BoxRec

Senya13 wrote:

Broomhall wrote: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.

Again, why are you focusing solely on the worst opposition on their record when all three of those guys fought and beat more Hall of Famers/champions than Hill did up to and including the fact that LHW was at an extremely low ebb during Hill's time and he had the benefit of owning one of four straps (later two which he lost in his first defense). Would you take me seriously if I said "Virgil Hill wasnt a top fighter because he fought Frank Minton, Carlos Bates, James Williams, Eric Winbush, and Marcus Dorsey" ? No you wouldnt because you judge a fighter by the best he fought, not the worst. The only reason you would do that is if you know, as you do, that Hill's resume is pretty weak compared to actual all time great fighters so you attempt to bring those fighters down to his level by comparing their worst opponents. Its an absolutely ludicrous argument. You dont get in the Hall of Fame based on the worst guys you fought. You dont get P4P recognition or top 20 recognition because the ten worst guys you fought were not as bad as the ten worst guys that the five guys behind you in line fought.

Funny how when a modern fighter is inducted into the "hall of fame" it doesn't seem to mean dick, but when making comparison's to old school boxers, beating hall of famers is the be all end all.

I wasn't focusing on anything. I merely commented on several names I'm somewhat familiar with (having done a little research on some of Tunney's opponents for my write-ups). I consider both Tunney and T. Gibbons overrated to a degree. You are already familiar with my argument - when you compare their resumes with that of lower weight divisions, it doesn't look all that spectacular, regardless of who the IBHoF inducted or not.

klompton wrote:

Senya13 wrote:

Broomhall wrote: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.

Again, why are you focusing solely on the worst opposition on their record when all three of those guys fought and beat more Hall of Famers/champions than Hill did up to and including the fact that LHW was at an extremely low ebb during Hill's time and he had the benefit of owning one of four straps (later two which he lost in his first defense). Would you take me seriously if I said "Virgil Hill wasnt a top fighter because he fought Frank Minton, Carlos Bates, James Williams, Eric Winbush, and Marcus Dorsey" ? No you wouldnt because you judge a fighter by the best he fought, not the worst. The only reason you would do that is if you know, as you do, that Hill's resume is pretty weak compared to actual all time great fighters so you attempt to bring those fighters down to his level by comparing their worst opponents. Its an absolutely ludicrous argument. You dont get in the Hall of Fame based on the worst guys you fought. You dont get P4P recognition or top 20 recognition because the ten worst guys you fought were not as bad as the ten worst guys that the five guys behind you in line fought.

Its hard not to focus on worst opposition when that is what their records mainly consist of. What was Tunney 65-1-1? most of those wins against cowboys and farmhands. He lost to Greb who was around 160lbs

The truth is there where relatively few quality fighters around then, and they could easily fight once a week or more and build up these great records.

Yes Tunney lost to Harry Greb. Greb beat many good to great light heavyweights and even several heavyweight contenders. Not exactly an embarrassing loss for Tunney. At light heavy, Tunney beat Greb twice, as well as Battling Levinsky and Georges Carpentier. If you want to count fights over light heavy, he beat Tommy Gibbons. At heavyweight he beat Jack Dempsey. He also beat several solid fighters who you probably never heard of.

The truth is that there were few quality good fighters around then? Seriously? You know that how?
The late teens and 1920s was a great era for light heavyweights.

Ambling Alp II wrote:Yes Tunney lost to Harry Greb. Greb beat many good to great light heavyweights and even several heavyweight contenders. Not exactly an embarrassing loss for Tunney. At light heavy, Tunney beat Greb twice, as well as Battling Levinsky and Georges Carpentier. If you want to count fights over light heavy, he beat Tommy Gibbons. At heavyweight he beat Jack Dempsey. He also beat several solid fighters who you probably never heard of.

The truth is that there were few quality good fighters around then? Seriously? You know that how?
The late teens and 1920s was a great era for light heavyweights.

No it wasnt. The few good fighters fought each other, rest of the time knocking over hokee from muskogee. Dempsey was well past it when Tunney beat him and Dempsey was over rated anyway.

You just said Greb beat many light heavy and heavy contenders. Cant see to many middleweights doing that now.

That Greb could beat good heavyweights is a testament to how good he was. Btw, he was well over the light heavyweight limit in most of his big wins against light heavyweights.

The rest of the time they always fighting cowboys, farmhands, and hokes from muskoge? You know this how? Just because you don't know anything about the "B" fighters from their era doesn't mean they were bums. Tunney beat Johnny Risko, Jeff Smith, Tom Heeney, Charlie Weinert, Chuck Wigggins, Jeff Smith, Leo Houck, Joe Borrell as well a a guy named Tommy Loughran. Maybe you have heard of him?

Gibbons not only took on Greb multiple times, Dempsey, Tunney Carpentier, and Kids Norfolk he also beat Miske, George Chip, Wiggins, Burke, Herman, Ashe, etc. ie the "B" fighters from his era.
Do you seriously think Hill would have beaten that version of Demspey that Tunney did? Or go 15 rounds against a prime Dempsey like Gibbons did?

You need to Chill out. No one is calling Hill a bum.

We evaluate fighters by their losses and how they did against the best fighters that they fought. Not by WBS title reigns. When these guys fought there weren't 3 or 4 "champions".

I have seen almost every fighter on the list of the 20 guys that I named. I have seen many of their opponents as well. So have many other people on this Forum. Almost all of these guys can be seen on Youtube.
Back to 1900? Not much. (Though I have seen a little for the early 1900s and even the late 1800s) However, I am not arrogant enough to assume because I haven't seen film of someone that they weren't very good.

Please do tell. At what point in boxing history did it get good and we can consider rating these fighters? The 1950s? The 1960s? The 1970s? The 1980s?

Czyz, Stewart, and Maske were solid fighters. Nothing special. Stewart got stopped by an over the hill Marvin Johnson. Yes, Tommy Hearns is a Hall of Famer. He sure isn't a Hall of Famer from what he did at light heavy. An All-Time Top 20 light heavy ought to win that fight.
That's not exactly as Tommy Gibbons losing a 15-round decision to Jack Dempsey.

You admit yourself that Hill's record isn't stellar. If it isn't stellar, he doesn't belong in the Top 20.

Ambling Alp II wrote:That Greb could beat good heavyweights is a testament to how good he was. Btw, he was well over the light heavyweight limit in most of his big wins against light heavyweights.

The rest of the time they always fighting cowboys, farmhands, and hokes from muskoge? You know this how? Just because you don't know anything about the "B" fighters from their era doesn't mean they were bums. Tunney beat Johnny Risko, Jeff Smith, Tom Heeney, Charlie Weinert, Chuck Wigggins, Jeff Smith, Leo Houck, Joe Borrell as well a a guy named Tommy Loughran. Maybe you have heard of him?

Gibbons not only took on Greb multiple times, Dempsey, Tunney Carpentier, and Kids Norfolk he also beat Miske, George Chip, Wiggins, Burke, Herman, Ashe, etc. ie the "B" fighters from his era.
Do you seriously think Hill would have beaten that version of Demspey that Tunney did? Or go 15 rounds against a prime Dempsey like Gibbons did?

You need to Chill out. No one is calling Hill a bum.

We evaluate fighters by their losses and how they did against the best fighters that they fought. Not by WBS title reigns. When these guys fought there weren't 3 or 4 "champions".

I have seen almost every fighter on the list of the 20 guys that I named. I have seen many of their opponents as well. So have many other people on this Forum. Almost all of these guys can be seen on Youtube.
Back to 1900? Not much. (Though I have seen a little for the early 1900s and even the late 1800s) However, I am not arrogant enough to assume because I haven't seen film of someone that they weren't very good.

Please do tell. At what point in boxing history did it get good and we can consider rating these fighters? The 1950s? The 1960s? The 1970s? The 1980s?

Czyz, Stewart, and Maske were solid fighters. Nothing special. Stewart got stopped by an over the hill Marvin Johnson. Yes, Tommy Hearns is a Hall of Famer. He sure isn't a Hall of Famer from what he did at light heavy. An All-Time Top 20 light heavy ought to win that fight.
That's not exactly as Tommy Gibbons losing a 15-round decision to Jack Dempsey.

You admit yourself that Hill's record isn't stellar. If it isn't stellar, he doesn't belong in the Top 20.

Thanks for the history lesson, but I have seen those guys too and remain unimpressed. As you say they fought each other multiple times and then in between padded the records with cowboys and farmhands.

Laughable arguments. The 1920s was weak? There were far more fights, fighters, clubs, trainers etc. in the 1920s than there were in Hills time which exhibited a strong decline even for that watered down era. More fights and fighters means more experience against a wider range of talents, sizes, and strengths. In short it means a great level of experience. Tunney and Gibbons may be overrated to a degree but they were still better and more accomplished by far than Hill. Simple as that. I can see why Senya would put forth an argument such as this: Hill is one of Jones few "name" wins and hes always had an agenda for Jones. Meaning, if Hill was so good Jones had to be great. Whatever. Hill was considered a fairly poor and weak champion even in his time at his best. But for someone to come on here and claim that there was no talent around in the 1920s is just plain weird and sounds like something you would hear on the general forum. So these guys had padded records? In 1924 Gibbons beat Carpentier, Norfolk, and Bloomfield. Two HOFers and a top LHW contender. In 1923 went 15 with Dempsey HOF HW champion. In 1922 he beat Billy Miske (should have been twice but he was robbed on a bad DQ) and went 15 with Greb. The Miske fight and Greb fight were big Garden bouts that would have been on PPV today. Hell, this guy with a supposedly padded record of soft opposition fought Joe Borrell who had about 50 fights and was a very good and very dangerous fighter in only his fifth fight. Tunney had an important date with a dangerous opponent at least once a year usually more after he got out of the army with the exception of 1921 when he was suffering from broken hands. By the standards you want to lower for Hill Tunney, who was legitimately sheltered compared to his peers, looks damn good. How often did Hill fight dangerous opposition? A handfull of times in his career, maybe. I love that you are criticizing Greb's resume. Its arguably the greatest resume in the history of the sport and you want to argue that Virgil Hill somehow compares? They arent even in the same stratosphere. In 1919 alone Greb fought Leo Houck (HOF MW contender great great fighter) 3x, Bill Brennan (top HW contender) 3x, Levinsky (standing HOF LHW champ) 4x, Billy Miske HOF contender (although I admit he shouldnt be in the hall), Mike Gibbons (HOF MW), Jeff Smith (HOF MW). In addition 32 other fights. So in that one year he had more fights against HOF fighters than Virgil Hill had in his entire career. He won, in that lone year, almost as many fights as Virgil Hill won in his entire career. But you want us to believe that the bar for Greb, was lower than or equal to the bar for Hill. HAHAHA. Thats funny. You can pick out almost any year of Greb's career after he started setting the world on fire in 1917 until he died and he usually sports a better all time record in that single year than Hill did in his entire resume.

Ambling Alp II wrote: Please do tell. At what point in boxing history did it get good and we can consider rating these fighters? The 1950s? The 1960s? The 1970s? The 1980s?

Guys like this generally think boxing got good miraculously around the time we started getting color television, close ups, and multiple camera angles. In short they need to go back to the general forum where they will be appreciated.

klompton wrote:Tunney and Gibbons may be overrated to a degree but they were still better and more accomplished by far than Hill.

Accomplished at light heavyweight? During a period when nobody really cared much about that weight division?
T. Gibbons and Tunney were somewhere on the level of Lew Tendler, Charley White, Memphis Pal Moore, that kind of fighters. Very good, possibly great, but a step below the very best, both skill-wise and accomplishment-wise.
But of course, you will now start to argue otherwise, because it helps Greb's placement (Greb was an ATG, 100%, nobody is argueing otherwise, but he wasn't exactly meeting and beating Benny Leonard's opposition, so to say).

Tunney, Gibbons, Greb, Dempsey and Hill are all overrated? At least that's been cleared up.

I really enjoyed Hill's career. He was a good fighter. I was a fan.

He achieved a lot. In a world where there was only one title per division...and where those SMWs were fighting at 175 too.... Would he have been the true champ? Quite possibly. But not definitely.

As a Brit I'd back Conteh to beat him.

I don't want to put Virgil down but I think top 20 all-time is too much.

Ezzard wrote:In a world where there was only one title per division...and where those SMWs were fighting at 175 too....

A lot of time there was more than one man claiming the title. And few fighters or experts really cared for the lhw title in the 1910s and early 1920s.

I am going to go out on a limb and say that there was more interest in the light heavyweight division in the late teens and 1920s than there were during the magical "Virgil Hill Era" of the late 1980s-early 1990s.
I say this even though there those much anticipated title fights involving household names such as Rufino Angulo, Frank Minton, and lets not forget Mike Peak.

Ezzard wrote:Tunney, Gibbons, Greb, Dempsey and Hill are all overrated? At least that's been cleared up.

I really enjoyed Hill's career. He was a good fighter. I was a fan.

He achieved a lot. In a world where there was only one title per division...and where those SMWs were fighting at 175 too.... Would he have been the true champ? Quite possibly. But not definitely.

As a Brit I'd back Conteh to beat him.

I don't want to put Virgil down but I think top 20 all-time is too much.

Speaking for myself, I never thought of Virgil Hill as being overrated. He was a very good fighter though not great fighter. (Seemed like a decent guy.) I never knew that people thought he was Top 20. I think that is a little too high, that's all. There are at least 20 guys that are certainly better; I listed 22 including Burns and Langford. Obviously Tunney, Greb, and Gibbons were better. There are several guys (like Conteh) that are roughly even. A few a little better than Hill, a few not quite as good, and a few really close. I suppose #25 is arguable; though I think it's reasonable not to have him in the Top 30.

Always wanted to touch on how people rate fighters. When I look at fighter's record and see a win over a "tomato can" or someone washed up, someone that is a novice, I just don't count it all. It's the wins (and good performances) against quality competition that counts.

If the Top 4 or 5 Fighter's of "Fighter A's "Victim" list is clearly better than the # 1 guy that "Fighter B" defeated, then Fighter A should get credit for beating better competition. It's pretty much irrelevant if the 23rd best guy that "Fighter B" beat is better than the 23rd best fighter than "Fighter A" beat.

Ambling Alp II wrote:I am going to go out on a limb and say that there was more interest in the light heavyweight division in the late teens and 1920s than there were during the magical "Virgil Hill Era" of the late 1980s-early 1990s.
I say this even though there those much anticipated title fights involving household names such as Rufino Angulo, Frank Minton, and lets not forget Mike Peak.

Nice use of selective picking and choosing..

Yes very selective. Let's go over the entire list:
Won the title vs Leslie Stewart
Then the title defenses in order:
Rufino Angulo
Jean Marie-Emebe
Ramzi Hassan
Willie Featherstone
Bobby Czyz
Joe Lasisi
James Kinchen
David Vedder
Tyrone Frazier
Frank Minton
Mike Peak

I really left out some legends earlier. Outside of Czyz, which of these title defenses could anyone possibly be interested in ?

Ambling Alp II wrote:Yes very selective. Let's go over the entire list:
Won the title vs Leslie Stewart
Then the title defenses in order:
Rufino Angulo
Jean Marie-Emebe
Ramzi Hassan
Willie Featherstone
Bobby Czyz
Joe Lasisi
James Kinchen
David Vedder
Tyrone Frazier
Frank Minton
Mike Peak

I really left out some legends earlier. Outside of Czyz, which of these title defenses could anyone possibly be interested in ?

The first time I ever saw him fight was against James Kinchen. It was a very impressive first round stoppage against a not-great but certainly game opponent with plenty of experience. Joe Lasisi was a hard punching dude, unbeaten and defeated some tough guys in Uriah Grant, Mike Sedillo and the veteran Lottie Mwale. Hill handed him the only stoppage loss of his career. Frank Tate had reasonable success both at middle and light heavy. I also think you're being selective and remiss by ignoring his second title reign. He beat Henry Maske who won the olympic gold, was undefeated in 30 fights and had recorded 11 IBF title fight wins. Hill handed him his only career defeat. Fabrice Tiozzo was a multiple time world titlist and two division champ. Again Hill was the only guy to ever beat him. Lou Delvalle was unbeaten, became a future champion and ultimately retired without ever being stopped. We also covered that Bobby Czyz and Leslie Stewart were pretty good fighters as well. Again these weren't stellar wins, but they were certainly decent if nothing else, and the strength of Hill's resume is also partially based on his longevity, consistency and activity. Do you really think that going 22-3 in light heavyweight title fights over a 10 year period amounts to sh-t? He was also an olympic medalist and had some success at cruiser when he was well past it if that means anything. If you really think that there are TWENTY light heavyweights who should rank higher than the division's longest ( or maybe second longest ) reigning champion then go with it.. But frankly I think you're selling him short.

Ambling Alp II wrote:

Ezzard wrote:Tunney, Gibbons, Greb, Dempsey and Hill are all overrated? At least that's been cleared up.

I really enjoyed Hill's career. He was a good fighter. I was a fan.

He achieved a lot. In a world where there was only one title per division...and where those SMWs were fighting at 175 too.... Would he have been the true champ? Quite possibly. But not definitely.

As a Brit I'd back Conteh to beat him.

I don't want to put Virgil down but I think top 20 all-time is too much.

Speaking for myself, I never thought of Virgil Hill as being overrated. He was a very good fighter though not great fighter. (Seemed like a decent guy.) I never knew that people thought he was Top 20. I think that is a little too high, that's all. There are at least 20 guys that are certainly better; I listed 22 including Burns and Langford. Obviously Tunney, Greb, and Gibbons were better. There are several guys (like Conteh) that are roughly even. A few a little better than Hill, a few not quite as good, and a few really close. I suppose #25 is arguable; though I think it's reasonable not to have him in the Top 30.

Always wanted to touch on how people rate fighters. When I look at fighter's record and see a win over a "tomato can" or someone washed up, someone that is a novice, I just don't count it all. It's the wins (and good performances) against quality competition that counts.

If the Top 4 or 5 Fighter's of "Fighter A's "Victim" list is clearly better than the # 1 guy that "Fighter B" defeated, then Fighter A should get credit for beating better competition. It's pretty much irrelevant if the 23rd best guy that "Fighter B" beat is better than the 23rd best fighter than "Fighter A" beat.

I think I agree with your list and your ranking of Hill.

drunkenpiper36 wrote:

Ambling Alp II wrote:Yes very selective. Let's go over the entire list:
Won the title vs Leslie Stewart
Then the title defenses in order:
Rufino Angulo
Jean Marie-Emebe
Ramzi Hassan
Willie Featherstone
Bobby Czyz
Joe Lasisi
James Kinchen
David Vedder
Tyrone Frazier
Frank Minton
Mike Peak

I really left out some legends earlier. Outside of Czyz, which of these title defenses could anyone possibly be interested in ?

The first time I ever saw him fight was against James Kinchen. It was a very impressive first round stoppage against a not-great but certainly game opponent with plenty of experience. Joe Lasisi was a hard punching dude, unbeaten and defeated some tough guys in Uriah Grant, Mike Sedillo and the veteran Lottie Mwale. Hill handed him the only stoppage loss of his career. Frank Tate had reasonable success both at middle and light heavy. I also think you're being selective and remiss by ignoring his second title reign. He beat Henry Maske who won the olympic gold, was undefeated in 30 fights and had recorded 11 IBF title fight wins. Hill handed him his only career defeat. Fabrice Tiozzo was a multiple time world titlist and two division champ. Again Hill was the only guy to ever beat him. Lou Delvalle was unbeaten, became a future champion and ultimately retired without ever being stopped. We also covered that Bobby Czyz and Leslie Stewart were pretty good fighters as well. Again these weren't stellar wins, but they were certainly decent if nothing else, and the strength of Hill's resume is also partially based on his longevity, consistency and activity. Do you really think that going 22-3 in light heavyweight title fights over a 10 year period amounts to sh-t? He was also an olympic medalist and had some success at cruiser when he was well past it if that means anything. If you really think that there are TWENTY light heavyweights who should rank higher than the division's longest ( or maybe second longest ) reigning champion then go with it.. But frankly I think you're selling him short.

Didn't he lose to Maske in a rematch? Wasn't the win also a bit of a 50-50 fight? I can't remember it that well.

I liked Tiozzo and Emebe. If Hill had beaten even 1 great SMW like Jones or Toney...or lost a close one. Even so, he achieved a hell of a lot.

Hill was a very good boxer who was in top company for many years, he didn't box so many killers but kept himself in good condition, boxed out of North Dakota and when all is said and done would have been a handful for all but a few elite boxers. Hill had a great jab and didn't often go for the KO; he did have strong power in his hook. Hill deserves respect, he wasn't a great but he was a good champ.

Ezzard wrote:

drunkenpiper36 wrote:

Ambling Alp II wrote:Yes very selective. Let's go over the entire list:
Won the title vs Leslie Stewart
Then the title defenses in order:
Rufino Angulo
Jean Marie-Emebe
Ramzi Hassan
Willie Featherstone
Bobby Czyz
Joe Lasisi
James Kinchen
David Vedder
Tyrone Frazier
Frank Minton
Mike Peak

I really left out some legends earlier. Outside of Czyz, which of these title defenses could anyone possibly be interested in ?

The first time I ever saw him fight was against James Kinchen. It was a very impressive first round stoppage against a not-great but certainly game opponent with plenty of experience. Joe Lasisi was a hard punching dude, unbeaten and defeated some tough guys in Uriah Grant, Mike Sedillo and the veteran Lottie Mwale. Hill handed him the only stoppage loss of his career. Frank Tate had reasonable success both at middle and light heavy. I also think you're being selective and remiss by ignoring his second title reign. He beat Henry Maske who won the olympic gold, was undefeated in 30 fights and had recorded 11 IBF title fight wins. Hill handed him his only career defeat. Fabrice Tiozzo was a multiple time world titlist and two division champ. Again Hill was the only guy to ever beat him. Lou Delvalle was unbeaten, became a future champion and ultimately retired without ever being stopped. We also covered that Bobby Czyz and Leslie Stewart were pretty good fighters as well. Again these weren't stellar wins, but they were certainly decent if nothing else, and the strength of Hill's resume is also partially based on his longevity, consistency and activity. Do you really think that going 22-3 in light heavyweight title fights over a 10 year period amounts to sh-t? He was also an olympic medalist and had some success at cruiser when he was well past it if that means anything. If you really think that there are TWENTY light heavyweights who should rank higher than the division's longest ( or maybe second longest ) reigning champion then go with it.. But frankly I think you're selling him short.

Didn't he lose to Maske in a rematch? Wasn't the win also a bit of a 50-50 fight? I can't remember it that well.

I liked Tiozzo and Emebe. If Hill had beaten even 1 great SMW like Jones or Toney...or lost a close one. Even so, he achieved a hell of a lot.

The first fight was very close. The second fight happened when Hill was 43 years old, off for a year and after Maske had returned from a ten year layoff. Neither man was evenly remotely close to prime for that rematch. Hill suffered a cut from an accidental head butt and had blood running into his eyes for the rest of the fight, giving Maske a chance to land with more regularity. For all practical purposes that fight shouldn't mean anything. Both those guys were finished.

palooka wrote:Hill was a very good boxer who was in top company for many years, he didn't box so many killers but kept himself in good condition, boxed out of North Dakota and when all is said and done would have been a handful for all but a few elite boxers. Hill had a great jab and didn't often go for the KO; he did have strong power in his hook. Hill deserves respect, he wasn't a great but he was a good champ.

Finally someone with some sense. Thats all I am saying really. Hill did what he did very well and I feel could given many of the so called hall of famers a tough nights work.

You just look through those old timers records and you realise just how they managed to clock up all those wins-Gibbons, Tunney, Greb etc just knocking over loads of farmhands and cowboys-Tunney, Carpentier, Greb, Gibbons records full of guys with less than a handful of fights-even when they are so called contenders they are knocking over guys like Sargeant Norcross 0-3-0 Jack Hienen 0-6-0.

Before Gibbons fights Carpentier he fights one Soldier Lee (no recorded bouts) and Jack Mcfarland 0-1-0 KO'd in 3 and 2 rounds respectively. This is not isolated in any of these guys records.

Weather one rates hill at 20 or 200, he was still an ATG.. Next subject.

Broomhall wrote:

palooka wrote:Hill was a very good boxer who was in top company for many years, he didn't box so many killers but kept himself in good condition, boxed out of North Dakota and when all is said and done would have been a handful for all but a few elite boxers. Hill had a great jab and didn't often go for the KO; he did have strong power in his hook. Hill deserves respect, he wasn't a great but he was a good champ.

Finally someone with some sense. Thats all I am saying really. Hill did what he did very well and I feel could given many of the so called hall of famers a tough nights work.

You just look through those old timers records and you realise just how they managed to clock up all those wins-Gibbons, Tunney, Greb etc just knocking over loads of farmhands and cowboys-Tunney, Carpentier, Greb, Gibbons records full of guys with less than a handful of fights-even when they are so called contenders they are knocking over guys like Sargeant Norcross 0-3-0 Jack Hienen 0-6-0.

Before Gibbons fights Carpentier he fights one Soldier Lee (no recorded bouts) and Jack Mcfarland 0-1-0 KO'd in 3 and 2 rounds respectively. This is not isolated in any of these guys records.

True. If having a gross amount of fights that exceeds 100 bouts is the mark of greatness regardless of who its against, then Buck Smith is best fighter of the past 30 years.