He entered the division in '93 after losing the Light Heavyweight title to Barkley a year prior. Fought Andrew Maynard in his Cruiserweight debut and KO'd him in 1 rd. Then spent the next several years fighting fringe contenders and journeymen in the division. During this period the title holders in the division were AWFUL. From 93-96, the title holders in the division were guys like Orlin Norris, Anaclet Wamba, Nate Miller, Adolpho Washington & Alfred Cole...Hearns would go on to eventually beat Nate Miller a few years after he lost the title. And this was Hearns at the age of 41. And Anaclet Wamba fought Andrew Maynard in what appears to have been a competitive fight. Haven't seen the fight, but the scorecards indicate a reasonably competitive bout. While Hearns disposed of Maynard in 1 rd in his 1st Cruiserweight fight. I think it's reasonable to assume that Hearns at the very least could've picked up a title...if not unify all the belts from 93-96. So what was behind Hearns not fighting any of the title holders? Was this by design? Why wouldn't any of the title holders want to fight the only guy in the division that had a recognizable name?
