Originally Posted by Kittikasem
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.
he proved himself to be the second best of the Leonard era which is a massive achievement in it's own. he destroyed a hof fighter in one of the best performances the division has ever seen. he built a reputation as one of the best fighters to weigh within 147.
his resume isn't piss poor neither: Cuevas, Finch, Gray, Weston, Curry, Muangsurin, Espada, Primera, Shields - Leonard (L).
all in all I have him number 19 as a WW.
Jones Jr breaks my top 10 as a LHW also.