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

According to Leonard the weighed in the morning before the fight and Hearns looked completely different when the fight started. This was a guy that would never go below 150 again. I highly doubt that he was 145 in the ring.

But even if he was, he was clearly very near his limit. I just can't see him looking remotely good at 140 lbs.

 

Well comparing Morrison OR Mercer to Tommy Hearns isn't exactly proportionate either.

 

He didn't stop someone "like" Hearns, but he did "beat" Hearns.

And Hearns' record against guys Pryor's "size" might be fine, but his record "against Pryor" shows no wins.

THEY DID FIGHT with no headgear in a fight that meant something for both ... and Pryor won.

People can choose to ignore that.

But I don't know why you'd ignore THEIR ACTUAL FIGHT and choose instead to compare them against people of similar "dimensions."

Both guys got better as pros. Based on their ACTUAL FIGHT in 1976, you can say I think Hearns got better at this or Pryor got better at that.

But pretending they didn't square off against each other at all ... makes no sense. There was no convoluted scoring system. There was no headgear. There was no controversy.

The two of them did fight. Pryor did win.

How they'd fair four or five years later, when both were professional world champs, would be interesting to see. But ignoring their actual meeting makes no sense.

 

Still doesn't really address the big shift in Hearns toward leaning more on power though, does it? Only mentions that Pryor beat Hearns with his "frenetic style" as an amateur which would be a fine argument had Hearns not changed so dramatically in his weaponry upon turning pro.

And Hearns' legs were pretty good at 147. The argument about them being rubbery against Hagler 13 pounds and four years north of that is hardly admissible in the Court of Classic.

 

He never beat Hearns as a pro at WW or higher, which is where they would meet.

I, and several others, have tried to explain to you at length why we think that how a 17-year old Hearns, with a very different style and very different assets (no power), fared against a 21-year old Pryor, means little when analyzing how a power punching Hearns in his early 20's would do against Pryor at a weight where Hearns had great success and Pryor had none to speak of. I have nothing to add to that really.

 

Yes. Hearns developed more power as a pro. He learned to punch with more power.

SO DID PRYOR. Pryor didn't have an 88 percent KO percentage as an amateur.

Pryor was one of the biggest KO punchers of his era.

So Hearns, as a pro, threw fewer punches but they landed with more power and he relied on the jab more to set them up.

And Pryor threw just as many punches but he developed much better power and he knocked everyone out.

I don't know if landing fewer punches helps Hearns too much, with a much harder punching Pryor swarming him from all angles round after round.

 

And I have been trying to explain to you that you take their amateur fight in 1976, and go from there.

Hearns was approaching his 18th birthday in 1976. We're talking about Hearns fighting Pryor when Hearns was welterweight champ at 22 or 23 and Pryor was junior welterweight champ in his prime at 25 or 26.

You want to focus on Hearns maturing ... but Pryor was knocking everyone out, was in his absolute prime, and he was only five or so pounds lighter.

Just flippantly saying "Hearns matured and got bigger, so he wins" is ignoring the other half of the equation. Pryor also got bigger, got stronger and was far better than he was when they met in 1976, too.

You're focusing on only one side.

 

Valid points. I'm just not sure that you can use a three round amateur fight featuring an underdeveloped teenager as pliable reason for picking either of them in a future match in the pros.

 

You do realise I have adressed all those points?

What I can possibly add is that going from no real power to crunching KO power will generally favor the one with big advantages in reach and height, since that person will generally get off first.

This aside from the facts that Hearns developed more physically (a weight class more) and likely in other aspects as well, since 17-22 generally sees more development than 21-26, and that he displayed top notch KO ability at the weights this contest would take place, something Pryor never did.

 

Just to be sure, are you saying Pryor was the harder puncher of the two as a pro? If so, I really can't agree. That just doesn't make sense.

At the end of the day, we can volley back and forth about whom we think would win this matchup as pros, and that's fine. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but I wouldn't want to stray too far from the original idea, which was that it's a tenuous argument at best to try to draw conclusions of what would happen years and pounds down the road based on what happened to these two as skinny, different-styled amateurs. You yourself admitted they were different fighters then. Thats's really all that needs to be said.

 

No. I'm not saying Pryor hit harder than Hearns. I don't think Leonard hit harder than Hearns, either, but Leonard stopped him.

What I'm saying is both guys got better after their 1976 fight, both developed more power, both became world class fighters, and in 1980/1981/1982 when they realistically would've met, there wasn't much between them.

This wasn't a case where one guy progressed and the other didn't. Hearns eventually grew into a light heavy. But he wasn't there in 1980/1981/1982. During that time, he wasn't much heavier than Pryor (five to seven pounds).

If you look at their amateur fight, which we've all seen, Pryor, despite his size disadvantages and the fact that he HAD NOT developed his own power yet, outjabbed Hearns at times, landed over the top on Hearns at times and HURT Hearns at times.

And for all the people talking about how much Hearns' style changed ... look at Hearns against Pryor and look at Hearns defending his welterweight title. Hearns' style isn't all that much different.

He doesn't use his feet as much to move. He's more stationary. He's filled out, but he still uses the jab a lot and the right hand has more power. But he's not as busy. His hands are still positioned in the same place. He's still susceptible to head shots and body shots on the inside.

Hearns could certainly land a KO shot. I've said before in this thread I think, if they had fought as pros, Hearns drops Pryor, probably more than once.

But I don't think Pryor would have MORE trouble hitting Hearns than he did in 1976. I think he'd hit Hearns quit a bit with much more power than he did in 1976.

And Hearns had a hard time taking it in 1976. After Pryor attacked him from every angle round after round, I'm sure Hearns would have a bad time, as well.

I'd favor Hearns via 15-round decision. Not that many guys stopped Hearns, so I'm not saying Pryor would certainly do it.

But I think Pryor would close strong to make it close or stop Hearns late, after Tommy got exhausted from trying to fend off Pryor's attack all night.

Pryor wouldn't be hitting him with soft counters.

And, when it comes to Hearns, I think first fights do matter.

Though he and Leonard were more than 20 pounds heavier, Hearns wilted at the end of their rematch much like he did in their first encounter. And though they were nearly 20 pounds heavier, and Barkley was considered washed up, he laid it on Hearns in their rematch and won again.

Had Pryor and Hearns faced in 1980/1981/1982, it's not like one was on the slide and the other was progressing. They were both at the top of their games in their divisions.

If Pryor was hitting Hearns with the same shots he hit Hearns with in the amateur meeting, I think it would shake Hearns' mentally. Inside the ropes, Pryor was mentally stronger guy than Hearns was. Hearns could be rattled and panic.

Like I said, I'd lean toward Hearns over 15, but not by much. And if either got stopped, I'd pick Pryor to overwhelm and stop Hearns late.

The only welter I'd strongly favor over Pryor from that period was Leonard.

 

So doesn't that make it a 50-50 proposition and not really indicative of anything?

 

I went ahead and "liked" this post, to be all ironic and stuff.

 

But, ironically again, my attempt to quote another quote of a quote was unsuccessful, making my very attempt ironic. Never mind, carry on.

 

Not so ironically I completely understand,

I will do my best to carry on.