3 ATG light heavy's that are probably not in anyones top ten

:-( and I like Moorer and always have but that was back when the WBO title wasn't regarded as a major title. His light heavyweight showings were impressive for the tremendous power, but the fighters he was fighting were never worthy of a top ten placing or even close...and other stuff and blah blah for the other blah.

 

Virgil Hill is the only one of those 3 who has the resume to be in the top 10. Probably with Virgil is that he was not exciting, so he is underrated. THen you have overrated fighters who lost to everyone and get rated high because people like them. No fair. But I guess personality does matter.

 

It does, unfortunately. Hill was excellent. Actually, I think if Michael weren't such a surly guy, he'd have been given more credit for his own career. A very media unfriendly personality.

Thread saved! :happy

 

Neither belongs to the Top10. Top30 perhaps. DM and Hill could be argued in the Top20.

 

Moorer didn't achieve it there, maybe you could argue based on how good he was and how he proved this at HW, not having the title shots at the other champs of the time really hurts Moorer because he probably beats the other champs. This is a pretty good example of modern fighters not getting the chance to prove their greatness, if Moorer was a white boxer in the 1920s he'd likely have the chance to fight all the other top contenders and prove himself

Hill and Darius don't really have the level opposition despite their number of defenses and both have a few names missing from their era, including Moorer for Hill. Losing to a past prime WW while in his prime hurts Hill, maybe it shouldn't as HEarns was great and many LHWs who are considered great have prime losses, but still it does.

 

It's of little use to me to count the Hearns loss against Hill as a loss to a welterweight. That Welterweight was, as you know, absolutely enormous, one of the best 154-pounders to set foot in the ring, and had already won a light heavyweight title well before the Hill fight. I don't understand that mentality. I think it's meaningless in evaluating that loss properly.

 

Come on, cut him some slack. It´s PP. :thumbsup

 

Indeed but he certainly wasn't a great LHW, at least not a proven 1 at the weight, neither was he that proven at 160 although there's a decent case he was great at 160. To be fair I'd pick Hearns above quite a few top30 LHws though, I can imagine him beating Qawi, Toney, Hopkins, Loughran, Maxim, Conn and maybe even shock horror Harry Greb given Greb's lack of power and size.

It is crazy to imagine Hearns could have been in the same weight class as Pacquaio who's the same size as Alexander

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1GtrWw09eE[/ame]

 

...So, all that and you're still referring to him as a past prime welterweight when evaluating Hill's loss to him...Well, you're your own man, P. I give you that, my brother.

 

...His own man. :deal

I can't even picture them fighting each other...for more than 20 seconds.

 

You are RIGHT!


They are not in my top ten.