Michael Spinks Vs. Virgil Hill

Huge Hill fan but Spinks is too much for Hill.
I actually see Spinks stopping him.

 

It was a point which I was making about overrating and underrating wins and that was an example of overrating, since Moore had only 11 fights-it was the best example I could come up with. Even the Leonard win which Ray had one defense of the title when he fought Roberto is seen as one of the best ever, yet Virgil had 10 title defenses. That is why I mentioned Roberto. It was in the valid realm in the context of my point and these are examples of making wins anything you want them to be. You know this.

This win was a great win for Tommy and he did not get the credit for it like others would have had they beaten Virgil. No matter what. Virgil was undefeated and 27 years old in 1991. And Tommy didn't handpick Virgil like other fighters handpick. Virgil went out asking for the Hearns fight for over a year. He wanted it. He thought he would get an easy win. He anticipated Tommy coming in throwing a lot of punches and he landing his counter left like he did on Kinchen or Lasisi and getting Tommy out. Tommy had the jab and was too smart. He kept Virgil on the outside and countered Virgil. Tommy proved even at 32 he was a level above Virgil. Also this was Tommy when he had a gameplan.

As for Virgil. Even here he is underrated as a fighter. He lost to Jones, who was another great like Hearns with a rather flukish right to the body. Regardless of that, Spinks was a legit great and Hill looked great on paper, but in the ring he was Hall of fame but lacking full greatness head to head. But Virgil's wins and records is in many ways legendary. 24 title fights something like that. I should look that up. 3 reigns as champion. Heck of a fighter. Underrated. But against Spinks he would lose. Now you might call me crazy but against Qawi? I think he would win decision. Yet Qawi might be too strong for Tommy. Styles make fights. I think Virgil beats the heck out of Barkley. Easily. That is how matchups work. Everything Virgil could do Tommy could do better. Virgil best punch was his jab and that was how he got his wins. He got guys so frustrated he either sat back and won rounds with the jab or they would try and get inside and he would counter left. Tommy had a jab and Virgil gameplan was gone. Simple as that. But Tommy had an exceptional jab. I think it could be the best ever or top 5. That is what made all his other punches work. Same with Virgil. But a top 5 jab in history compared to a top 15 in history means Tommy wins.

 

Very very suspicious! Are you by chance in real life have the last name Viruet? HUH?

 

I added more to the original post editing it. No, but that fight and the overrating is something I never liked. I like fairness and fighters to be rated accurately. The win by Hearns was a great one and he never got the credit he should have. And I also think Virgil's confidence went down after Hearns beat him.

 

Spinks by 9th round kayo. Virgil would give a good account of himself until Michael asserted himself around the fifth or sixth.

 

Hill stands absolutely no chance whatsoever. None

 

Can someone answer a question for me- Loughran is regarded as a great boxer who basically had a rapier left jab as his main offensive weapon.
Now I know he fought the better boxers then Hill but wasn't Hills style similar to Loughrans in that both featured a great jab and movement as main weapons yet one is applauded for it while the other is critized for it?

 

Hill is criticized for his style?

 

Spinks wins. He was much better than Hearns, and Hill respected Tommy's power an awful lot. If he does that against Spinks, and he will, he stands no chance. Actually, even if he doesn't, he stands no chance. Spinks out-jabs him, finds his range, and takes Hill out.

 

I am suprised at the number of folks picking Spinks by stoppage. Hills had an excellent chin and stamina. He was only stopped due to a body shot against prime Jones. He took bombs from punchers and knew how to move. I still think the safer bet is Spinks on points

 

I think Spinks by wide UD is the safer bet, myself.

But I wouldn't discount a Spinks stoppage.

Hill never fought a puncher like Spinks. Hearns was a comparable puncher to Spinks in a P4P sense, but at 175 Spinks was a bigger hitter than Tommy.

Problem is, Spinks wouldn't respect Hill's power, which would cause him to become aggressive. And an aggressive Michael Spinks was quite devastating.

 

Perfect post there, George

 

Perhaps, but Hill never fought a lightheavy known for hitting with Spinks power.

 

Gotta go with spinks by decision or late stoppage. But Hill was a better fighter than often given credit for

 

Worst possible style matchup for Hill