Better jab: Hearns vs Holmes

It's Larry for me ,as it should be as it was his main weapon. I'd say it was the only punch in his arsenal that was better than Tommy's version including straight right, uppercut and left hook. But Tommy's jab was brilliant. Post #12 by the excellent @McCallumsJab rued that Tommy was never in a test of elite jabs. Virgil Hill reigned for years at a higher weight, was a naturally bigger man and his dominance was almost solely down to his jab. Tommy took him to school behind his own jab. Virgil's jab was top tier; Tommy made it look ordinary.

Larry was probably p4p greater because of his defence, stamina and durability, although I think it's close. Tommy was willing to test himself more than Larry so came undone a bit more. But even then, you had to be a top 5 ATG in your division to best him.

 

Time and other endeavours.

 

Virgil Hill had an extremely highly regarded jab when a past prime Hearns outboxed him.

 

That was the fight that really made me admire Tommy's jab.
I agree with your assessment overall. Tommy could throw his jab from his hip like a whip and from his shoulder like a battering ram.

 

Given he was past prime it was a top effort. It was a helluva jab alright. I mean, it controlled, busted up, and put SRL behind on points at his absolute peak for multiple rounds after Hearns got into early trouble. Win, lose, or draw, how many have had this sort of jabbing success against a peak ATG. The jab also did all sorts of terrible things to Roberto Duran, who had never looked so confused and vulnerable in his life.

 

Me too Fergy.

 

Great points, John!

 

Hitman

 

Hearns for me. Holmes may have had the best jab in heavyweight history. ( Debatable, but ok , I'll give him that for sake of argument)
But better than Hearns? No, simply because Hearns proved his jab against much better opponents overall, and many different weight classes .
Hearns's victories over Benitez, Duran, Cuevas, and Hill are better than any Holmes faced.
His jab were his key tool against those opponents, especially considering he hurt his right hand early against Benitez ( or shoulder, going off memory) and was still able to win the fight behind his jab work.
Against Hill, a fighter alot like Holmes , whose main weapon was his jab, with the rest of his offense average at best, a past prime Hearns was able to out jab, the fighter considered the jabber.
Control the fight, win a decision, against the natural Lt.heavy champ, who was much younger with much less boxing ring wear and tear.
Hearns jab was the main reason he was able to get a lead against Ray Leonard in their 1st fight, and his primary tool used to survive Leonard's onslaught from the 6th/7th rds , when Leonard, a fighter with tremendous skills and killer instinct had him all but stopped.
There shouldn't be any question of who had the better overall jab when opposition faced is considered. And how key it was in those victories.
How many prime Atg's did Holmes defeat? 0 is the answer. Hearns was a much better fighter than Larry Holmes overall, and yes, he even had a better jab.
And Hearns should be much higher on the mythical pound for pound list.

 

Personally, I can't choose.

 

Sweet post mate!

 

I am a simple man

i see Hearns, and i vote for him

 

I'll take Wlad's. He didn't get countered with the right as often as Holmes. Hearns enforced his jab well but he did shoot if from the hip which bothered me at times, but only the very best of his competition could exploit that to any degree.

So, my answer is Wlad.

 

I love Tommy but you’re leaving out his vulnerable chin and dicey stamina … Hearns was badly rocked many times in addition to his stoppage losses … I don’t rate him better than Holmes. Larry had a much better chin, much better defense, was much tougher and had far better stamina.

 

Both had great jabs but Holmes jab was a thing of beauty.