Who had a better jab Hagler or Monzon?

Monzon by a mile.

 

It was a long, accurate, relentless, and somewhat hypnotic weapon on Monzon's in that he used the jab to control virtually all his fights. Look, this is my opinion, has been for a very long time, and I'm not interested in "discussing" or arguing the **** out of it. So there....

 

I think Monzon relied more on his jab and used it more in a number of different ways then Hagler but when Hagler wanted to he could jab from the orthodox or southpaw stance pretty smoothly. I think both of them are pretty even.

 

So why are you hear voicing your opinion if you don't want anyone to respond to your post? Because in my opnion it's easy too look like you have a great jab when your best opponents are blown up short in height and and long past prime welters, or natural middles who wasnt that special in the 1st place other than Monzons fans make them better than they actually were to support their agenda. Hagler had a far superior jab in his prime. And was much more versatile with his because he was so good at switching mid attack and popping a jab in to his opponents from a unexpected angle. And that's my opinion but I expect rebuttal. But most will be from that blind ass fan club of Monzon who won't look at his opponents objectively or see how slow his hands and feet were, even in his prime. Though their are plenty of film on him.

 

Jab? hagler of course! even Monzon's staunchest supporter knows this because he couldnt come up with enough bs, and caused him to abruptly quit in the middle of his response. in short, he bailed out just as he was starting!

Not only was Hagler superior in close, but from the outside as well!

55 stiches in Hamsho most of it coming from the jab

and 3 straight jabs cutting up Sibson and ushering the end of their fight

Monzon? he was too slow to cut anyone

 

Both had great jabs. There would be very very little in it.

 

Good answer.

 

Both had very good jabs. It's just that Monzon's was far more noticeable because it always is when a taller fighter who likes to fight from the outside uses it to maintain distance, to take advantage of a superior reach, etc. It's just more subtle when a shorter guy uses it....which is why you don't hear people talk as often about how good a jab Dwight Qawi had for example. Hagler's wasn't as obviously a major part of his style that he relied on as much, but was just as effective in its own way as Monzon's.

 

Because...1. A question was asked...the thread question.
I answered it.
2. A follow up question was asked by the op for me to explain my answer.
I answered it.
Then I stated that i wasn't interested in arguing my answer with any of the mouth breathers who usually argue with me pointlessly, over and over again on the subject of Monzon and Hagler. Not interested in any of that **** anymore.
Understand now?

 

Good point.

I would say Monzon relied on his jab more often, and his jab was more visible than Hagler's partly because his competition wasn't quite as good and he fought many short opponents.

 

Monzon controlled the tempo of fights with his jab, Hagler didn't as a rule.

 

Yep. Monzon was metronome of consistency.

 

so what would happen if it wasnt long?

I thought all boxer's jabs were long.

I can see you tried extra hard for this one but couldnt come up with much