BoxRec

12 rounds at light heavyweight . Who takes it and how ? Seeing how the debates were going about Hill being top 20. How would he fair against another top lightheavyweight who was slightly outside the top 20?

For me Marvin would knock him out in round 7 or 8.

Johnson was both tough and dangerous, but he often fell short when facing an elite guy and had stamina issues.I like Hill via decision or late stoppage.

drunkenpiper36 wrote:Johnson was both tough and dangerous, but he often fell short when facing an elite guy and had stamina issues.I like Hill via decision or late stoppage.

Yup, because Johnson was in great fights does not automatically mean he would walk through Hill. Hills jab and movement would have given Johnson lots of problems. Lottie Mwale beat him using good basics.

Broomhall wrote:

drunkenpiper36 wrote:Johnson was both tough and dangerous, but he often fell short when facing an elite guy and had stamina issues.I like Hill via decision or late stoppage.

Yup, because Johnson was in great fights does not automatically mean he would walk through Hill. Hills jab and movement would have given Johnson lots of problems. Lottie Mwale beat him using good basics.

That's what I'm thinking too. Hill wasn't in too many great fights, but at least he was fairly consistent for most of his career. Johnson blew hot and cold. Virg' could take a good whack when he had to, go the distance, box well, and usually keep himself out of trouble. That's the kind of fight you need to employ to beat Marvin.

I think Virgil Hill wins a clear decision over Marvin Johnson.

Nobody hit Virgil Hill in the head and knocked him out. Roy Jones hit him in the side (more towards the back than front - which was arguably an illegal punch) and broke Virgil's rib. Other than that, nobody knocked out Virgil (on the floor unable to get up) from a head punch. Johnson wouldn't have been the one to do that.

So, if it's going to go the distance, I think Hill wins a clear decision. He had too much movement, and he would've jabbed Marvin to death.

meh, jab jab jab jab doesn't often do the job against a lefty.

Marvin Johnson ate jabs all night long. He would've been hard for Hill to miss. And Virgil was a converted southpaw. His left hand was his harder punch.

I loved watching Marvin fight. I think if Johnson and Hill fought a handful of times, Marvin would win a couple. I just think Hill outpoints him most nights. Hill was on the level of Johnson, Galindez, Gregory and Franklin.

i certainly think Johnson would struggle to make his punch power pay often/well enough to stop Hill, and can't see him winning on pts

for some reason the style matchup makes me think this would be a bit 'meh' as a fight

I was no fan of Hill, but he was as slick as snail sh*t and would have been a very difficult match for Johnson. I almost hate to type this, but I'd favor Hill to take a pretty lopsided decision.

Hill was never KOd by a headshot, nobody did this to Hill, nobody did that to Hill, blah-blah-blah, nobody is the name of everyone Hill beat.

Marvin Johnson has no heavy return fire to worry about from Hill, old baldy swarms him and gobbles him up good.

Tuan_Jim wrote:Hill was never KOd by a headshot, nobody did this to Hill, nobody did that to Hill, blah-blah-blah, nobody is the name of everyone Hill beat.

Marvin Johnson has no heavy return fire to worry about from Hill, old baldy swarms him and gobbles him up good.

Who did Johnson beat that was better than Hill?

Galindez

At the tail end of his career

Who did Hill beat better than Johnson?

Woldemar wrote:Who did Hill beat better than Johnson?

That wasn't the argument my questioning was addressing to the other poster. His claim was that Hill beat nobody and hence Jonson would take him out. So asking who Johnson beat that was better than Hill wasn't entirely inappropriate. Ya dig?

Hill could box, ........and punch when the spirit moved him, Stewart, Tiozzo, etc. Either Hill sticks and moves to a clear decision or turns up the power and stops Johnson late. Due to there particular styles and types of fights they were in, these days I'd say Johnson is a little overrated and Hill a little underrated.

drunkenpiper36 wrote:At the tail end of his career

Are you aware Galindez was only at "the tail end of his career" because of premature death?

When faced with serious opposition, Hill went into his shell versus Hearns (a vulnerable welterweight). When faced with deadly force, Johnson dragged Saad down to hell. It's not as black & white as point me to the win. It is analysing them both against elite opposition and seeing how they fared. Johnson performed far better, against better opponents, even when he lost.

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

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

Johnson got his ass kicked in both fights and one of them came when the two of them were both nobodies. Timing and context of the fights you reference has to be factored into the equation....

Below is ring magazines' top 20 all time list of light heavys comprised in 2010. Fighters who were still active at the time weren't included, so that would omit Roy Jones...

Ezzard Charles
Archie Moore
Michael Spinks
Tommy Loughran
Bob Foster
Jimmy Bivins
Harold Johnson
Maxie Rosenbloom
Billy Conn
Matthew Saad Muhammad
Victor Galindez
Jack Dillon
Battling Levinsky
Joey Maxim
Dwight Muhammad Qawi
John Henry Lewis
Bob Fitzsimmons
Gene Tunney
Virgil Hill
Marvin Johnson

Who put that list together? What was the journo's name?

Crikes...don't need too much knowledge to be a boxing writer...

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?

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.

Tuan_Jim wrote:

drunkenpiper36 wrote:At the tail end of his career

Are you aware Galindez was only at "the tail end of his career" because of premature death?

When faced with serious opposition, Hill went into his shell versus Hearns (a vulnerable welterweight). When faced with deadly force, Johnson dragged Saad down to hell. It's not as black & white as point me to the win. It is analysing them both against elite opposition and seeing how they fared. Johnson performed far better, against better opponents, even when he lost.

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? Frankly I don't think I see any. Johnson was a more exciting fighter to watch.. Of course, who doesn't like a hard puncher with average defense who goes in and trades at will with other fighters? that doesn't mean he was better or that he's getting the win here.