Were does Virgil Hill rank amongst the Light Heavy Weights

Near the end of his prime but right at the start of his appreciation imo. Beating maske was his career best victory imo and he was a favourite over dm. I think the idea was that hill would unify everything and then "pass the torch" onto jones. But ofcourse dm ruined that and took his championship back to germany, where it stayed for the next 15 years.

 

Honestly, that is one of the most absurd statements I ever read on this Board ... Hill over Foster .. wow ...

 

Nowhere!

 

21 title defenses rank somewhere.

 

21 wins against average fighters ... a testiment to Virgil being a solid, consistant technician and always in shape but has nothing to do with him being a great champion ... when his best challenger is a faded Bobby Czyz that says it all ..

 

The Hearns legend is based mostly on hype and publicity.
Most knowledgeable people who have an established p4p list won't have him at top 50.
Hearns also doesn't make the top 10 at none of the weight classes he ever fought at.
He might make the top 10 @ 154 , just because most people refuse to consider Langford , "Robinson" , Burley and others as 154lbers .
If Ray Leonard , Iran Barkley and Marvin Hagler stopped him and others came close to it at as low as 160 lbs , then Virgil Hill as a 175 lbs titlist , let alone a supposedly top 20 all time 175lber , should have done that with ease.
And again , it was not even a prime Hearns .
Also his KO loss to Jones alone disqualifies him from being a top 20 at 175.

 

Hill at least beat some good fighters at 175 , what can't be said of Bob Foster.
Even Hill's run @ 190 and later 200 , was far better than Foster's run at heavyweight , which , during his time was almost equivalent to the cruiserweight division in terms of both size and skill.

 

Hill does get underrated. I think his title defences get exaggerated when in reality it's his spell at the top and being the last man standing that his legacy is built on. I think there is a very real chance that hill is the consensus best heavyweight between spinks and dm/jones. He didn't fight his fellow contenders when they were at the top, but the same has to be said for them also.

I'm not sure why noone unified during the ten years between spinks and dm but it takes 3 to tango and putting the blame on hill is not fair.

As for the loss to hearns, well hearns is great and certainly a top 20 in both welterweight and lightmiddleweight. I'd say he's top 5 lightmiddleweight. So for him to have a great victory 20 pounds above his weight class is more a testament to his greatness than a detriment to hills.

Call it a weak era, one when the best wouldn't fight each other or whatever it wants to be called, but he was the best of that era.

 

By being twice the fighter Hill was. Better jab,combinations,fitness and power.
Conteh didn't have any 'great' wins but they were better than Hills.

 

Hill could hold his hands up, and 21 defences looks great until you analyse who he beat. And again, it is not his fault , he can only beat who they put in front of him. But when he fought serious quality ie roy jones, he was dismantled.

 

Bottom line..He just wasn't that good. I think a top 25 spot is fair though at the very bottom end, although if h2h is weighed probably lower.

 

I guess knocking out Duran and outboxing Benitez and Hill is hype. no one else did that when Benitez and Hill are two different generations of fighters. You can say that about most fighters, but not about Hearns.Hearns fought and beat more greats than most fighters do. Anyone who does not see him as p4p top 50 great just do not like him. He won his first title from 11 title defense champ Cuevas, his second from great Benitez, who was fighting some of his best fights at 154. And Hill at 175 10 defenses and undefeated as well as first man to win 4 and 5 titles. Then you have a guy like Duran who only beat one great fighter and is completely overrated, and some people say he is top 1-10 ATG. The ATG list is made up of people who have favorites. Hearns beat better guys than Hagler did, so if Hearns does not rank 50 then neither does Hagler. You can diminish any mans accomplishments. Leonard beat a Benitez who didn't train. He beat a lightweight Duran and a still green Hearns in 1981. and an old Hagler in 1987. Hearns is one guy whose resume and knockouts speak for themselves. As a matter of fact, Hearns title winning fights are against quality which Hagler nor Leonard or Duran or Benitez have. The Duran fight in 1984 should have been a unification. It is great when people insult Hearns and his legacy, because of all fighters I think his resume is underrated that if you can insult Hearns legacy, any legacy can be broken down.

 

he was exceptional. 21 title defenses even during an era of weakness is still good. Duran fought in a weak lightweight era and somehow people rank him higher because of charisma. Hill just happened to fight two guys in Hearns and Jones who were exceptional. But he did beat the tier below them.

 

Jones himself had a reign at lightheavyweight which was even worse than Hills. You don't get 21 title defenses by holding your hands up.

 

No its because Duran beat far better fighters than Hill ever did and was far better period. Basically I don't care if Hill beat a 100 Leslie Stewarts the way he did, he's not Duran :nut