Correctly weighted and focused Eddie Mustafa Muhammad vs Virgill Hill

Eddie beats him bad

 

Mustafa comfortably. Too slick and powerful.

 

Hill has been underrated lately. People hold the Hearns and Jones fights against him, but he was a good boxer and strong with a good counter left.

 

Hill by UD

His foot speed is too much for Eddie.

Eddie had great fundamentals but did not have good footspeed or high punch output.

Hill motors around him for a clear UD.

Eddie looked awesome against Marvin Johnson and Jerry Martin who were powerful and straight ahead.

 

Eddie big.

 

Hill. People make me laugh. Tommy Loughran had only a left jab basically and hes worshipped. Hill who only had a jab ad well as movement gets criticized non stop.
Hill was very fast as a lightheavy and Eddie hasnt faced that.
And Hill never ventured away from his strenghts.
Hill by decision.

 

The Eddie described by the OP did not exist.

He was lazy in his training so even when he made weight it was often not by being in super shape, always had a bit of a soft look about him. Rarely did he come in shape to fight hard for the entire scheduled distance (and even if he was in shape he never really had a fight I’ve seen where he worked hard for 3 minutes a round from start to finish).

He was also not very focused, even in his better performances.

So I have Hill outboxing this mythical creature that never walked the earth.

 

Eddie by SD.

 

Another Eddie vote

 

I like Hill by UD. Great boxer.

 

Great matchup @TheEliteMaster100 .Much bigger fan of Eddie than I am of Hill, but based on styles I think Quicksilver might just take this one.

Eddie has a touch of the Toney about him. Naturally gifted, able to slip shots without blinking by mere inches as if he had a sixth sense, and brilliant at dissecting a guy who carried the fight to him and he didn't have to go looking for. Happy to let the other guy work hard while he was working smart, if you catch my drift. But for similar reasons that I think someone like Kalambay would have been a horrible match up for Toney, I see Hill being a stylistic problem for Eddie.

And as others have said, it's all well and good 'if Eddie was more focussed, upped his workrate' etc., but you have to go on what they actually did produce, I guess. If you're going to focus heavily on the ifs for Eddie, then in the interests of fairness you probably have to also consider Hill hypothetically planting his feet a bit more, being less cautious, backing himself to hold his own in close-fire exchanges etc. Ultimately I'm looking at this from the point of view of the versions of Eddie (and Hill) which we actually had most of the time, rather than the ones we'd have liked to see.

Don't get me wrong: even this erratic version of Eddie may well still have beaten Hill. Eddie was a fantastic body puncher as you say, and if he lands those shots that's going to take away Hill's advantage in the foot speed department for starters. And Hill was a bit of a one-dimensional fighter inasmuch as he never really deviated from his plan of movement, backing himself to win the jab exchanges and not allowing his opponent to get set to throw big shots. As Michalczewski showed, he was susceptible to a good jab himself and his lack of a real inside game was an issue.

But Michalczewski pressured and smothered Hill at every opportunity - I'm just not sure Eddie would. Also, Eddie had a habit of getting a little uninterested and passive in fights which weren't going his way, like the Spinks fight. Not sure he was the best at dealing with frustration, and Hill will definitely frustrate him. There's a chance that Hill could struggle with Eddie's power, and of course it's worth noting that Hill's only loss inside-schedule in anything like his best years was down to a body shot - an area where Eddie excelled. But I think that's the exception rather than the rule here.

I'll take Hill to win this on points, pretty close. Good fight for a few rounds which promises much, but never quite comes to the boil and with Hill winning it going away. Interesting matchup though and not one I'm calling with any strong conviction.

 

Eddie at his best was a level above Hill. His right hand would badly hurt Hill, and Virgil would go into a shell just like did versus Hearns.

 

I like Hill here, as another poster noted, when did we see the absolute best of Mustafa? I can't think of any fighter Mustafa dominated that wasn't a straight ahead brawler. Which he was excellent against.
But a fighter like Hill, who isn't going to go out and press Mustafa, who would be patient, stick his jab and move, through out a left hook or two. I see Mustafa being too patient, waiting for the perfect counter, as round after round pass.
By the time he finally figures out to get more aggressive, the fight will be pretty much over. Hill would hold on and survive, when a split dec.
But Hill isn't a better fighter than Mustafa, just a busier one.

 

like others said, a footwork fight. And the difference in mobility is on par with the difference in punching power. lopsided decision for Hill.

The only chance for Eddie is the Hill habit of circling clockwise only. But Muhammad still has to step it up to 4th gear effort wise to close the gap and cut him off. then, he has to throw. and land, not throw and miss. I just don't see him ever having that kind of stamina to work that hard for 180 seconds---not when he's eating nice jabs from this guy.