Virgil Hill vs. Dmitry Bivol

Hill didn’t like it to the body. Canelo murders the body.

“Washed up” Kovalev would sit on his punches more because he wouldn’t be up against Canelo, and he was still difficult to outpoint.

Neither of these these fights are foregone wins for Hill and either one would be a top 2 victory to him. He probably would go 1-1.

 

Hill didnt like it to the body? Other then Jones who stopped Hill at Lightheavy? Kov was a joke that everybody fell in love with because of a couple of fights. He isnt going to get near Hill and will get his head jabbed off as Hill is alot faster then Kov.
Canelo murders the body? What lightheavy did he stop with bodyshots? Canelo is an overrated puncher who everyone loved to say was such this tremendous puncher whe he never was.
Kov has no heart and gives up when things dont go his way. If he had issues with Chilemba hes going to have serious problems with Hill.

 

Sure because all the fighters hit their prime after 31 right? They hit the prime years from 25- 29 as you age your body slows down with the amount of punishment and number of fights you have.
Most fighters of Hills era had well over 100s of amateur fights which does eventually take its toll. Now throw in years as a pro-10 years- and no your not going to be in your "prime" years.

 

Canelo killed Kovlev’s body.

Fun fact: The first Andre Ward fight is the only time a Kovalev fight ended with him down on all three cards.

 

you don't know how Hearns in 1987 when he beat Andries does against the Bivol now.. He was 44-2 and I think he could have absolutely beaten the Bivol who fights now.. And I think Hill who fought Hearns edges Bivol now. We rush to judgement now with fighters.

 

In terms of a light heavyweight fighters prime seldom are they out of it age 31, and Hill had the type of style and defense where he wasn't hit too often By you definition just about everyone 31 and older is out of their prime. I think you made slip of the mind and are using an error point that " Hill was past his prime at age 31 " as an excuses for losing to Hearns and " old " 32 former welter with, and other losses to better fights past this age.

A light heavyweight is generally old at 35. There are exception in Hopkins and Moore. It can happen sooner if he is in-active ( Hill wasn't ), in though fights where he sustained a lot of damage ( again Hill was in any of them 31 and younger ).

The excuse you using can be applied to any fighter at age 31 is in decline, say Golovkin to has a lot of amateur fighters and fighter a style that features more exchanges. I think you are a good poster and smarter than others, so your should get what I'm saying.

 

It's interesting to me that Hill, who was considered a "just good" champion in his own time (only once making The Ring pound for pound list at #9, then falling off of it, despite being an American in a large division) is now being compared to the fighter of the year and generally recognized top 5 pound for pound Dmitry Bivol.

I mean, according to some answers here, his best win in Czyz was 2-2 coming into the match. Bivol is coming off of wins over the consensus pound for pound #1 and 44-0 consensus #3 LHW 6'3 former super middle world champion Ramirez. I'd say both of those guys are better than the Czyz that fought Hill, Czyz had lost to a no-name just before Hill beat him.

Not to mention that Hill lost to Hearn. Like, come on, Hearn would have no chance whatsoever vs Bivol. Get back to reality.

 

Why does this matter in a speculation about a 'What-if' Head-to-Head contest?

I am not sure Czyz was being declared as Hill's best win - just as one of his notable wins.

In any event, I wouldn't consider this a consensus point of view. It certainly isn't a view I share and I suspect many would place, at the very least, Hill's victory over Maske, ahead of the Czyz win.

I'd also suggest that his wins against Stewart, Kinchen, Tate and Tiozzo could be deemed as being ahead of the Czyz win and be seen as fair shouts.

A Pound-for-Pound #1 who has done little to nothing at LHW.

Ramirez has some nice numbers, predominantly at SMW, but nothing like it at LHW. Amongst those numbers are a win against a seriously creaking Abraham and another against Hart - with whom he probably found his level. Both of these wins were years ago, btw.

Who was Ramirez proven against at LHW? Dominic Boesel?

Also - I don't think we should get too hung up on Czyz here.

Hill losing to Hearns was surprising but no real shame. Hearns is a P4P ATG and he performed exceptionally well in their fight (while Hill fell victim to his own style and tactics). I don't think the outcome of a bout between Bivol and Hearns is one I would bet on at this stage.

It's a fantasy match-up. Reality has very little to do with it.

But I'd say, there is more to work with in Hill, than there is with Bivol, for now.

 

Hill tore his rotator cuff to his left shoulder when he was in his late twenties. Know why that happened smart guy? WEAR AND TEAR from years of training/fighting. He got it operated on but he was never the same as anyone that knows when you tear that it never is the same.

Learn how to read never said Hill lost to Hearns necause of age I said the momemt of a big fight became too much for him to handle and HE would even tell you that. And no Hearns was removed from his prime when he fought Hill and proved to be still too much.

The problem mostly is that most of the people like you have never stepped or even fought in a boxing ring because if you have you would know about how age messes with fighters. Its that split second that normally you would have reacted normally to now for some reason you cant.
Sparring boxers take alot of damage which you left out. Roadwork eventually messes up your knees. Your hands become brittle.
I have never in my life heard any fighter say " man you should have seen me at 31 I was....." because guess what it doesnt happen.

Hagler was 32 tyears old when he fought Leonard you going to tell everyone he was still close to his "prime"?
You going to tell everyone that when Leonard vs Hearns 2 took place that both of those fighters were still close or at thier "prime" years?
Was Duran close to his "prime" at 32? How about Mosley was he close to his prime at 32 or at 26?

Hill had an incredible career for someone who relied on a jab and movement. He went to the Olympics. He won titles at multiple weight classes with the odds stacked against him . Hill was a pro for TWENTY years even winning a title in his 15th year as a pro which was incredible. Bivol will be lucky if he makes 10 years at the top.

 

Fun fact: Kov straight up QUIT in the second Ward fight.

 

Actually, Hearns would beat Bivol.Hearns is a master boxer with a big punch. Bivol is not a huge puncher and lacks the aggressiveness to stop Hearns.

"Just good champ". Actually Hill was reognized as teh best in his weight class for quite some time.

Czyz 2-2. The how the **** has Bivol beaten. Hill has better record

 

Hill did not like it to the body? Right, because he was stopped once in 60 fights by a perfect body shot from one of greatest of all times. this is hillarous to say the least. Hill would soundly outbox the midget, suing his height, reach , movement and jab.

Prime Hill who had a granit chin would box circles around the washed up version of Kovalev.

 

Bivol is more two-fisted and would have beaten Hearns.

 

Are you talking about Vitali injury in his youth and blaming his losses because if it? No, I don't think that Hill was past his prime at age 31. Stop it. Leonard was more outside of his prime and in active than Hagler was a 32 if that matters. I say this because he fought in nearly three years and had an eye injury. Inactivity of time in year ages one self in the ring. Please not yet anther Hagler vs Leonard debate!

We shall see what Bivol's career brings. I can you a PM to clear things up for you.

 

Hagler was a better middleweight than Leonard, I don`t rate Leonard in the top 10 at 160.