BoxRec

drunkenpiper36 wrote:Weather one rates hill at 20 or 200, he was still an ATG.. Next subject.

Hey guys this guy drunkenpiper36 says we should move on to the next subject and stop debating . He has a great opinion on this subject I think based off of his knowledge we should no longer discuss this .

Well outside of giving Virgil credit for having Tiozzo's number, I've tried to keep to a minimum. But I think you are right....once one person says a subject should be closed, then we should pipe down. IF we want to continue to live in the joy and comfort of a free and civil society.

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.

Of all those title defenses, There was one name (Czyz) that is means much. (Grant, Sedillo, Lasisi, come on)

Then there is my favorite. Hill beat the veteran Mwale? This counts as a good win (4th round KO) for Hill? Well Mwale certainly was a veteran. Mwale was 40 years at the time! How much credit does Eddie Mustafa Muhammad get for knocking Mwale in the same round 10 years earlier when Mwale was 30? How about Mathew Saad Muhammad who also knocked Mwale out in the 4th round, but 12 years before Hill did it.


Yes some of those other were decent fighters you just mentioned were good, but you would expect a Top 20 All-Time fighter to beat them. There are certainly more than 20 light heavy weights in history who would ran the table against this group.

Look at who the rest of 20 guys I listed beat. All beat better competition than Hill. Several others did as well.

For the record both Roy Jones and Bob Foster had more consecutive title defenses. (Their competition wasn't too impressive either.)
22-3? That can be very impressive if it's against stellar competition. Not that impressive when considering his competition and then comparing him to the opponents that the All-Time greats beat.
No, they didn't have a ton of title defenses against opponents that they couldn't possibly lose to. Some never even got a title shot. Others simply fought in eras where was (gasp) only 1 champion and they to defeat great fighters to get a title shot, beat a great fighter to win it, then defeat great fighters to keep that title.

Tommy Burns was 12-1 in heavyweight title fights? Was he one of the greatest heavyweight champions ever?

Win/loss records, and number of title defenses can be very deceiving in boxing.

Please stop saying I said Hill was shit. Never said anything remotely like that. I have said over and over that he was a good fighter. I like him personally.
I just think it is pretty obvious that he isn't Top 20.

Virgil Hill was tough, many thought due to his location that he wasn't hard core.
Virgil was a boxer puncher and a half decent one at that.

In the big league when RJJ fought him ...
It was said that the Light Heavyweight division was the one to hide out in.

Ambling Alp II 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.

Of all those title defenses, There was one name (Czyz) that is means much. (Grant, Sedillo, Lasisi, come on)

Then there is my favorite. Hill beat the veteran Mwale? This counts as a good win (4th round KO) for Hill? Well Mwale certainly was a veteran. Mwale was 40 years at the time! How much credit does Eddie Mustafa Muhammad get for knocking Mwale in the same round 10 years earlier when Mwale was 30? How about Mathew Saad Muhammad who also knocked Mwale out in the 4th round, but 12 years before Hill did it.


Yes some of those other were decent fighters you just mentioned were good, but you would expect a Top 20 All-Time fighter to beat them. There are certainly more than 20 light heavy weights in history who would ran the table against this group.

Look at who the rest of 20 guys I listed beat. All beat better competition than Hill. Several others did as well.

For the record both Roy Jones and Bob Foster had more consecutive title defenses. (Their competition wasn't too impressive either.)
22-3? That can be very impressive if it's against stellar competition. Not that impressive when considering his competition and then comparing him to the opponents that the All-Time greats beat.
No, they didn't have a ton of title defenses against opponents that they couldn't possibly lose to. Some never even got a title shot. Others simply fought in eras where was (gasp) only 1 champion and they to defeat great fighters to get a title shot, beat a great fighter to win it, then defeat great fighters to keep that title.

Tommy Burns was 12-1 in heavyweight title fights? Was he one of the greatest heavyweight champions ever?

Win/loss records, and number of title defenses can be very deceiving in boxing.

Please stop saying I said Hill was poo. Never said anything remotely like that. I have said over and over that he was a good fighter. I like him personally.
I just think it is pretty obvious that he isn't Top 20.

Okay I recant the accusation that you called him "sh-t". But Czyz, was not the only win of Hill's that should be considered good and I've already listed some of those other guys and their credentials. I never mentioned anything about HILL beating Mwale, grant, sedillo, etc.. Only that some of his opponents beat those guys PRIOR to challenging him, and in truth, those fighters were tough at the time even if their careers diminished later. I've already stated that his longevity and activity was something he should get credit for. We're just going to have to agree to disagree.

I did and continue to admire Virgil, a good boxer, a very good champ, and a class act. In judging him, however, one should remember that he lost to the second best welterweight of the previous era , and the best middleweight of his era. He only fought two great fighters, lost to both, and one of them was 33. On that basis, it's hard to believe he would have beaten any truly great light heavies. We could have an argument about how many of those there were, but if Hill were great, he'd have been able to turn up the heat enough to beat what was left of Hearns, a man who was at his best 20lb lighter. I would tune in to watch him against any of the named fighters, but I wouldn't be expecting a lot of wins.

SamWise72 wrote:I did and continue to admire Virgil, a good boxer, a very good champ, and a class act. In judging him, however, one should remember that he lost to the second best welterweight of the previous era , and the best middleweight of his era. He only fought two great fighters, lost to both, and one of them was 33. On that basis, it's hard to believe he would have beaten any truly great light heavies. We could have an argument about how many of those there were, but if Hill were great, he'd have been able to turn up the heat enough to beat what was left of Hearns, a man who was at his best 20lb lighter. I would tune in to watch him against any of the named fighters, but I wouldn't be expecting a lot of wins.

Slightly off topic I was looking at the record of Michalczewski and forgot how much of a bum on the month club that guy was on. Virgil Hill is pretty much his only really good win in 48 fights. It's a shame he had no ambition as I thought he was pretty good at the time.

Riddick Blowe wrote:
Slightly off topic I was looking at the record of Michalczewski and forgot how much of a bum on the month club that guy was on. Virgil Hill is pretty much his only really good win in 48 fights. It's a shame he had no ambition as I thought he was pretty good at the time.

There was and still is a lot of debate as to who was actually more responsible for Jones vs Michalczewski never being made. Both sides have always pointed the finger at the other. Virgil Hill was probably about the closest thing the light heavyweight division had to a "lineal" champion since Spinks vacated the division and DM got to him before Jones did. From that point forth, DM stayed unbeaten for a while and fought comparable opposition to the sort that Jones was defending his titles against. While I will always pick Jones to beat DM, there is a question mark in my mind as to who the true champ was during that time frame.

I love it when dudes have a hard-on for a bloke that completely blindsides you.

"Virgil Hill, all time great."

I just... I mean... I just... Well.

I will add this to the, ah-hah-ah-hahaha, debate: how many all-time greats only have one functional arm, pray?

& does drunkenwhatsisface take that into account (i.e. I'm assuming his reasoning goes along the lines of "Wow, Hill beat all those (average, or just, you know, shite) fighters virtually one-handed! What if he had the use of two hands?!?!? HE'D'VE BEEN A KILLER!!!")

Also also: the idea that beating Lotte Mwale makes you an all-time great is... It's... Kinda cool, in its wrong-headedness.

wtf

I'm ever so sorry mate, I just forgot this:

Carson McCullers wrote:The most outlandish people can be the stimulus for love...A most mediocre person can be the object of a love which is wild, extravagant, and beautiful as the poison lilies of the swamp.

That's all.

I've never ever ever ever imagined that anyone would be a big enough Virgil Hill fan (outside of, say, a long-time resident of Bismarck, North Dakota) to go on a message board singing his praises, & in fact there was an hilarious piss-taking thread on the Current Scene some months ago in which (in response to another poster claiming that Winky Wright was under-rated at lightmiddle) someone humorously posited that Virgil Hill was actually under-rated at light-heavy & it was a crime that people didn't acknowledge etc etc etc.

I chimed in with the joke about how he only ever seemed to be able to throw punches with his left hand, someone responded that that was 'cos he was taking it easy on everyone he faced & proving his greatness by never bothering to learn to throw a right hand properly, & when I read a few of your responses in this thread I assumed you'd remembered it & were stringing people along in a kind of parodic reference to it, hence my tone.

But now I see you are actually serious. Apologies.

PS: What happened to just being a "good fighter"? You know, "He was a good fighter." Why is everyone who stepped in the ring now some kind of "All-time great"? It's very, very strange.

Datsue wrote:I'm ever so sorry mate, I just forgot this:

Carson McCullers wrote:The most outlandish people can be the stimulus for love...A most mediocre person can be the object of a love which is wild, extravagant, and beautiful as the poison lilies of the swamp.

That's all.

I've never ever ever ever imagined that anyone would be a big enough Virgil Hill fan (outside of, say, a long-time resident of Bismarck, North Dakota) to go on a message board singing his praises, & in fact there was an hilarious piss-taking thread on the Current Scene some months ago in which (in response to another poster claiming that Winky Wright was under-rated at lightmiddle) someone humorously posited that Virgil Hill was actually under-rated at light-heavy & it was a crime that people didn't acknowledge etc etc etc.

I chimed in with the joke about how he only ever seemed to be able to throw punches with his left hand, someone responded that that was 'cos he was taking it easy on everyone he faced & proving his greatness by never bothering to learn to throw a right hand properly, & when I read a few of your responses in this thread I assumed you'd remembered it & were stringing people along in a kind of parodic reference to it, hence my tone.

But now I see you are actually serious. Apologies.

PS: What happened to just being a "good fighter"? You know, "He was a good fighter." Why is everyone who stepped in the ring now some kind of "All-time great"? It's very, very strange.

You should see his "David Tua was an ATG" thread. I thought he must be on a windup...but no, he was his usual over zealous self regarding his bizarre opinions. A very apt username, the first part anyway.

Ah, cool, cheers mate.

As long as I know he's just a fuckin' nut-job, I can safely put him on ignore & go about my day.

Thanks for the heads-up.

So voicing an opinion makes one a "nut job" eh? Go ahead and put me on ignore. Bigger tragedies in life.

I'm with you in the missing of the shades of grey. Fighters sometimes seem to have to be either "p4p ATG GOAT", or "shit". Hill was, no question, a good solid fighter, and a Wide against him would add to the record of any of the 20 better fighters mentioned in a way that Lottie Mwale never will. He still wasn't great though, as evinced by the fact that he never beat a great fighter, even though the only ones he beat were from lower divisions, and he never had a won over a lesser fighter that required him to go through the fire and indicate possible greatness.

Othro wrote:

drunkenpiper36 wrote:Weather one rates hill at 20 or 200, he was still an ATG.. Next subject.

Hey guys this guy drunkenpiper36 says we should move on to the next subject and stop debating . He has a great opinion on this subject I think based off of his knowledge we should no longer discuss this .

Don't worry, he couldn't shut up if you paid him. His compulsive trolling nips his lack of Boxing knowledge in his very own useless poster race.

SamWise72 wrote:I'm with you in the missing of the shades of grey. Fighters sometimes seem to have to be either "p4p ATG GOAT", or "poo". Hill was, no question, a good solid fighter, and a Wide against him would add to the record of any of the 20 better fighters mentioned in a way that Lottie Mwale never will. He still wasn't great though, as evinced by the fact that he never beat a great fighter, even though the only ones he beat were from lower divisions, and he never had a won over a lesser fighter that required him to go through the fire and indicate possible greatness.

Exactly mate, well put. Virgil was a very good fighter. But that's all he was, & that's better than perhaps 90% of dudes who've ever laced up hte gloves in his division.

But that don't make him all-time fvck-all, like.

Apologies if I've offended anyone with my dismissal of the other dude, but I really can't be wasting the precious seconds of my existence arguing with someone who would cavil over the colour of the sky, & if that bloody Tua thread was any indication I have probably just saved myself some brain cells.

Datsue wrote:

SamWise72 wrote:I'm with you in the missing of the shades of grey. Fighters sometimes seem to have to be either "p4p ATG GOAT", or "poo". Hill was, no question, a good solid fighter, and a Wide against him would add to the record of any of the 20 better fighters mentioned in a way that Lottie Mwale never will. He still wasn't great though, as evinced by the fact that he never beat a great fighter, even though the only ones he beat were from lower divisions, and he never had a won over a lesser fighter that required him to go through the fire and indicate possible greatness.

Exactly mate, well put. Virgil was a very good fighter. But that's all he was, & that's better than perhaps 90% of dudes who've ever laced up hte gloves in his division.

But that don't make him all-time fvck-all, like.

Apologies if I've offended anyone with my dismissal of the other dude, but I really can't be wasting the precious seconds of my existence arguing with someone who would cavil over the colour of the sky, & if that bloody Tua thread was any indication I have probably just saved myself some brain cells.

Very solid fighter, if he wanted to sniff great he had somewhat of an opportunity when the legend was across the ring from him. And he got completely schooled and learned what a truly great left hand is all about.

how immature.. " I'm going to ignore you because you don't agree with me." LOL..wtf.. This is a message bored. If you don't like other people's opinions then maybe you should try something else.

He's fine with a disagreement, he's ignoring you because you're a moron.

Then again, it's vintage you to demand someone put you on ignore, claim you don't care, and then feverishly sob about it. You suck the life out of this forum.

Need some coffee?

[quote="SamWise72"]I'm with you in the missing of the shades of grey. Fighters sometimes seem to have to be either "p4p ATG GOAT", or "poo". Hill was, no question, a good solid fighter, and a Wide against him would add to the record of any of the 20 better fighters mentioned in a way that Lottie Mwale never will. He still wasn't great though, as evinced by the fact that he never beat a great fighter, even though the only ones he beat were from lower divisions, and he never had a won over a lesser fighter that required him to go through the fire and indicate possible greatness.[/quote

I dont know if anyone is particularly calling him "great". I am not really sure what that means, as when you look at the record of so called greats so much depends on who else was around, and also the general standard of the time.

People have been saying this fighter was great or that fighter was great because they beat this guy or that guy-but then when you look at their records closely you see so many wins over very weak or non existent opposition-as I have pointed out the majority of Tunneys wins came against really awful opposition, and yet he gets called great based on a win against a faded Dempsey and a middleweight in Greb.

Hill was a good solid fighter who had the skills and particularly the jab to trouble any light heavy. Maybe not beat them-but who really knows when it comes down to it-some of the guys on here are so full of themselves and their knowledge and so sure they are right they just have to try and insult you to try and show how clever they are, but an ex fighter I can look at Hill from that perspective and see that his skills could cause you problems.

Nice post, though he didn't have the jab to trouble Tommy Hearns. That was like a jab exhibition and Virgil should have been taking notes.

Broomhall-Drunkenpiper called Hill an ATG on August 31. ATG stands for All-Time Great.
People have different opinions of great. To me it means that you were clearly one of the best.

Tunney gets called out for being great for much more than beating Dempsey and a "middleweight in Greb".
Btw- Greb wasn't just a middleweight; like Roy Jones wasn't just a light heavyweight. Greb fought more light heavyweights in his career than Virgil Hill.
Was Tommy Hearns just a welterweight? He only had a handful of fights at light heavy before beating Hill.

Broomhall keeps saying that Tunney(and others) fought some guys that were awful. (ie, not many fights according to Boxrec.) Fine, don't count them. Just count the wins against experienced fighters.
As mentioned before, Tunney also beat Carpentier, Gibbons, and Levinsky. All three were better than anyone Hill ever beat.
Also as mentioned before, there also wins against Heeney, Risko, Jeff Smith, Charlie Weinert, Chuck Wiggins, Leo Houck, Tommy Gavigan, Howard Morrow, and Joe Borrell. He also had an 8 round no-decision against Tommy Loughran. These guys were not just "cowboys".

Yes Hill had good skills and a nice jab. Doesn't mean that he would have been competitive with any light heavyweight in history. This may shock Broomhall, but there have been lot of guys with good boxing skills and a nice jab. And a lot of guys who can deal with opponents that beat guys who had good skills and a nice jab.