Beating Cuevas, losing to Leonard, and beating a few B listers isn't top ten stuff. Pacquiao and Oscar De La Hoya did a lot more than that, for starters. Duran beat Leonard and Palomino. Hearns lost to Leonard and beat Cuevas. Get Hearns' ass out of there.
Blaxx, Luis Rodriguez was surely one of the greatest welters. I see that you rate him higher than most others do.
This list is based on a combination of accomplishment and how the fighters would fare head to head. Most of the greats would’ve had great difficulty defeating Hearns in a fight.
Considering that Hearns had very limited accomplishments at 147, he shouldn't be there. Spence and Crawford have looked first rate h2h at 147 and have done more than Hearns there.
NoNeck, I can appreciate what you are saying, but despite my high regard for Spence (my second favorite active fighter after Lomachenko) and Crawford, I would favor Hearns over either of them. ——Mark
NoNeck, I think we should also keep in mind that Hearns nearly defeated Leonard. That should be a factor in assessing him as well.
In that fight, he gassed out and got stopped because he really didn’t know how to go on survival mode. I think that gives evidence that he was beatable at 147 and that others would have a chance of pulling it off while down on the cards.
Best welterweights in history . Head to head. #1 Robinson #2 Leonard #3 Hearns #4 Armstrong #5 Napoles #6 Griffith #7 Gavilan #8 Ross #9 Trinidad #10 Mosely #11 Deloyhoya #12 Curry #13 Forrest #14 Benitez #15 Duran #16 Cuevas
I have never quite bought that Hearns lost due to fatigue. He got caught by a sharp right hand that hurt him which was followed by a ferocious onslaught by Leonard. Hearns was looking pretty good just before that good right hand.
I like your list, Flash. Don’t you think that Jimmy McLarnin or Pernell Whitaker could defeat some of the men on your list?