Using this criteria Who's ranked higher all time?

[match]

Hagler is my all time favorite fighter and I put him number one but not because of bias but based on your criteria. IMO, if you take a fighter's greatest asset away from him and then see how he performs, that tells you how good he is. With Roy, his gift was his reflexes. Once that went, he was merely mediocre. Hagler, like Leonard, was so well rounded they could have still been world champions if you took their single greatest skill away (I also feel Hagler beat Leonard but that's beside the point). Hagler, Whitaker, and Roy were the most dominant but Hagler clearly dominated against the toughest competition. As far as in ring performance, Hagler and Tarver had the most impressive single wins (against Hearns and Jones). Whitaker's dominance over Chavez I'd say is a distant third because I rate KOs far ahead of boxing clinics. As mentioned by a few people, Leonard is clearly the mainstream king. As far as achievments I don't put as much stock in moving up in weight as others, but moreso on who you beat. That's why IMO Hagler staying at one weight supercedes all the belts Roy won. Rolling all the criteria together, my list is:
1. Hagler
2. Leonard
3. Whitaker
4. Jones and Hopkins tied
5. Calzaghe
6. Toney
7. Tarver
8. Eubank

Saying Roy's "gift" was reflexes is basically saying he got "old". Roy actually fought longer than both of them. Hagler had more rounds, but roy was older. "Not including the fights with Tarver, johnson, calzaghe, etc" Roy was older than the both of them (SRL and HAGLER) when he first lost to Tarver. So there's no proof that i see to back up the statement that they could have lasted without the prime asset which you called "reflexes" and in boxing that's basically age. The asset of age isn't exclusive to Roy they all need that.

What do reflexes have to do with anything I said about Hagler and Leonard? I said 'Roy's' greatest asset was his reflexes, not Hagler and Leonard. Both of them were more well rounded and didn't rely solely on athleticism to win fights. The proof I see to back this up is simply watching Roy of the 90s vs Roy of today. Other fighters have gotten old yet managed to adapt based on being well rounded, and others as you stated simply got old. IMO Roy didn't lose to Tarver because he got old or because he lost weight, it was because Tarver just has his number. Me taking away a fighter's greatest strength, as I said, is just something hypothetical I do to try to see how well rounded a fighter is. To be fair, maybe I didn't explain what I meant clearly. Any fighter who's reflexes deteriorate will obviously not be as good, I think though that Roy's reflexes deteriorating has a more profound, negative affect on him than say anyone else, simply because he had the best reflexes I ever saw, but he relied to heavily on them.