Is Virgil Hill a top 20 - 25 light heavy?

This is a great site but any idea when they're going to update these lists again. 9 years and counting between updates seems a little strange to me.

 

Hill was a good fighter in his prime, but also benefited massively from a weak era where there weren't enough fights made between the different belt-holders.

Who was the best fighter he actually beat in his prime at light-heavy during those long title runs? Tiozzo, Czyz, Stewart, Hassan, Del Valle, Ashley?...faded blown up versions of Kinchen and Tate?

It's a pretty shocking record by the standard of being considered a great light heavy in comparison to who he would be coming up against for most of a top 20...and he never displayed the great talent that could offset that sort of weak record...he was a tidy, accurate minimalist jabber with good movement and no versatility against good opposition.

Not a master boxer, a great slip and counter man or inventive, varied stylist...just a good one with a rather predictable style.

His chance to show he was special in his prime, came against a by then clearly faded and blown up Hearns.Still nobodies easy meat, but by that stage the kind of fighter that a great light-heavy should be putting on a showcase against.Hill on the other hand showed a real lack of versatility, or failing that even just virtuosity within his chosen narrow field as he was fought on at least even terms by the aging Hitman.

I never liked how quickly he took his belts hostage for repeated hometown defences either.He gets a belt again against a washed up Frank Tate and fights against another mediocre group of challengers....the best probably being the solid but unspectacular Tiozzo who gives him a tough fight.

Finally steps up for a unification when starting to slow down a notch against Maske, another good solid fighter who like Hill had not fought a lot of quality.Wins a good competitive fight in what was probably his career highlight for me.

But he promptly gets beat widely by DM...another good light heavy, but one who would crack most top 20s and Jones.

That's it for him as a remotely P4P level fighter,though he carries on as an ordinary, older fighter for some years after.

Ultimately he was a good world class light heavyweight that fared well in what was at that point one of the weakest and most fractured era in the division's history.he lacked the obvious special ability and sheer dominance someone like Foster was able to display over what had been an earlier lull for the division.

Ranking him ultimately comes down to your own individual criterion.If you put a lot of stock in number of splinter title defences and longevity(the guy was a model pro) then by all means rate him high, but it seems to me that most share the belief he was simply not a talented enough fighter to overcome the drawbacks of his weak opposition and key losses against non-great light-heavies like Hearns and Dariusz.Thus you won't often see him in top twenty lists and almost never in a top ten.

 

nah, Dawson is mediocre, not even as good as Tiozzo was imo.I'd take hill clearly over him.

 

Since when does number of defenses define a fighter's credibility ? Do you rate Tommy Burns over Dempsey, Tunney, Marciano, Liston or Frazier because he had more title defenses ?

Did you ever see Virgil Hill fight at light heavyweight ? Virgil Hill fought the largest collection of scrubs I have ever seen at light heavyweight. The division was absolutely pathetic compared to the seventies and then later on w Jones and Tarver. He was embarrassed by blown up, shop worn middleweight Thomas Hearns in his absolute prime.

I like Hill as a decent guy and a well conditioned fighter but sometimes guys prosper in eras of weak opposition and Hill is a classic. Any fighter that I mentioned above would have thrashed Hill. I'm sure there are another ten light heavyweights I could list that would also have defeated the man.

 

I could name a lot of people who would beat him, too.

I said he was top 20. If I rated him based on the number of his defenses (second most all time), I'd rate him number two.

I don't. But 20 defenses isn't anything to sneeze at, either. Only one light heavy defended more times than Hill ... only one. Ever.

And for a guy who fought in such a weak era, how many Hall of Famers will Hill have faced, when all is said and done?

Hearns is in. Jones is a first ballot lock. Maske and Michalczewski are on the ballot right now.

How many Hall of Fame light heavys did Michael Moorer fight at 175? Zero? How many did Conteh fight in that TERRIFIC era? One? How many of Tarver's opponents in his loaded era are HOF-bound? Two?

So how bad was Hill's level of opposition compared to theirs, really?

 

Terrible. Conteh would have cut Hill to ribbons. Tarver would have completely outclassed him. Hill was well conditioned and brave but he was one handed and severely limited. If you rate your fighters on stats you have an argument but if your saying Hill was one of the twenty best light heavyweights your truly clueless about the division's history.

 

No, John Conteh wouldn't have. John Conteh passed out drunk in a hotel hallway in his underwear more times than he beat a top fighter.

Also, Virgil Hill is already in the International Boxing Hall of Fame, and there are only about 20 other light heavyweight champs in there.

So, I think he is top 20, whether you like it or not.

 

Cracks me up how a very select group of people on here are absolutey fanatical about John Conteh

Being from a particular country and having a memorable/likeable personality get you far in the sports world.

I can only imagine that Europeans slobber over their heroes on their own boxing forums.

"Karl Milldenberger! What a handsome fellow and an icon in his home country !"

Meanwhile on other continents where people actually realistically view his career without nationalism and rose tinted glasses...

 

In 2002, Hill was rated #19 according to Ring Magazine.

Here was their complete list...From 1 (top) to 20 (bottom)

Ezzard Charles
Archie Moore
Michael Spinks
Tommy Loughran
Bob Foster
Jimmy Bivins
Harold Johnson
Maxie Rosenbloom
Billy Conn
Matthew Saad Muhammad
Victor Galindez
Jack Dillon
Battling Levinsky
Joey Maxim
Dwight Muhammad Qawi
John Henry Lewis
Bob Fitzsimmons
Gene Tunney
Virgil Hill
Marvin Johnson

 

Utter hypocrisy from you. Never realised what a wanker you were.

When have I ever supported British fighters?

Sweet Pea was the biggest Conteh admirer on here, and he was from the States.

 

Hill was a good fighter, a good champion. He never set the world afire though, never really rose above what could be called a respectable titlist. Outside of Bismarck North Dakota, he didn't have much of a fanbase.
I watched many of his title defenses at the time and he was good, but protected and as said the era wasn't strong.

Beating a faded Hearns would have given him a stronger argument, but he failed quite badly there. Still, he had some excellent assets (educated left hand, decent handspeed, good movement, solid chin, good conditioning) so he has to be respected at least.

Nowhere near top 10, outside the top 20 but I'd say top 30 is fair.

 

About how I see it. Solid chin, perhaps. Could Hill take a good body shot? Suspect there.

 

Maske evened the scores just like Fenech did when he beat Nelson in their epic 3rd encounter. Jeff proved once and for all he was the greater of the 2