BoxRec

Ambling Alp II wrote: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.

When I say "ATG" I didn't mean in the same context that one would see Ezzard Charles or Archie Moore in. To me a fighter can still be top 20-25 and be great, especially with an extended reign as being the best in your division for most of a decade. We should also consider that light heavyweight is a division that is loaded with p4p great fighters, probably more so than most other weight classes. So being top 20-25 at LH is as good as being top 15 in some other divisions. Obviously there are many who disagree with me here as already illustrated, but I don't think my opinion is unreasonable.

Hill had a 23 year pro career and did not disgrace himself, he must have been doing something right. I wonder if he's happy in retirement, solvent etc, I hope so.

Tunney is a great comparison. He beat the best middleweight of his era, who many consider the best middle ever, and have in the top 5 all time P4P. Hill lost to the greatest middle of his generation. Tunney beat an ATG heavyweight champ, albeit when faded. Hill was moderate at cruiser, never fought a serious heavy, and the middleweight he lost to went in to win a title at heavy. That really captures the difference between good and great nicely.

SamWise72 wrote:Tunney is a great comparison. He beat the best middleweight of his era, who many consider the best middle ever, and have in the top 5 all time P4P. Hill lost to the greatest middle of his generation. Tunney beat an ATG heavyweight champ, albeit when faded. Hill was moderate at cruiser, never fought a serious heavy, and the middleweight he lost to went in to win a title at heavy. That really captures the difference between good and great nicely.

I agree. But if to be fair there is a big gap between Tunney and Hill. Tunney is probably top 10. My case is for Hill ranging somewhere between 20-25.

On August 26, you said "I myself feel he's at least top 20."

So you are now coming around!

Ambling Alp II wrote:On August 26, you said "I myself feel he's at least top 20."

So you are now coming around!

Okay. Top 20-25 is fair. I'll make that compromise.

I think #25 is arguable. There are a lot of guys that are fairly close in the #25 to #35 range. He is in the mix with those guys.

Ambling Alp II wrote:I think #25 is arguable. There are a lot of guys that are fairly close in the #25 to #35 range. He is in the mix with those guys.

Yeah I'm not one to argue with people about who the #27 bantom weight of all time is. I like this hobby but I'm not that anal.

I feel like we're all beginning to be on the same page. How often does that happen?

SamWise72 wrote:I feel like we're all beginning to be on the same page. How often does that happen?

Virgil Hill was a great light heavyweight fighter and champion and we just have to leave at that. He is clearly in my book a top 20 light heavyweight all time. He by no means is a top 100 all time p4p fighter in my view. He is not a top 100 great fighter, But at 175lbs, he deserves to be with the great ones at that weight class. He had a great run at 175lbs.

A very underrated light heavyweight that did the best of his time. I think from 15 to 20 is about right.

elmersalsa wrote:Virgil Hill was a great light heavyweight fighter and champion and we just have to leave at that. He is clearly in my book a top 20 light heavyweight all time. He by no means is a top 100 all time p4p fighter in my view. He is not a top 100 great fighter, But at 175lbs, he deserves to be with the great ones at that weight class. He had a great run at 175lbs.

A very underrated light heavyweight that did the best of his time. I think from 15 to 20 is about right.

Clearly top 20? That's hilarious considering how deep that division is. No particular order and just off of the top of my head.

Lewis, Rosenbloom, Loughran, Greb, Tunney, Moore, Charles, Spinks, Foster, Jones, Michalczewski, Slattery, Dillon, Conn, Bettina, Maxim, O'Brien, Delaney, Gibbons, Qawi, Johnson, Fox, Pastrano, Saad Muhammad, Galindez, Mustafa Muhammad, Hopkins, Berlenbach, Shucco, Knight, Fitzsimmons, Bivins, Harvey, etc..

That's 33, Hill isn't clearly more accomplished than any of them.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

elmersalsa wrote:Virgil Hill was a great light heavyweight fighter and champion and we just have to leave at that. He is clearly in my book a top 20 light heavyweight all time. He by no means is a top 100 all time p4p fighter in my view. He is not a top 100 great fighter, But at 175lbs, he deserves to be with the great ones at that weight class. He had a great run at 175lbs.

A very underrated light heavyweight that did the best of his time. I think from 15 to 20 is about right.

Clearly top 20? That's hilarious considering how deep that division is. No particular order and just off of the top of my head.

Lewis, Rosenbloom, Loughran, Greb, Tunney, Moore, Charles, Spinks, Foster, Jones, Michalczewski, Slattery, Dillon, Conn, Bettina, Maxim, O'Brien, Delaney, Gibbons, Qawi, Johnson, Fox, Pastrano, Saad Muhammad, Galindez, Mustafa Muhammad, Hopkins, Berlenbach, Shucco, Knight, Fitzsimmons, Bivins, Harvey, etc..

That's 33, Hill isn't clearly more accomplished than any of them.

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.

Clearly better than whom? Break it down for me. If he's clearly top 20 detail how that is so with 14 of the names I listed. I don't think he would be top 40.

Never mind all that, did he take a dive against Jones?

elmersalsa wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

elmersalsa wrote:Virgil Hill was a great light heavyweight fighter and champion and we just have to leave at that. He is clearly in my book a top 20 light heavyweight all time. He by no means is a top 100 all time p4p fighter in my view. He is not a top 100 great fighter, But at 175lbs, he deserves to be with the great ones at that weight class. He had a great run at 175lbs.

A very underrated light heavyweight that did the best of his time. I think from 15 to 20 is about right.

Clearly top 20? That's hilarious considering how deep that division is. No particular order and just off of the top of my head.

Lewis, Rosenbloom, Loughran, Greb, Tunney, Moore, Charles, Spinks, Foster, Jones, Michalczewski, Slattery, Dillon, Conn, Bettina, Maxim, O'Brien, Delaney, Gibbons, Qawi, Johnson, Fox, Pastrano, Saad Muhammad, Galindez, Mustafa Muhammad, Hopkins, Berlenbach, Shucco, Knight, Fitzsimmons, Bivins, Harvey, etc..

That's 33, Hill isn't clearly more accomplished than any of them.

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.

dempseyfire wrote: 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.

Which light heavyweights did you rank ahead of Hill after the Hearns fight of 1991 and the time that he lost to Darius Michalczewski in 1997?

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Clearly better than whom? Break it down for me. If he's clearly top 20 detail how that is so with 14 of the names I listed. I don't think he would be top 40.

Now if you say that he is top 40 in the light heavyweights all time rankings that is LAUGHABLE. I am not saying that Hill was a super duper light-heavyweight, but he was not a slouch either. He fought hard in almost all his fights. He has a great record and career against light heavys, and stayed on top for a long time as champion and contender in that class.

I think, like you have mentioned these guys, John Henry Lewis, Maxie Rosenbloom, Tommy Loughran, Gene Tunney, Archie Moore, Ezzard Charles, Michael Spinks, Bob Foster, Roy Jones, Jr., Billy Conn, Joey Maxim, Jack Delaney, Matthew Saad Muhammad, Victor Galindez, Dwight Muhammad Qawi, Harold Johnson, Philadelphia Jack O'Brien, Jimmy Bivins and maybe, maybe Tommy Gibbons were better than he was.

The others that you have mentioned:

Harry Greb (does not make the cut, he was a middleweight most of his career. The only thing significant I see he did at 175lbs was beat the great Gene Tunney. That is the EQUIVALENT of the great Roberto Duran beating the great Sugar Ray Leonard. I do not rate Duran, a favorite fighter of mine, an all time great welterweight).

Dariuz Michaczewski needed the fight with the great Roy Jones, Jr. He beat Hill when Hill was past his best. After that, what did he do at 175lbs?....Nothing.

Jimmy Slattery was not a longer champion than Hill.
Neither Melio Bettina.
Tiger Jack Fox, Willie Pastrano, nor Eddie Mustafa Muhammad were not better than Hill. I am sorry.
The great Bernard Hopkins DOES NOT HAVE ENOUGH FIGHTS to classify him as an all time great light heavy. Hill did much more than he did at 175, don't you think?

Paul Berlenbach? No. Not at all. Len Harvey? He should have come to America more often to fight the very best. Jose "Chegui" Torres? Not better than Hill, either.

Bob Fitzsimmons? He is considered much more of a middleweight great than a light heavyweight.

Pardon my ignorance, but who is Shucco, and Knight? NEVER HEARD OF THEM. And still, they are not better than Hill at 175lbs. Not even your boy the great Thomas Hearns, even though, he beat Hill, he is not considered an ATG at 175.

dempseyfire wrote:

elmersalsa wrote:

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.

Virgil Hill did great at light heavyweight for a great deal of time. He beat the best that had to offer. We cannot blame him because of his quality of opposition. I think his quality of opposition AT LEAST, was better than the Klitchkos brothers at hw, or the great Bernard Hopkins at middleweight.

elmersalsa wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Clearly better than whom? Break it down for me. If he's clearly top 20 detail how that is so with 14 of the names I listed. I don't think he would be top 40.

Now if you say that he is top 40 in the light heavyweights all time rankings that is LAUGHABLE. I am not saying that Hill was a super duper light-heavyweight, but he was not a slouch either. He fought hard in almost all his fights. He has a great record and career against light heavys, and stayed on top for a long time as champion and contender in that class.

I think, like you have mentioned these guys, John Henry Lewis, Maxie Rosenbloom, Tommy Loughran, Gene Tunney, Archie Moore, Ezzard Charles, Michael Spinks, Bob Foster, Roy Jones, Jr., Billy Conn, Joey Maxim, Jack Delaney, Matthew Saad Muhammad, Victor Galindez, Dwight Muhammad Qawi, Harold Johnson, Philadelphia Jack O'Brien, Jimmy Bivins and maybe, maybe Tommy Gibbons were better than he was.

The others that you have mentioned:

Harry Greb (does not make the cut, he was a middleweight most of his career. The only thing significant I see he did at 175lbs was beat the great Gene Tunney. That is the EQUIVALENT of the great Roberto Duran beating the great Sugar Ray Leonard. I do not rate Duran, a favorite fighter of mine, an all time great welterweight).

Dariuz Michaczewski needed the fight with the great Roy Jones, Jr. He beat Hill when Hill was past his best. After that, what did he do at 175lbs?....Nothing.

Jimmy Slattery was not a longer champion than Hill.
Neither Melio Bettina.
Tiger Jack Fox, Willie Pastrano, nor Eddie Mustafa Muhammad were not better than Hill. I am sorry.
The great Bernard Hopkins DOES NOT HAVE ENOUGH FIGHTS to classify him as an all time great light heavy. Hill did much more than he did at 175, don't you think?

Paul Berlenbach? No. Not at all. Len Harvey? He should have come to America more often to fight the very best. Jose "Chegui" Torres? Not better than Hill, either.

Bob Fitzsimmons? He is considered much more of a middleweight great than a light heavyweight.

Pardon my ignorance, but who is Shucco, and Knight? NEVER HEARD OF THEM. And still, they are not better than Hill at 175lbs. Not even your boy the great Thomas Hearns, even though, he beat Hill, he is not considered an ATG at 175.

If beating Tunney is the only thing significant accomplishment you see that Greb had at 175 then I can see why you think so highly of Virgil Hill. You're just out of your depth, as per usual. Even with your brilliant explanations of "No, not at all", "NEVER HEARD OF THEM" and "Not a longer champion" you still fell short of making Hill top 20. What's truly laughable is you.

I didn't even mention Langford. Haha

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

elmersalsa wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Clearly better than whom? Break it down for me. If he's clearly top 20 detail how that is so with 14 of the names I listed. I don't think he would be top 40.

Now if you say that he is top 40 in the light heavyweights all time rankings that is LAUGHABLE. I am not saying that Hill was a super duper light-heavyweight, but he was not a slouch either. He fought hard in almost all his fights. He has a great record and career against light heavys, and stayed on top for a long time as champion and contender in that class.

I think, like you have mentioned these guys, John Henry Lewis, Maxie Rosenbloom, Tommy Loughran, Gene Tunney, Archie Moore, Ezzard Charles, Michael Spinks, Bob Foster, Roy Jones, Jr., Billy Conn, Joey Maxim, Jack Delaney, Matthew Saad Muhammad, Victor Galindez, Dwight Muhammad Qawi, Harold Johnson, Philadelphia Jack O'Brien, Jimmy Bivins and maybe, maybe Tommy Gibbons were better than he was.

The others that you have mentioned:

Harry Greb (does not make the cut, he was a middleweight most of his career. The only thing significant I see he did at 175lbs was beat the great Gene Tunney. That is the EQUIVALENT of the great Roberto Duran beating the great Sugar Ray Leonard. I do not rate Duran, a favorite fighter of mine, an all time great welterweight).

Dariuz Michaczewski needed the fight with the great Roy Jones, Jr. He beat Hill when Hill was past his best. After that, what did he do at 175lbs?....Nothing.

Jimmy Slattery was not a longer champion than Hill.
Neither Melio Bettina.
Tiger Jack Fox, Willie Pastrano, nor Eddie Mustafa Muhammad were not better than Hill. I am sorry.
The great Bernard Hopkins DOES NOT HAVE ENOUGH FIGHTS to classify him as an all time great light heavy. Hill did much more than he did at 175, don't you think?

Paul Berlenbach? No. Not at all. Len Harvey? He should have come to America more often to fight the very best. Jose "Chegui" Torres? Not better than Hill, either.

Bob Fitzsimmons? He is considered much more of a middleweight great than a light heavyweight.

Pardon my ignorance, but who is Shucco, and Knight? NEVER HEARD OF THEM. And still, they are not better than Hill at 175lbs. Not even your boy the great Thomas Hearns, even though, he beat Hill, he is not considered an ATG at 175.

If beating Tunney is the only thing significant accomplishment you see that Greb had at 175 then I can see why you think so highly of Virgil Hill. You're just out of your depth, as per usual. Even with your brilliant explanations of "No, not at all", "NEVER HEARD OF THEM" and "Not a longer champion" you still fell short of making Hill top 20. What's truly laughable is you.

I didn't even mention Langford. Haha

Very nice

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.

Elmo can't be real, surely?

No one is as daft as he makes out to be.

OK, maybe Il Duce and granberry but they were essentially one-trick ponies.

Whoever created Elmo, on the other hand, spreads his unique brand of lunacy across multiple themes. Check out his offerings on the demise of South American football in the Off Topic section. It reminds me a little of the "Mr Angry of Mayfair" character by Kenny Everett.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

elmersalsa wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Clearly better than whom? Break it down for me. If he's clearly top 20 detail how that is so with 14 of the names I listed. I don't think he would be top 40.

Now if you say that he is top 40 in the light heavyweights all time rankings that is LAUGHABLE. I am not saying that Hill was a super duper light-heavyweight, but he was not a slouch either. He fought hard in almost all his fights. He has a great record and career against light heavys, and stayed on top for a long time as champion and contender in that class.

I think, like you have mentioned these guys, John Henry Lewis, Maxie Rosenbloom, Tommy Loughran, Gene Tunney, Archie Moore, Ezzard Charles, Michael Spinks, Bob Foster, Roy Jones, Jr., Billy Conn, Joey Maxim, Jack Delaney, Matthew Saad Muhammad, Victor Galindez, Dwight Muhammad Qawi, Harold Johnson, Philadelphia Jack O'Brien, Jimmy Bivins and maybe, maybe Tommy Gibbons were better than he was.

The others that you have mentioned:

Harry Greb (does not make the cut, he was a middleweight most of his career. The only thing significant I see he did at 175lbs was beat the great Gene Tunney. That is the EQUIVALENT of the great Roberto Duran beating the great Sugar Ray Leonard. I do not rate Duran, a favorite fighter of mine, an all time great welterweight).

Dariuz Michaczewski needed the fight with the great Roy Jones, Jr. He beat Hill when Hill was past his best. After that, what did he do at 175lbs?....Nothing.

Jimmy Slattery was not a longer champion than Hill.
Neither Melio Bettina.
Tiger Jack Fox, Willie Pastrano, nor Eddie Mustafa Muhammad were not better than Hill. I am sorry.
The great Bernard Hopkins DOES NOT HAVE ENOUGH FIGHTS to classify him as an all time great light heavy. Hill did much more than he did at 175, don't you think?

Paul Berlenbach? No. Not at all. Len Harvey? He should have come to America more often to fight the very best. Jose "Chegui" Torres? Not better than Hill, either.

Bob Fitzsimmons? He is considered much more of a middleweight great than a light heavyweight.

Pardon my ignorance, but who is Shucco, and Knight? NEVER HEARD OF THEM. And still, they are not better than Hill at 175lbs. Not even your boy the great Thomas Hearns, even though, he beat Hill, he is not considered an ATG at 175.

If beating Tunney is the only thing significant accomplishment you see that Greb had at 175 then I can see why you think so highly of Virgil Hill. You're just out of your depth, as per usual. Even with your brilliant explanations of "No, not at all", "NEVER HEARD OF THEM" and "Not a longer champion" you still fell short of making Hill top 20. What's truly laughable is you.

I didn't even mention Langford. Haha

He he he. First of all, the great Sam Langford was not an all time light-heavyweight. He was an all-time great that fought in different weight classes, mostly at heavyweight. That is why he is an all time great, maybe the best fighter of the first 25 years of the sport of boxing.

Like I have said, Virgil Hill WAS NOT AN EXTRAORDINARY FIGHTER, but a good fighter at least. A good champion at least. I do not even consider him in the top 100 greatest fighters of all time. But he is an all time great light-heavy. At least I give him that. Top 10? No. Top 15? Neither. He is PERFECTLY FITTED in the 16th to 20th slots in my view. If you want to put him at #21, that is a little debatable, but also might be fair, depending on the rankings.

Like I said before, YOU AND I AGREE THAT THESE GUYS WERE CLEARLY BETTER THAN HILL AT 175 in no particular order: Archie Moore, Ezzard Charles, Maxie Rosenbloom, Gene Tunney, Roy Jones, Jr., Harold Johnson, Billy Conn, Joey Maxim, Jimmy Bivins, Michael Spinks, Bob Foster, Matthew Saad Muhammad, Victor Galindez, and LET US ADD MARVIN JOHNSON INTO THE MIX!...Probably Dwight Muhammad Qawi and maybe, yes, maybe Tommy Gibbons. Still, that is 16 or 17 better than he was. That is why I have said that he is BETWEEN THE 16TH AND 20TH SLOTS.

To say that there were 33 fighters better than he at 175lbs is LAUGHABLE. LET'S GIVE THE MAN HIS MOST DARN RESPECT!
Hill record of world title fights at light-heavyweight was great. He was 21-2 in world title fights at light-heavyweight. That is a great accomplishment as a champion. That is a HOF career right there. He was a two-time WBA World Light-Heavyweight Champion and one-time IBF World Light-Heavyweight Champion.

Forget the great Harry Greb...He was a great middleweight fighter and of course, one of the top 10 greatest fighters in history. Forget about the great Sam Langford...He does not qualify/classify as a light-heavy great. The greats Bob Fitzsimmons nor Bernard Hopkins do not make it either.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote: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.