They had the top fighters of all time in separate videos from least to best.Was surprised Hearns was slightly above Hagler p for p.I know Hearns at middle was not where he was in the lower weights and Hagler Koed fractured Hearns in The War but...thoughts?
Hearns was a natural welterweight, not a middleweight. I doubt anyone would have held it against Hagler if he moved up and lost to Michael Spinks. I think it's justifiable to have Hearns above Hagler, he was so unbelievably dominant at 154 and 147, I don't know if any boxer in history besides Ray Leonard could have beaten him there.
I'd have Hagler slightly above Hearns but can't argue too much either way. I slightly favour Hagler's dominance x longevity over Hearns' weight jumping and longevity. Being the best for a long time in any weight class is underrated.
I mean in every sense you would rate Hearns above Hagler on a p4p list. He fought in multiple weight classes, won titles in multiple weight classes, and fought superfights in multiple weight classes. Hagler legacy was still a great one, but he never fought outside of middleweight as far as I know, and most of his biggest fights were against former Welters. I mean it is what it is..... Hearns is the definition of p4p rankings. I would still beat Hagler to beat him H2H, but on a p4p list I have Hearns solidly above Hagler