Were the four kings of the 1980s really scared of Aaron Pryor?

Hearns had the same "proportions" in 1976 when Pryor faced him as he'd have if they'd fought at welterweight in 1980/1981.

Hearns put on about seven more pounds than Pryor. That's about it.

In their meeting, Pryor showed he could handle Tommy's size, get inside and outwork Hearns just like Leonard did.

 

We're talking about Pryor and Hearns here, two Hall of Famers who were champs at 140 and 147 in 1980/1981.

We're not talking about Henry "freaking" Tillman for god's sake.

For every amateur fight you cite, I can cite one where the guy who won as an amateur also won as a pro.

The bottom line is Pryor fought Hearns, and Pryor showed he could do just fine. When they "would have" fought as pros in the early 80s, both were much improved and were top champs. And it wasn't that far removed from their amateur meeting.

Like I said, I'd take Hearns to edge him as a pro. But it would be a close fight.

 

Hearns was 17 when they met and clearly not fully matured yet. Pryor was of course much further into his development at 21. The difference between 26 and 22 just isn't the same as it is between 21 and 17. Not by a long shot.

Even Tyson with his prodigious maturity was losing to guys in the amateurs when around that age and older that he'd destroy as a pro.

If Hearns had the same proportion as a 17 LW as he had when a WW he obviously hadn't reached his full height yet. He was in that case a still growing kid, in his adolescence. And the fact that he had put on 7 more lbs than Pryor is definitely significant. Had he fought at 140 instead of 147 in his early 20's there would be nothing left of him. He was stretched thin at 147 as it was. No way he could have maintained even close to relative strength and power at 140. At 140 I think Pryor would have a great chance against Hearns. In fact, I'd have him as a clear favorite. At 147 it's just a different matter.

And the simple fact of the matter is that Hearns radically changed his style into becoming a murderous puncher. He was just a different animal. Which is not surprising at all seeing he was obviously not yet a fully grown kid even length wise when he met Pryor. Why is that so difficult to accept?

 

Excellent post. Some guys don't get it that men don't fully mature until they are well into their 20's.

 

And Tommy Morrison was 19 when he fought the more mature Ray Mercer in the amateurs in 1988, and he lost.

And when the two fought as pros for the WBO heavyweight belt, Morrison was more mature and he'd put on 25 pounds, and HE STILL LOST.

It's about the fighters' skill levels.

Pryor was more mature in 1980/1981 than he was in 1976, too. Pryor was one of the best champs in the world. And he weighed 140. Hearns was one of the best champs in the world, too, in 1980/1981 and he was 147. (Hell, he was 145 the day of the fight when he fought Leonard in 1981. There was literally five pounds difference between Pryor and Hearns in 1981.)

Average Randy Shields when 12 with Hearns in 1981. Wilfred Benitez went 15 with Hearns in 1982. I'm sure Aaron Pryor circa 1980/1981/1982 could not only manage but do just fine.

He proved it when they fought in 76.

 

I do respect your posts man, but this one overlooks a few key things. Namely...........

It's not just about skill level. The old saying really is true, it's styles that make fights more than anything. Even if you believe their relative skill levels to be roughly the same or comparable, it's kind of hard to overlook the mammoth reach and height differential coupled with the newly-found crippling power Hearns found once he entered the pro ranks. It's one thing for Pryor to worm his way inside when Hearns just slaps at him with his "amateur" punches, quite another thing entirely to expect him to do it with the kind of power that legitimately flattened even bigger men like Cuevas and Duran. You didn't just wade in against that kind of artillery.

Trying to compare Randy Shields to Aaron Pryor is a bit of a slippery slope, don't you think? First of all, he was really good at slipping punches and was a natural welterweight, who took a mammoth punch at that weight (see Hearns and Cuevas). There is nothing to suggest Pryor could take the kind of shots Shields did from those bone-crushers (I don't believe the singular odd shot here and there from a smaller Arguello to be a true test of what he could take at 147, not in the slightest), any more than one could imagine him slipping half the shots Shields did.

 

Yeah, Thomas' Hearns's POWER was absolutely one of his most central assets, and key to his success in the pro ranks.
The fact that he hadn't developed that dimension to his game at all in the amateurs means Pryor was fighting a completely different animal.

Obviously Pryor impoved in all areas too, but fighting a Hearns with a punch like a mule kick is about a zillion times more difficult than fighting a Hearns with powder puff punches.

 

That and the experience and physicality simply wasn't there at age 17. I just don't see how anyone could compare a 17 year old amateur to a 22 year old professional. Its like day and night.

 

And Mike Tyson lost to Henry Tillman when he was a 17 year old amateur. We all know the sequel to that one.

 

I'm pretty sure Hearns was more than 145 in the ring against Leonard. Probably rehydrated to something like 150. Leonard certainly thought he put on a lot of weight after the weigh-in and looked completely different for the actual fight. Anyhow, there's no doubt that he had problems making 147 at the time. In fact Leonard was his last fight at the weight, I think.

So if Pryor is going to meet Hearns after fighting Arguello it would at the very best for him be at catchweight of perhaps 150 lbs.

And I don't understand the meaning of your examples. Of course someone can lose to the same opponent both in the amateurs and in the pro. No one has claimed that a loss in the amateurs by necessity must be reversed in the pro game. That would be absurd.

But what everyone else seem to realize is that the results of a 17-year old amateur don't necessarily dictate what the same person can achieve when a 22-year old pro with experience against world class opposition. That is especially true when it is against someone four years older, since there's generally a bigger difference between a 17 and a 22 year old than a 21 and 26 year old.

In Hearns case we can also see for ourselves that he did in fact change drastically. From more of a pure boxer without any significant power to a murderous boxer-puncher who annihilated anyone with such a big height disadvantage.

It frankly feels absurd not to give great weight to these factors when analyzing a hypothetical match-up.

Edit: As for Shields and Benitez, I haven't seen the Shields fight, but Hearns did manage what neither Leonard or Cuevas did - to stop Shields. As for Benitez he was a defensive master that fought a wholly different way than Pryor usually did. Pryor looked impressive when resorting to boxing against Arguello, but if he resorted to that style against Hearns it would probably only be to survive. That would likely prolong the fight, but even then I highly doubt he'd manage as relatively well as the defensive wizard Benitez.

 

First of all, everyone seems to be focusing on Hearns getting better as a pro and forgetting Pryor got better as a pro, too.

Pryor also developed into a devastating KO puncher, as well. He knocked out everyone. He finished with an 88 percent KO percentage ... he stopped everyone.

Could a 140-something-pound Hearns take Pryor's power?

Randy Shields went 12 with Hearns, and Shields wasn't throwing much of anything back. Not that he had much power. Leonard STOPPED Hearns. Benitez went 15 with Hearns, and he wasn't a banger, either.

Remember, Aaron Pryor faced the much taller Hearns, with his much longer reach, with no headgear on, for a national title in 1976 and PRYOR WON with his frenetic style. Pryor hadn't developed his KO power yet, either. If he had, Hearns may not have last three.

BOTH guys got better as pros. The time frame we're looking at here where they could've fought was from 1980 to 1982.

At that point, they were two of the top fighters in the sport separated by ONE weight class. In 1981, Hearns defended his welterweight title weighing 145 on the day of the fight - and he got knocked out.

Pryor was overwhelming as an amateur and pro. And you could make a strong argument that stopping Antonio Cervantes in a handful of rounds was a far bigger accomplishment than knocking out Cuevas.

Pryor's frenetic style would give Hearns fits at welterweight. Hell, Hearns' legs were dead in his fight with Hagler by the second round because the punches were coming non-stop.

A skinny 140-something Hearns fighting the non-stop Pryor could've been totally overwhelming for Hearns.

Like I've said repeatedly, I'd take Hearns over 15 rounds. I think he'd score enough points to win and most assuredly would score a few knockdowns. But I believe I've said before if someone gets stopped, I think it would be Hearns.

By 1980/1981, there wasn't much between Hearns and Pryor.

 

Again, are you seriously comparing Henry Tillman with the first ballot Hall of Famer Aaron Pryor?

 

Hearns and Leonard weighed in a few hours before their fight - just hours before they stepped in the ring. (Not like they do now, 30-some hours earlier the day before fighting). Hearns was surprised at his weight. In fact, weighing in two pounds under the limit was one of the things Emanuel Steward was criticized for after the fight.

The point is, with Hearns training as he normally trained and not checking the scale ... he wasn't that much bigger than Pryor in 1981 ... not yet.

 

Pryor hadn't developed that dimension to his game in the amateurs, either.

As a pro, he had one of the highest KO percentages of any fighter from that era. Maybe THE HIGHEST. As a pro, he stopped practically everyone. In the amateurs, he didn't.

 

But he never stopped someone remotely like Hearns, while Hearns record against even top quality guys of Pryor's reach and height is excellent.