I would pick Cuevas for hardest-hitting. Hearns had more one-punch K.O's, but I feel that was because he often landed cleaner due to his handspeed and superior technique.
Hearns hit harder than SRR (just about IMO) and had better handspeed, but he didn't have SRR's experience, stamina, durability, ring generalship and a whole number of intangiables, IMO. One thing that people rarely consider about SRR is that after the death of Doyle, it's likely that SRR actually held back a bit of his natural power in the ring, not to the extent that Charles did with Baroudi, but somewhat.
I understand what your saying, but if everyone agrees that the same three or four fighters are the hardest hitters, why would they name anyone else?
All this just goes to show what a fighter Hearns was when you consider that he was almost unboxeable. Wonder if I've just invented a new word.
if jake lamotta let hearns hit him as much as he let robinson hit him he woulda been worst off then ali!
when i did this thread last year in gf,it was unanimous for hearns. my picks: 1.hearns 2.cuevas 3.trinidad
Strictly looking at the second-tier fighters that lacked the talent and efficiency to be compared outright to the likes of Hearns and Tito, i think Jones and Jose Luis Lopez were the best pure hitters, at least from the past 30 to 40 years.