If you're ranking Dempsey that highly it is laughable to be critical of Hagler's title reign, since it was of course much better than Dempsey's at HW. It's also a laugh than you mention Zale - who ducked the smaller Burley - as better than Hagler. But at least you're consistent. Try and find the Wills during Hagler's reing. What you're doing is faulting him for actually facing the Grebs of his time, which Dempsey of course didn't. Hagler fought the best out there, pure and simple.
Roldan was tough....Hamsho...Anterfermo was past it in the 2nd fight but the 1st fight Vito was tough and so was Minter
Benvenuti and Griffith are more proven than Hearns, Leonard, Duran or Mugabi at mw. As proven as any mw and quite a few people have them in their Top15/20 there. That´s the same as saying guys like Langford or Charles aren´t hws.
This whole natural thing is bs anyway. It´s about if you are proven or not at a certain weight. Griffith and Benvenuti certainly were.
Regardless of who won , SRL was never a MW . Even 4 years after Hagler , SRL still made 154. Which means @ age 35 . Whomever fights at a certain weight at age 35 , was probably never bigger than that weight.
I would certainly class Hearns as a middleweight when he fought hagler. People call Hearns a "natural welterweight" but I find that a bit absurd. He was a very unusual build, he looked bigger than Hagler anyway, and carried himself up to a pretty strong 170 even. But whether Hearns was the best middleweight Hagler beat, I don't know. Could be. I'm a huge fan of Hagler, loved his ability and his old school professional approach. But I do see the merit in some of these resume criticisms.