For me this is a tough fight for me to pick a winner, but I think you might make the most convincing arguments. It's hard to pick against Pryor here because he was such an unstoppable wrecking machine at 140, never been defeated in his prime, and I do think he probably cheated with Panama Lewis in his corner so I don't think any punches would affect him and he had energy even going late into fights. I could see Pryor winning a decision just based on sheer output and the judges being unimpressed with Whitaker's lack of output. However on the other hand Pryor never faced anyone as good defensively as Whitaker and Whitaker did take on some pretty viscous punchers, especially at welterweight. I might have to give the edge to Whitaker.
We must've watched a different fight, as I saw nothing convincing about it. In fact, I had Pea winning or scoring it a draw. The point is, not whether you had Pea winning or not, my point was; he, like most others, were forced to fight Pea's fight, more so than the opposite. My point was, he and others tried to be aggressive with Pea, and one way or another, they didn't have much success imposing themselves on Pea. So I'm not seeing Pryor all of a sudden being able to easily as some have said, where other excellent fighters failed, and some miserably. So that is what I was saying, not who you scored the fight for.
And thats the thing that was so subtle. Pea dug to the body to keep fighters honest and could really go to the body better then alot of people realize. And Pea was alot stronger on the inside then people think- he wasn't a Duran per say on the inside but he could more then hold his own when he wanted to.
No he did not. He even got dropped if I recall. Pea who was past his prime and 2 weight classes from his best fighting weight made De La Hoya look inept. Pea was the champion and landed more then Oscar. Throw in the knockdown and Pea won that fight. But Pea was never going to get a decision in that fight as Oscar was the money maker. I remember watching Pea vs Chavez and I wanted to see a good fight. But Pea boxed the ears off Chavez only to get a draw. Years later people come up with this BS that they could see a draw and such. But when that fight took place people knew who won that fight. Thats why I laugh at Mayweather vs Pea match ups. Look who Pea fought and beat and then compare it to Mayweathers resume. LAUGHABLE.
That fight was in July 1982, that is the fight where Aaron was decked, did a somersault to go right at Kameda, however the referee did give him the mandatory eight count.
I like Pea and think he's the overall better fighter than De La Hoya. However, clowning around while not scoring punches and trying to make your opponent look bad shouldn't win you the fight, and it didn't work for Whitaker. Oscar winning by 2 rounds is as generous as you can be to Pea.
Pea beat Chavez, he lost to Oscar. Pea tried to make Oscar look awkward but didn't deserve the win. Oscar was patient and landed a lot of good punches and fought one of the best fights of his career. Pea was past his best, that's why he lost. He still lost.
I pick Whitaker just because he's better and more accomplished, but it would be interesting to see how he does against an opponent who doesn't so much stalk as throw himself at his opponent, completely uncaring about how he's positioned, what he'll have to catch to get there, any of that. Nothing measured or pattern like or predictable about what he does, and that could bank him some early rounds. Tough to counter a guy like that.