Virgil Hill: Underrated?

I think, he was a really good slick fighter with a good workrate, just not outstanding and his punch was quite average. He won also against Henry Maske (another good one) in an unification championship, though he lost against ab old past prime Hearns (in a really exciting fight). In the beginning of 90s, he was maybe the best LHW fighter for some years. It was just a weak period. He lost also against Dariusz Michalczewski on points. Though Michalczewski was a really strong, tough fighter, who is often a bit underrated. I think he would be a good opponent for Roy Jones.
Later Hill was also successful at CW.

 

I'd rate him about the same as Andre Ward.
Good champion but not quite great.

 

I think Hill was not at his best against Michalchewski.

 

Ward vs Hill would have been interesting. Tough to pick a winner

 

How is Ward not great? He cleared up at Super Middleweight and beat the number 1 light heavyweight

 

I would favour Dariusz Michalczewski against any Hill. He won quite comfortable.

 

I do not think so. Michalchewksi is a bit overrated. He never fought outside Germanny. Hill and Griffin (stoppage being BS too) were not at their best. Do not forget that Tiozzo knocked out Michalchewksi where Hill beat Tiozzo twice. Do not get me wrong, Dariusz was a good fighter with a good jab and power but at their best I think Virgil wins a decision

 

Okay, I think differently. Griffin was an easy win for Michalchewksi and Griffin had a couple of decent wins afterwards and wasn`t to old. Against Tiozzo, I think Michalchewksi was already over the Hill. He had to many tough battles before, took to many punches and cuts during his career and was already in his late thirties. He was already way past his prime against Julio Cesar Gonzales, who lost against Zsolt Erdei afterwards.

 

I don't think Hill is particularly underrated. The most consistent championship performer at 175 during that decade or so which separated the end of Spinks' reign and the start of Jones', but at the same time he's pretty much unanimously regarded as such in any case. Marvellous longevity to his career, but his record his a little thinner on really top wins than you'd expect for a man who boxed almost thirty world title contests.

Ultimately Hill campaigned for an eternity at Light-Heavy without ever actually proving himself the best there, unless we're counting those few months in which he was IBF-WBA unified after beating Maske - which I guess you could maybe do if you used a bit of creative licence. But in the age of four belts per division I find the nine year gap between Hill lifting his first world title and finally boxing a unification bout pretty much unforgivable, much like Calzaghe a decade on. It's not like there weren't any other respectable champions at the weight who were stringing defences together, either. Williams and Moorer had relatively lengthy spells as titlists alongside Hill. That he didn't unify a lot sooner is a blotch on his copybook and pretty much disqualifies him from genuine great status at Light-Heavy, not to mention the defeats against Hearns, Michalczewski and Jones - basically the three best 175 pounders he fought.

And Lordy, he could be a dull watch, too. Lovely jab, good conditioning to stay light on his feet for the full twelve, decent speed - but his refusal / inability to fight on the inside, his tactic of getting off one shot and then falling into the clinch, his light punching and back foot style etc. really makes it hard to warm to him all that much, fine fella though he is by all accounts. He needed an extremely brittle-chinned Stewart to look vaguely exciting or powerful against, and some of his contest in his second reign verged on the coma-inducing for long periods. Very respectable Indian Summer as a Cruiserweight, mind you. Again, not against particularly high-class opposition but I can grant him a bit more leeway for that given he was forty-odd by then.

I don't see Hill as a great by any means, and I'd say he gets more than enough credit for what he did in his career, which was still very impressive in its own right. I appreciate he was seen as the runt of that fantastic 1984 US Olympic team and had to prove a lot of early career doubters wrong, but for too much of his career he had things all his own way and was reluctant to, or protected against, stepping out of his comfort zone a lot of the time. And I think the Hearns, Michalczewski and Jones losses pretty much tell us why that was the case. Very good fighter, but never a great one.

 

Solid post as usual Chris

 

I don't know. I think he gets slept on.
Also gave Mormeck a good fight second time around snd even won the crusierweight title yesrs past his best.
Beat Czyz,Stewart,Washington,Tate x2,Tiozzo x2 and an unbeaten Maske.

 

If anything he gets overrated, usually by people that point to the "great wins" over him, not the great wins he actually got.

Ex. "Thomas Hearns got a great win over Virgil Hill. "

"Michalczewski was legit, he beat Hill."

"Roy Jones KOed Hill. Great win."

 

I don't rate Hill as an all time great, but he was great. Lots of boxing skill. Lacked the solid punch that could have made the difference.

Watching Tommy Hearns bomb away on him in '91 is one of my favorite fights to relive, mostly due to the positions the two boxers occupied at that point in their careers, as well as my age at the time, and the excitement I had for the sport. What a great fight! Seeing Hearns in the new colors, and with that big smile on his face, and how relaxed he was as he swung for the fences... a great moment in boxing history.

It took both those men, at that particular time, to make that fight.

What a wonderful sport.

 

This is it for me too,,,well said