Originally Posted by Kittikasem
I'd argue that you are wrong. One win over Cuevas (27-6), 3 title defences against B/C list fighters, and a stoppage loss to SRL does not justify the description of a "welterweight great", same as Shane Mosley isn't a lightweight great. I'd have no problem with anyone saying Hearns is one of the top 5 ww's ever h2h; in fact, I think that myself. But because he looked great there doesn't translate into saying he earned/proved greatness, because he didn't.
I think you and Vic are thinking that I'm saying resume is the only factor though; I'm not.
Saying "resume above all" is not the same as saying "only resume". I consider resume by far the most important single factor, but I do take other things into consideration as well.
And that's our main difference because his greatness isn't questionable to me.
I understand exactly what you mean which is why i'm focusing on the fact I give achievement equal weighting. I'm highlightin the cases of strong achievement and weak resume as that's the difference for those I think are great (john l, hearns) whilst you disagree.
Mosley was never really better than the wbc guys at the time and they mixed at a higher level despite not looking as quality.