BoxRec

drunkenpiper36 wrote:

The Great John L wrote:

Woldemar wrote:Johnson was good in two fights against Saad.Saad easily beat Hill.

When did Saad beat Virgil Hill? Or am I missing something here?

I think he meant to ad an "S" on the end of beat, implying that Saad would have beaten Hill. Nevertheless. I don't see how Johnson's two losing efforts to Saad has any relevance where Jonson vs Hill is concerned.

OIC. Saad was my favorite fighter during the day, and when Hill was one of my least favorite fighters. However, as I said earlier, Hill was one slick guy with excellent foot movement and would have been a very difficult fight for both Johnson and Saad, both of whom were rather slow footed.

Hearns did well against Hill because he was quick, with fast hands and good foot movement. The same can't be said for either Saad or Johnson.

Hearns did well against Hill because he was quick, with fast hands and good foot movement. The same can't be said for either Saad or Johnson.

I'll also ad that Tommy had a hell of a wingspan. Not sure what his reach was when sized up to Hill or those other guys, but he could peck a guy from a good distance with that jab of his.

drunkenpiper36 wrote:

Hearns did well against Hill because he was quick, with fast hands and good foot movement. The same can't be said for either Saad or Johnson.

I'll also ad that Tommy had a hell of a wingspan. Not sure what his reach was when sized up to Hill or those other guys, but he could peck a guy from a good distance with that jab of his.

Yep, and his excellent foot movement kept people away. Hill was quite good with his jab at long range as well, but Hearns was just better. Neither Saaad nor Johnson fought anything like Hearns, nor did they have the same physical skills.

And Tommy was at home against boxers. Hill was a great match up for him.

The Great John L wrote: Yep, and his excellent foot movement kept people away. Hill was quite good with his jab at long range as well, but Hearns was just better. Neither Saaad nor Johnson fought anything like Hearns, nor did they have the same physical skills.

And Tommy was at home against boxers. Hill was a great match up for him.

Agree with both of the above statements.

How far down hill was Victor Galindez when Marvin Johnson beat him? I'd favor Victor over Hill, but that fight might not be an indicator of what would be to come in a Johnson vs Hill affair. As that may not represent Johnson's and Galindez's best days. I think Victor was past it by the time Johnson stopped him.

I'd bet on Johnson, not sure I would keep my money though.

lol Did Lopez and Johnson ever mix it up? I'd bet on Lopez in a non title fight, and Johnson in a title fight.


Never was there a better "choker in the clutch" when it came to attaining a title in the history of LHW division.


Yaqui could legitimately earn the shot, over and over again. But never once prevailed in ANY attempt to earn a title.

BoxBuzz wrote:How far down hill was Victor Galindez when Marvin Johnson beat him?

I honestly don't know and I don't think anyone does. But he was pushing 32 years old with 70 fights of mileage behind him, would lose in his next and final bout to more or less a journeyman and finished having lost three of his last five fights. Not saying Galindez was shot but taking all things into consideration I doubt the guy was prime either.

drunkenpiper36 wrote: Thanks for pointing out what I already knew and you should also know that in his next fight after Johnson, lost to a mediocre opponent.. I think he was at the end of his rope. Now answer my original question. WHO did Johnson beat that was better than Virgil Hill? Or let me make it easier for you. Who did Johnson beat that was better than one of Hill's best scalps, say Bobby Czyz?

Question's already been answered: Victor Galindez. He's ranked way higher on your Ring list than Hill is. Galindez was a better man than Hill, would certainly make Czyz quit on his stool in classic Czyz style. I won't bother with the banana skin Jesse Burnett because I know he is one of the many fighters you have never watched. The fact you call Saad and Johnson "nobodies" in their first fight sheds light on your knowledge of these fighters.

The Johnson we saw versus Galindez and twice against Saad is too much for Hill, en mi opinion.

Tuan_Jim wrote:

drunkenpiper36 wrote: Thanks for pointing out what I already knew and you should also know that in his next fight after Johnson, lost to a mediocre opponent.. I think he was at the end of his rope. Now answer my original question. WHO did Johnson beat that was better than Virgil Hill? Or let me make it easier for you. Who did Johnson beat that was better than one of Hill's best scalps, say Bobby Czyz?

Question's already been answered: Victor Galindez. He's ranked way higher on your Ring list than Hill is. Galindez was a better man than Hill, would certainly make Czyz quit on his stool in classic Czyz style. I won't bother with the banana skin Jesse Burnett because I know he is one of the many fighters you have never watched. The fact you call Saad and Johnson "nobodies" in their first fight sheds light on your knowledge of these fighters.

The Johnson we saw versus Galindez and twice against Saad is too much for Hill, en mi opinion.

Rather insightful of you to determine right off the bat who I've seen and who I haven't. And regardless of Galindez ranking higher than Hill that doesn't address the fact that he was very likely past it when Marvin actually met him. Johnson and Saad had very few fights when they met each other the first time and neither were ranked. That's not to say that either weren't touted young talents, but let's not pretend that it was the ATG version of Saad that Marvin lost to.. We're going to have to agree to disagree on this one..

Having watched Virgil Hill's career from the amateurs to retirement, I have to admit being a bit puzzled by how he was received in America. Outside of being a local favorite, his popularity never really took off, and now many years later I go back and look at his record and re-watch some of his fights, and the first thing that strikes me is, He was pretty damn good ! He didn't always go into safety first- jab your way to victory mode, but unfortunately that seems to be what he's remembered for.

Seamus wrote:Having watched Virgil Hill's career from the amateurs to retirement, I have to admit being a bit puzzled by how he was received in America. Outside of being a local favorite, his popularity never really took off, and now many years later I go back and look at his record and re-watch some of his fights, and the first thing that strikes me is, He was pretty damn good ! He didn't always go into safety first- jab your way to victory mode, but unfortunately that seems to be what he's remembered for.

Exactly. He was much better than boxing forum hindsight gives him credit for. What really hurt the man's legacy was his lack of charisma more so than his actual abilities or accomplishments.

Well Virgil had Fabrice Tiozzo's number...and Roy Jones had his number.

Marvin Johnson > Mate Parlov > Hill

BoxBuzz wrote:lol Did Lopez and Johnson ever mix it up? I'd bet on Lopez in a non title fight, and Johnson in a title fight.


Never was there a better "choker in the clutch" when it came to attaining a title in the history of LHW division.


Yaqui could legitimately earn the shot, over and over again. But never once prevailed in ANY attempt to earn a title.

I think that is pretty unfair to Lopez to say he was a "choker in the clutch". He fought his heart out against Saad Muhammad. He would have beat many champions with that performance.

Virgil Hill was a very underrated fighter probably because he wasn't a banger also had a great chin Hill un dec

I'm 50-50... I can see scenarios where either man wins.

What I'm pleased with is that The Ring feel both men were better Light-heavies than Greb...and only one place below Tunney