do you feel that any of these fighters where "great"

Good, but not great.

Hill had longevity, but he lost to the greats. He was the best of a decent bunch of fighters, but consistently beating decent opposition over and over only proves you as "very good", not great.

Tiozzo's best wins were over washed up opponents and the second loss to Hill put an end to any claims of greatness on his part. It was devastating.

Maske benefited from fighting on his home turf although in the end he was unfortunate not to win against Hill in the unification bout. Retiring after his first loss doesn't look good on him and coming back after 10 years to get revenge, while surely an amazing personal achievement, does not quite make up for what happened when the two men met in their respective primes.

 

No way i never even thought Tiozzo was that good he just happen to catch the right fighters at the right time. THe big wins he does have were to guys that would have beat him in their primes.
Maske was a good figher but boring and definitely not great.

Virgil Hill comes the closest out of these 3, and although i dont think he was great he was very good and probably worthy of making it to the IBHOF. The other 2 no way.

 

Though unspectacular, I would say that both Hill and Maske were good, solid fighters - but not great. It takes more than just an awful lot of defences to be called that. Just like I wouldn't call Ottke great - even though he retired undefeated after more than 20 title fights.

 

Virgil Hill is a borderline great. He beat the count against RJJ when he was 34, and got outpointed by DM when he was 33. He never took the full count. Figure his prime to have ended with Maske I. Prior to that, his only loss was to Hearns. Camel, Geraldo, Emebe, Stewart, Czyz, Kinchen, Mwale, Adolpho Washington, Tiozzo, Del Valle, Frank Tate 2X, then finally Maske, makes for an impressive list of defeated opponents going into his middle 30s. Sandwiched around the loss to Hearns are two WBA LHW Title reigns with ten successful defenses each.

Even on the downward slide of his career curve, he managed to retire LaLonde, hand Brudov the first loss on his record, and wipe out Tiozzo in a one round rematch.

22 total WBA LHW Title defenses over a span of ten years is first ballot IBHOF material as I see it. Additionally, he won two box offs for vacant titles, and dethroned two reigning champions successfully, for a total of 24 wins in WBA Title fights. He competed at the top level consistently for over 20 years.

Ottke's record does not measure up to Hill's, in quality of opposition, or impressiveness of wins. Like Calzaghe, he'll forever be haunted by Billy Conn's curse that, "When a fighter doesn't have a loss on his record, there's something wrong with him."

 

You're welcome. (Meanwhile, I still can't get to sleep!c)

 

Tell that to Monzon

 

Monzon did beat the best of his time, while Hill did not. The question is whether the likes of Benvenuti, Griffith, Briscoe and Valdez are as great as middleweights of other eras, but they were unquestionably the best the division could offer at the time. Hill lost to an old Hearns, was decisively beaten by Michalczewski and KO'd by Roy Jones.

 

Maske did not retire because he lost. It was known beforehand that this would be his last fight. He wanted his last fight to be his biggest. He lost a very close one. Nobody can win a close fight in Germany though. Not even Germans.

Neither is great. Hill is closest to it though.

 

I did not say that either. I merely stated that he retired after his first loss, which he did.

 

Great post!

 

I don't think so.

At best they may have verged on it at times, but it seems they all suffered embarrassing upset losses at crucial times in their careers.

 

So Nino Benvenuti was only just "decent"? :huh

 

Good yes. Great , no ..

 

They all 3 were good but none were great..

Virgil Hill was the best of the 3 in my eyes..