Is Virgil Hill a top 20 - 25 light heavy?

In 2010 Ring Magazine ranked the top-20 LHW's of all-time, but active fighters weren't listed (AKA no RJJ). I used to have this magazine and wish I still did, but I digress,

Either way they had Virgil Hill at 19. So including RJJ ( I can't think else who was active then who may have hoppen in) seems he fits nicely in the top 20, according to them. In my mind I always ranked him higher but to be fair I never spent a lot of time putting together a top 20 or so. Revisiting the entire list I guess I would have to say 20ish is fair, but he's probably falling.

Here's there list -


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

 

This seems to be a subject that brings out the worst in people. :blood

Virgil Hill, of all things.

Debate about his placement in history is way more exciting and dramatic than he was. (not that such is a bad thing, a lot is to be said for auto-pilot consistency...)

Let's remember where exactly we are, guys. This is Classic. Keep the personal attacks - be they dredging up pictures of posters, or wishing cancer upon their wives - off the game-board.

 

As far as I am concerned I am wiping the slate clean with that poster.

As for the nasty remark I made, it was out of spite to what I felt was an invasion of privacy. I apologise for any offence caused.

 

Jones also fought generally woeful opposition at light heavy (and I love Roy)

 

No problem man, I'm not twirling a ban stick here or anything, I just don't want to see you guys escalate to a point where somebody else does step in. :good

Keep the insults to "YDKSAB" and everything will be copacetic.

 

Okay, thanks mate.

 

He probably should never be rated above Dariusz.

 

Safe to say everyone agrees that Hill ranks much lower on any h2h list than he does on an ordinary "greatest" list (regardless of where exactly), while Jones probably ranks a good deal higher on the h2h list but lower on the other?

I'm fine with saying that Hill isn't even top 40 h2h at 175lbs, and it goes without saying he wouldn't have racked up as many defenses as he did in most other eras - but if we're fairly applying the same criteria that most do on these lists and giving the same due unqualified weight to resume stats, there's kind of no choice but to place him a lot higher than he would belong on a h2h list being such a one-trick pony. He did put in the yeoman's work, for some years (and the depth of the era isn't his fault) and that simply can't be ignored just because we're pretty sure a few dozen or more guys throughout history would have figured him out, neutralized his jab, and cleaned his clock.

 

Hill would have beaten Hopkins at 175.

Obviously, that doesn't mean he was as good as Hopkins, but Hop's opposition at 175 has been carefully chosen.

Hill had the style to beat him at lightheavy.

 

Dwight Qawi, Galindez and Saad Muhammad over John Henry Lewis. Wow. That's about as sad and misinformed as it gets.....and from the "Bible of Boxing" no less!

 

meh.i can easily see how someone could form a perfectly valid argument for having them over him, depending on your criterion.

They all fought good fighters, it's not like there's a Tarver or Dawson in the discussion.

tbh i can think of dozens of worse stuff from the ring, especially considering they are all close to each other in the list.

 

Which criterion could you see them placed over him?

 

Hopkins in his light heavyweight debut, the night he moved up and completely befuddled the lineal champ and 3-1 favorite (and no dummy, probably Hill's equal in ring IQ or adaptability), outscoring him by double - you don't think he stands a chance to drag any version of Hill off his game?

I know, their styles are very different (Hill's a little faster and the better mover; Tarver's slicker and stronger), but they're roughly as basic, in a way that Hopkins delights in exploiting.