 non decisions. That means if the judges were right, he probably would've had much more losses. He only won clearly, 30 fights.

[dempseyfire]

Are you sure about that, dempseyfire? You have opened a can of worms by saying that Virgil Hill was not the best 175pounder of his era. He won 22 fights that mattered. NOBODY HAS WON MORE IN THAT CLASS

In the late 80s he never fought the other two best light heavyweights in Michael Moorer and Prince Charles Williams. In the 90s he lost to Hearns (!) and got bludgeoned by both Darius and Jones Jr.

Number of paper title fights means nothing in my book.

[Ambling Alp II]

Agree with you about the paper title defenses.

[Ambling Alp II]

I'm sure there are people who thinks he belongs. There are people who don't believe man has been on the moon as well.

You went through Greb's career, see who has beaten, and you come to the conclusion that Hill should be rated higher. It shows that you have no ability to evaluate someone's career.
Greb beat the #3 and #4 fighters on your own list. Yes he lost to them as well, but it shows that he has to be up there. He also beat Tommy Gibbons as well.
Hill beat no one even remotely close.

That is the reason for

That doesn't mean he should be in. Duran beat Leonard and I don't believe he belongs in the top 20 welters.

The great Julio Cesar Chavez did well at lightweight, and I don't consider him a top 20 lightweight

The great Harry Greb did beat some great light-heavys, but, he lost 4 times against them. He had 41 non decisions. That means if the judges were right, he probably would've had much more losses. He only won clearly, 30 fights.

Did Duran and Chavez have 71 (as you counted) fights at these weight classes?

As for the no-decison losses, you either have to count the newspaper decisions or not. If not fine if you are going to be consistent about it.
No he wouldn't have had many more losses. In fact, if there official decisions it would help his case even further.
If you are, then you have to count 7-0 against Levinsky, 3 newspaper decisions over Loughran gibbons, heavyweight Gibbons, etc.

3 of his 4 loss are to guys in your top 4. He beat them both officially and unofficially. You can make a serious case that he should be ahead of Loughran. If there were judges, in all of their fights, he probably would have beat Loughran 4 out of 5 times.

To think Hill was better is the theater of the absurd.

[elmersalsa]

Are you sure about that, dempseyfire? You have opened a can of worms by saying that Virgil Hill was not the best 175pounder of his era. He won 22 fights that mattered. NOBODY HAS WON MORE IN THAT CLASS

In the late 80s he never fought the other two best light heavyweights in Michael Moorer and Prince Charles Williams. In the 90s he lost to Hearns (!) and got bludgeoned by both Darius and Jones Jr.

Number of paper title fights means nothing in my book.

They were not paper title fights, dempseyfire. It was for the WBA World Light-heavyweight title. All mandatory challenges. He won most of those fights. Twenty two times

[elmersalsa]

I'm sure there are people who thinks he belongs. There are people who don't believe man has been on the moon as well.

You went through Greb's career, see who has beaten, and you come to the conclusion that Hill should be rated higher. It shows that you have no ability to evaluate someone's career.
Greb beat the #3 and #4 fighters on your own list. Yes he lost to them as well, but it shows that he has to be up there. He also beat Tommy Gibbons as well.
Hill beat no one even remotely close.

That is the reason for

That doesn't mean he should be in. Duran beat Leonard and I don't believe he belongs in the top 20 welters.

The great Julio Cesar Chavez did well at lightweight, and I don't consider him a top 20 lightweight

The great Harry Greb did beat some great light-heavys, but, he lost 4 times against them. He had 41 non decisions. That means if the judges were right, he probably would've had much more losses. He only won clearly, 30 fights.

Did Duran and Chavez have 71 (as you counted) fights at these weight classes?

As for the no-decison losses, you either have to count the newspaper decisions or not. If not fine if you are going to be consistent about it.
No he wouldn't have had many more losses. In fact, if there official decisions it would help his case even further.
If you are, then you have to count 7-0 against Levinsky, 3 newspaper decisions over Loughran gibbons, heavyweight Gibbons, etc.

3 of his 4 loss are to guys in your top 4. He beat them both officially and unofficially. You can make a serious case that he should be ahead of Loughran. If there were judges, in all of their fights, he probably would have beat Loughran 4 out of 5 times.

To think Hill was better is the theater of the absurd.

No. It's not the theatre of the absurd. Non decisions fights count against the great Harry Greb. He only won 30 bouts, there. At middleweight, he won 96 fights!

Virgil Hill won 22 fights that mattered. More than any champion of the division. Give Hill credit for that.

In p4p sense, it's not even close. But, we are talking weight classifications here.Greb was never the champion of the whole world at 175, at no point. He was not even considered a light heavyweight great, but a true middleweight great.

[elmersalsa]

I stand corrected. Correction: The great Harry Greb won 66 fights at middleweight. That's a lot of wins

[Giancarlo]

Greb was never the champion of the whole world at 175, at no point.

Neither was Virgil Hill.