Finally a mythical matchup where Hearns gets butchered! (even though I like Hearns much more than Foster)
Well, there are so many versions of Hearns that it becomes difficult to really offer a clear estimation of his overall standing. He is not as good as his knockout over Duran suggest nor is he as bad as his devastating loss to Barkley would indicate. That being said, he wasn't exactly a pedestrian Light Heavy. For some reason, with all that Hearns accomplished, his schooling of the slick Virgil Hill always impressed me the most. Funny that it wasn't his power but his ability to jab and use range that was spectacular in that bout. Unfortunately Foster could bang at 175 unlike anyone. Much lesser guys asked tough questions of Hearns' chin, and Foster would put him to sleep inside a handful of rounds.
Probably because Hill was considered such an average fighter. Solid, but far from spectactular in any way. Still a great win for Hearns considering the weight, but if you want a style Tommy can beat against bigger guys Virgil presents it.
Oh god, Foster would knock him dead... this would be sad to watch if you like Tommy Pound for Pound, interesting, but I still like Foster... he hit so goddamn hard and he took a better shot than Tommy (the Heavyweight stuff isnt a fair representation of his durability) Tommy was a better boxer, though and I do think there are certain Lt Heavies that Hearns is a favorite against... lest we forget his easy drubbing of Dennis Andries along with the schooling of Virgil Hill when he was very clearly on his last legs
You made me question my memory of how Hill was viewed back then. In thinking about it, I thought Hill was regarded higher than just an average fighter at the time. Doesn't he hold the record for the most Light Heavy title defenses or something. It seemed like he was a champion at 175 for a century. I could be wrong but I always remember thinking Hearns beat a damn good LHW in Hill.
Hill's title defenses came against, to me, hands down the worst challengers in the history of the division, and often he was far from impressive... Virgil was a solid, reasonably quick boxer... but I think he benefited largely from a division that was beyond awful... and it wasnt like Roy Jones and Bob Foster ruling over weak divisions, those guys dominated, there was never even the hint that they would lose during their primes... Hill was many times far from dominant against downright hideous opposition... he was a very solid Lt Heavy, but to me he's little more than a contender if he's fighting during the divisions that Spinks/Saad/Galindez were champions in and Charles/Moore/Bivins/Marshall were "contenders" in (solely because of race) ... I'd favor all of those guys and many of their defense victims over Virgil
Man you guys are really testing an old guy's memory today. My memory is that Hill was never spectacular, basically one-handed, but also dominated a weak division. Obviously he didn't dominate like Foster or Moore with knockouts, but typically via lopsided decisions. And I have no issue with calling Hill a very solid Light Heavy. It was average that I was questioning. A guy that wins 22 title fights, regardless of the era, is better than average. But I will also offer this, put Virgil in any era and he is a top contender. I don't believe he would ever best the likes of Jones, Foster, Moore, or Spinks in title fights, but he could certainly beat enough of the other guys during those respective periods to earn a title shot.
Cdogg already went into Hill on different "level". As far as how he was seen at the time i don't really recall exactly. Guys who have haven't had half the careers Virgil did still even in hindsight are considered bigger fights when taken on context. He wasn't considered garbage by any means but it's not like Hearns was climbing MT Everest. Hill had many good wins since then but still has remained only on the above average level but never close to great. He's a pretty forgettable fighter, which is a big reason Hearns win over him isn't really talked about too much.
Well I look at the challengers of Spinks, Saad and Galindez (those 3 all beat him, IMO) , and here's how I think Virgil does: Eddie Mustafa Muhammad: LOSS Marvin Johnson: LOSS, more than likely, maybe he comes on late and against the fading Johnson Yaqui Lopez: LOSS John Conteh: LOSS Dwight Qawi: LOSS Mike Rossman: pick 'em Murray Sutherland: WIN by decision Pierre Fourie: very awkward WIN over a fellow jabber/mover Richie Kates: pick 'em Jorge Ahumada: LOSS I think he loses to Charles and Moore 10 out of 10, Bivins and Marshall 7 out of 10... I think hes even money with Joey Maxim, probably beats Freddie Mills, has no shot against Harold Johnson, even money with Willie Pastrano, and has no chance against Foster I think that makes him a solid fighter from a divisional all-time standpoint, and a guy who was fortunate to be a champion when he was... heck as horrific as that division was, he still never bothered with Dennis Andries or Jeff Harding who were busy swapping the title and were better than basically any of his challengers... Id favor him slightly over both, but he still never fought them or showed any interest in doing so
Hearns would do ok for a few rounds, but Foster would get to him and get him out of there. Fighting Foster is a lot different that fighting Virgil Hill.
