Thomas Hearns v Virgil Hill

You are right. Tommy never gets the credit for this fight he should have. This was the second time he won the 175 pound title, and he was the first man to win a welterweight title and then win the Light heavyweight title twice. And Hill was undefeated and 5 years younger. It was a great win and Tommy won a UD. Hill had called out Tommy for years thinking he would knock out Tommy and get his fame that way. He underestimated the experience and skill of Thomas even at 32. And in two months Virgil HIll gets inducted into the Hall of Fame.

 

I think Virgil is underrated as a whole, and agree that it was a very strong performance by Hearns. Utiiized all his skills and fought like a master technician.

 

I agree, he basically won it with his jab, and Virgil really was not used to anyone with a better jab than him. So Virgil found himself being outjabbed, and when he tried to step inside which he was unaccustomed to, Tommy countered him. Basically Tommy beat Virgil at his own game and had a right hand, which Virgil had the left hand and left hook counter. Tommy used experience to beat Virgil at his own game.

 

But I did think it was a great win. It was a technical fight, but not a great action fight. I meant more that Hearns was so great with this jab that he didn't have to use his legs which was his problem as he got older. It was surprising in that Tommy on autopilot could still beat a great light heavyweight. Showed how great he was. They talked a rematch, and Virgil probably was going to try and be more aggressive but that wouldn't work with Hearns. The way Virgil could win is if he somehow could have used his jab more and got that to work, because his whole career was successful behind his jab.

 

it was a incredible just because anyone beats the undefeated Virgil Hill who had 10 title defenses would be a great win. And the guy who did it was Thomas Hearns who had won titles at welt. super mid. Mid, 168 and light heavy. Won his first title at welt 11 years before. and fought all the 80s legends, so just that added to his resume made it a great win, yet is it amazing how some fighters get credit for lesser wins than Hearns did for this one.

 

I do not see all the fuss. I am a huge Tommy fan, but this victory was merely a solid win in his resume.

Hill was in awe of Hearns, and lacked the confidence he gained later in his career. The victory was impressive in that Hill was arguably in his physical prime, and was fighting a man who began at a weight nearly 30lbs lighter, and was again 'arguably' seven years past his pomp. But this was not Hearns beating the mid 90s Hill. Now that would of been a top Motor City Cobra performance!

 

I thought Virgil was a better fighter earlier in 1991 than in mid 1990s when he started to get banged up and lose. In 1991 he had 10 title defenses and was undefeated. Having beaten Czyz and Stewart to name a few. I think he was confident, but Hearns took his jab away and he lost it in the fight. It was amazing to see a guy who looked so great with the jab, look so ordinary when a legend fought him. I could say he should be more aggressive, but in that fight at the end of rounds 6 and 8 I think he tried being aggressive, and Hearns hit him with right hands which made him go back to his jab, which Tommy was beating him to the punch with. I just thought this fight like the Benitez fight showed how Tommy could beat Hall of Fame guys boxing and not punching, although his punching gave him the respect so they wouldn't walk in. Benitez was very cautious to walk in on Hearns, and Hill 9 years later was also.

 

A good stylistic match up for Hearns, but a very good performance nonetheless.

That said, like Duran-Barkley it's one of those either way fights that don't get sold that way simply because it involved a legend doing better than was expected.