Originally Posted by lufcrazy
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.
A title win, 3 defences, and a stoppage loss = strong achievement???
I don't think so.
You are rating Hearns at welterweight
on the basis of Hearns as the fighter he proved to be through all weight classes across his whole career, which is bogus IMO.
Well, either that or you're rating him as a proven great welterweight because of one win over a top guy, 3 wins over mediocrities, and a stoppage loss he looked good in. This is a very dangerous road to go down - where does it end?
Is Manny Pacquiao a proven great light-welterweight because he obliterated one of the best lww's of his era there?
You have to draw a line between 'looking good there' and proving
good there. Hearns was an h2h monster at ww and fully merits recognition as such. But he simply did not prove to be a great welterweight in the same way as many others who had many more meaningful wins there.