Who had the better jab. both jabs were great i just feel hearns used his more than Robinson. He could also create more opportunities from it because of his great proportions and height robinson only seemed to use it as a range finder
i would disagree that robinson used it mostly as a range finder. there's footage of him using it brilliantly as a sniper shot, right down the pipe. against angott for instance it was quick, straight and stiff. later on i think it did serve a range finder against opponents like fullmer and basilio who were boring in so that he could set up combinations. hearns' jab was versatile but i was never thrilled with the flicker jab. until he moved past welter it was little more than a blinding tool to distract opponents from the right which would follow. even at 154 he didn't fully commit to it however that seemed to change at 160+. i think the consensus selling point is that WAY above his best weight and years past prime he outjabbed the **** out of virgil hill. the older tommy had a much more conventional jab and it was a ramrod between the two, tough call for me but i'd lean towards robinson whose jab i feel is cleaner, more technically accurate and was executed with more bounce and committment
it means he pushes his left hand out there to find how far away from his opponant so he can land harder shots regards tage:good
I think that Robinson has a better jab overall exclusive of range but that Hearns has a very good chance of winning any battle of the jabs in an actual meeting between the two by virtue of his exceptional reach.
Some of his uses 1. Pile up points. 2. Keep opponents at the distance the wanted most of the time. 3. Bust them up. 4. Set up the right hand and disguise it. 5. Rangefinder. He could also hook of it, a good example being Hill. Hagler had a top jab and Duran handled it extremely well where as Hearns did a job on him all excuses aside. What jabs do you like? There's a lot of great jabs out there for sure.