Holman and Hearns.... who was greater?

I see what your doing SH - are these guys tied in your ratings?

I will be back with my thoughts on this, right now I want to say Holman but I do think I might be being a bit biased towards his era. Let me ponder it abit.

 

You could make a case for Hearns in Ring Generalship. A H2H monster at Welterweight, arguably the finest LMW who every lived and a very respectable Middleweight performer. I dont think Ring Generalship is a foregone conclusion.

 

I'd say Hearns. Just think he was the better fighter Holman's record is great but so is Hearns.

 

Really look forward to your book, whatever route you choose.

Yeh, execllant point there. Would you say Hearns is more 'skilled' in the fact he may be the better fighter hypothetically? And that Holman has the more mental fortitude and is more clever?

 

Yeh definitly, my heids mice at the moment.

I really do think Hearns is a very skilled fighter, but like you say a guy who traded on his skills who can hold his own with them guys is phenomenal.

In fact I'm going to get out my Reference book to the Black murderers era (Rosenfelds Burley book) and give it a read tonight.

 

I agree there. I will have to give this alot more thought, its an interesting one IMO.

 

Do you think Williams could fence with Hearns on the outside and win a polite chessmatch type of fight, McGrain?.Or you expecting him to be aggressive enough to get some sort of stoppage?.

I dunno, it's a big call considering the book on Williams.I don't thnk i've seen a single below average hitting pure boxing type that i would favour over the Hearns style more often than not.

I do like Williams as the better of the two overall.

 

Experience - Williams, fought more and better atgs, and more often.
Ring generalship - Hearns had the tendency to fight when he should box. The same can't be said about Williams, so I go for him.
Longevity - Both had good longevity. Pretty much even, perhaps slightly for Holman.
Dominance - Hearns at jmw was one of the most dominant champs, so I'd take him.
Durability - Williams. Hearns big weakness this was.
Performance against Larger Opponents - Hearns. He fought and won as high as cw, albeit those weren't worldclass anymore. But he beat an excellent lhw in his prime in Virgil Hill, while coming up from welterweight.
Intangibles - I don't think Williams would give a fight away like Hearns did against Leonard. I think when the going get's tough, Williams would have more to offer, mentally-wise.

So, it ends 4-2-1 for Holman Williams. I rank him borderline Top20. I guess I wouldn't rank Hearns Top35/40 if I would expand my list that far.