Eddie Hearn: Terence Crawford Isn’t Mount Rushmore Because the Resume Falls Short

Eddie Hearn does not see Terence Crawford as a Mount Rushmore fighter, and the way he explains it cuts against the accepted version of Crawford’s legacy.

Hearn’s argument is not about talent. He openly acknowledges Crawford’s ability and places it among the best of any era. The fracture appears when the discussion shifts from skill to résumé, and specifically to when Crawford’s biggest wins occurred.

According to Hearn, Crawford’s most recognisable victories came after the peak years of his opponents. He defeated Errol Spence following Spence’s car accident and prolonged absence from the ring. He later beat Canelo Alvarez at a stage when Canelo had already accumulated years of elite-level wear. The names remain impressive. The timing, in Hearn’s view, alters how those wins should be weighed historically.

The clearest example of the résumé gap came from a private exchange between Hearn and Crawford ahead of the Canelo fight. When asked what he considered the best win of his career, Crawford pointed to Ricky Burns, a former lightweight titleholder. For Hearn, that answer illustrated the disconnect between Crawford’s reputation and the depth of his record.

“Ability-wise, he could be on the Mount Rushmore,” Hearn said. “Résumé-wise, he’s not.”

Crawford’s decision to retire immediately after the Canelo victory locks that résumé in place. Potential fights against elite opponents in higher weight classes never materialised. Whether those bouts would have strengthened or weakened his standing is now irrelevant; their absence becomes part of the historical record.

When all-time status is discussed, comparisons often turn to fighters such as Henry Armstrong, Sugar Ray Robinson, and Sugar Ray Leonard, whose legacies were built not only on talent but on repeatedly testing it against the best available opposition. Their records grew denser as the risks increased.

Crawford exits the sport widely viewed as one of the most skilled fighters of his generation. What Hearn’s comments expose is a quieter tension: a career defined by dominance, but one that leaves fewer reference points when measured against boxing’s most enduring historical standards.