Sept. '81. Thomas Hearns .Vs. Aaron Pryor

Hearns by decapitation.

 

Hearns by early rounds ko or tko

 

When did Pryor ever show these attributes at 147 lbs ?

 

Pryor didn't move his head side to side like a pacquiao. And he wasn't very slippery. Duran might have not been prime but if he couldn't get inside without getting his head knocked off I don't see Pryor doing it either.
Pryor did have a very good chin but all that does in that case is prolong the brutality to maybe 4 or 5 rounds

 

Hearns and very early.

Pryor is overrated to ****.

 

I tend toward this^ line of thinking.

Pryor had the type of rapid movement that could disrupt Hearns' range and accuracy. He could certainly close the distance between them both, very rapidly, and could also bang a bit. There could be a few scares for Hearns, here.

Hearns overcomes but it's no cakewalk.

 

I disagree comparing boys to the men they became is ridiculous Pryor never really outgrew being a lightweight but Hearns matured into a powerful man....if you watch how easy he manhandled the bigger fighters and his power was way beyond his teens....Pryor fought similarly to his amateur style chin up, face first swarming.....everyone knows he was dropped as a pro right? Hearns was a dramatically different pro where Pryor was not so different....Pryor was no Duran and if Duran who took punches all the way up to 168+ from big KO punchers being 1 punch KO"d by Hearns is saying something about his power......Pryor was a great 140 lb fighter if he had a chance at 147 his team would have moved him up that is where the money was.

 

When did he not either? Cracked out retired Aaron vs. Young is not Pryor. Hearns physically and chin is weak. Pryor by stoppage in 9

 

Pryor was great. Even E Stewart went on and on about him. I think he beats Leonard also. You folks saying Pryor wasn't special are either lying to yourselves or incompetent when judging true talent.

 

He never fought at 147 lbs in his prime. That was my point.

I really doubt at 5'6 and a blown up 140 lbs, he would be able to get inside of Hearn's massive reach. Pryor could be pretty reckless and was dropped several times by average 140 lb. contenders. I can see him getting caught by Hearns on the way in and badly hurt. Then, Hearns would likely clean up. If Pryor tried to move and box, Hearns would stalk and eventually catch up to him. Pryor did NOTHING at 147 lbs.

 

I didn’t interpret the post as being an absolute comparison of Hearns and Pryor’s amateur runs with their respective pro careers. I think the distinction was made clear, in terms of the power that came later.

If you think Pryor remained more or less unchanged from am to pro and believe it was only Hearns who developed; grew stronger and more powerful then that’s your right. I disagree.

I think Pryor would have caused problems for anyone at 140/147. And, in 1981, with Hearns perhaps coiled as tightly as he could be at 147, this is not an unreasonable position to take.

 

This content is protected

 

First, I think you're forgetting that my comments were on another posters words. What presumptions? I think you've extrapolated a great deal too much from the few comments I have made.

Second - let's keep to topic and timeframe, please. '81 Hearns was tight at 147 and some years off fighting at 175, let alone at Cruiserweight.

Third - I'd be interested to see any evidence to support your speculation for the reasons why Pryor's management were holding out just for Leonard. All I can tell, to the best of my knowledge, is that Pryor was being offered comparative peanuts by Duran and it's reported (by Pryor) that he had signed a contract - for a similar sum of peanuts - to fight Leonard, just before Leonard retired. But all this is by-the-by.

This thread has posed a particular fantasy scenario, in which an Aaron Pryor bout DOES ACTUALLY HAPPEN, against Hearns. I don't need to look for, review and analyze layers of backstory and speculative reasoning for why this or that occurred or didn't occur to consider what might have happened, had such a bout really taken place.

 

This content is protected

 

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

I can't see as to what makes you think I'm not interested in discussion. I think there are probably better ways I might have been able to indicate that, which didn't involve responding to your posts, wouldn't you agree?

But, threads have topics and you going off on a scenic route to saying Pryor would have had no chance against Hearns could have really been reduced to you more directly stating:
"I think Pryor would have had no chance against Hearns!"

Whilst your theories are interesting, in places, they're as highly speculative as the bout in question. I am not all that convinced by them, to be honest.