Better jab: Hearns vs Holmes

Can you elaborate?

 

You think Hearns gets dropped by someone the caliber of Renaldo Snipes? Earnie Shavers ? Badly hurt by Ken Norton in his prime?
Nor do I ..... I really don't believe Hearns endurance or chin was an issue as much as his legs were weak, and if he could be consistently pushed, his legs gave. It always was an issue , even early in his career. But only two Atg's were able to truly exploit the weakness in his prime, Leonard and Hagler.
With Barkley taking advantage of it with past prime version of Hearns.
Juan Roldan was also able to push Hearns early and his legs were showing signs of weakness.
Conversely, the bigger ( Than Roldan and Barkley) Virgil Hill wasn't able to push Hearns off his spot by his offensive output, and Hearns went on to a UD.
So it seems to be more of an issue with opponents that were able to force him to retreat or move off his spot consistently, than issues with endurance or chin.
So yes , Holmes probably had much better leg endurance than Hearns, however, Holmes never faced anyone the level of Leonard or Hagler in his prime.
So.... Again it was more of level of competition faced.

 

If you're trying to argue that Hearns had a better P4P chin or had the better ability to come back from seriously being hurt your not a serious poster, That's fact out number 1 .

In addition to being stopped by Leonard on the first fight, KO'ed by Hagler in three rounds and flattened by Barkley, Hearns was again dropped by Barkley, rocked all over the ring by Roldan, badly hurt and hung on for his life against Kitchen and multiple others ... no excuses ... after being KO'ed by Barkley he went on the fight a very close fight w Leonard ( although again badly hurt and hanging on for his life in the 12th ) and beat Virgil so stop making up nonsense. Give Hearns credit for being a monster puncher, fast, super exciting with a terrific heart and not romanticizing him into something he wasn't ... the main reason Hearns was so exciting was because he could lay some one out or be stopped ..

 

What does any of this have to do with their comparative jabs?

 

My point was Hearn's legs were his Achilles heel, not so much his ability to take a good punch. Never claimed he had a better chin than Holmes, my point was he fought much better competition over multiple weight classes. Those facts should also be taken into account.
The man had 61 pro fights, stopped only twice in what was considered his prime, against two Atg's with excellent offensive abilities.
Three times the entirety of his career .
Sure he was hurt multiple times, but how many of those fights did he lose?
What excuses have I made for Hearns, other than the facts?
If you've actually watched Hearns's fight, ( Not just highlights on YouTube.)
It's very apparent his legs buckled throughout tough fights, when he was forced off his spot.
He took some good shots early against, Hagler and Leonard, and didn't just fold, as you seemed to be insinuating.
What " nonsense " have I made up?
Maybe you should start watching boxing from a point of view of student ( As I have always done for my nearly 50 yrs of participating and studying it) as opposed to thinking you know everything about the sport from your You tube highlights, you'd learn something. At least maybe the humility to take others opnions and explore a route you may not have thought about.
Perhaps then you will become a" serious poster".

 

Hearns had that awkward, wiry thin frame and occasionally a little bit stiff. His movements aren't as fluid as Holmes who was like a cobra in his prime, especially with his head movement and footwork.