Virgil Hill vs Bob Foster

Obviously. But I was responding to the "Granite chin" post, not a comparison about how they moved,
or style they fought.

 

My point was that it would be harder to knock Hill out because of his movement

 

You lost me at former welterweight.

When Tommy Hearns beat Virgil Hill, Hearns was 31. He hadn't been a welterweight for 10 years. He couldn't make welterweight since he was 21. He had won titles at junior middle, middleweight and light heavyweight, and became a two-time light heavyweight champion when he decisioned Hill.

Dismissing Hill because he lost to "a former welterweight" is just lazy. You act like Hill got outpointed by Billy Backus or someone. Hearns was an all-time great. There is zero shame to losing to a hall of famer who is a two-time light heavyweight champ.

As for Hill, Hill faced and beat far better fighters at light heavyweight than Bob Foster ever faced.

Hill defeated Henry Maske, Leslie Stewart, Bobby Czyz, Donnie LaLonde,Frank Tate (twice), Fabrice Tiozzo (once and light heavy and once for the cruiserweight title), Marvin Camel (former cruiserweight champ), James Kinchen, etc., ... and Foster fought Frankie DePaula, Roger Rouse, Mark Tessman.

A Foster-Hill fight would be too close to call. Foster never beat any light heavys as good as Virgil Hill. And Foster was steamrolled by Doug Jones, who wasn't exactly a banger or very big.

Hill wasn't just going to roll over and call it a day like most of the guys Foster defended against.

 

D, with all due respect, Tommy fought Leonard for their welterweight championship when Tommy was 23. Why did you write he couldn't make welter since he'd been 21? We all know Tommy is an atg at 147 and 154, but he lost to Iran Barkley at 175 (of course at 160 as well) right around the time he beat Hill there. That's being lazy on my part? We all know styles make fights as no one in their right mind calls Barkley an atg, but wouldn't the styles thing be the reason Tommy beat Hill there as he outjabbed the jabber? Who's the better 175 pounder between Tommy and Hill- the guy that won the fight between them and lost to Iran Barkley, or the guy that's generally regarded as a better 175 pounder and has a deeper resume there? You said something quite true in that Foster never beat anyone as good as Hill. But just what lightheavy (or any other fighter for that matter) did Hill beat that was as good as Foster? Funny you mentioned LaLonde because Leonard stopped him before Hill decisioned him. I personally wouldn't brag about that Hill victory. And didn't Doug Jones give a young Muhammad Ali a rough time of it?

 

Short and spot on for mine. Super break down.

 

Not really, Hill was not at his best against Michalchewski.

 

That's a minor detail in the general scheme of his post and i mean minor.

Hill was hurt multiple times by Hearns who was badly faded by this time and far from a career Light Heavyweight. I would say his power is probably underrated at 175 but he's still no Bob Foster power wise at 175. Who was?

Even more telling is that Hill was comprehensively outjabbed by Hearns and could not get past Hearns right hand threat which was thrown sparingly early on. He also couldn't go balls to the wall in the closing stages when his best hope was a fight changing attack against a guy that was certainly somewhat fragile at that point in time and weight.

Foster has one of the best jabs in 175 pound history and is even taller and longer than Hearns. He also has that whip like speed allied to power that is well in the conversation for greatest in P4P in history.

It would be Hill moving and Foster stalking, and stalking good. It is a terrible match for Hill but that's certainly nothing to be ashamed of. He's a fine fighter who made the most of what assets he had.

 

It is a agreed tHAT Hill would lose a decison. I just do not see him being stopped. With his excellent chin and lateral movement, that is a just a tough combination to overcome to score a KO. Hill took bombs from Hearns and Michalchewski. I am not sure where you saw Hill seriously hurt in the Hearns fight.

 

I said Hill was "hurt", not "seriously hurt". You didn't see him hurt at all in that fight?

Foster bombed out people who had never been stopped. He left some twitching. If Foster is hitting you cleanly there's every chance you aren't getting home even with a good chin. His power was phenomenal.

Eddie Futch said of Foster - "Such range and strength. He could move and box, but, my, what a punch."

 

I might add, Bob Foster's losses were to heavyweights, he was Light Heavyweight Champion from 1968-1974, he retired with the belt.

 

That's the point I don't think some understand. Foster at Lt.Heavy was a freak of nature like Hearns was at welter. His power was off the charts. And as you noted he had an excellent jab. Something that Hill showed he had issues with against a shell of Thomas Hearns. His length also gave him a great advantage when cutting off the ring, he was excellent at making a boxing ring a phone booth. Hill could run for a few rds, but eventually, he would find no place to hide.

 

Spot on Flash, spot on.