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

I agree. I think his style makes it interesting for a few rounds where he would be a little wild, but Hearns would line him up and knock him out. Funny thing is after a few years, Hearns had less power at 160, yet he would hit guys clean with experience in ways he didn't when he was a welt. But at Welt. he had so much power he eventually came through. Had Tommy stayed at welt. somehow it would have been great to see him there instead of moving up and fighting Benitez. But those things were meant to be. I guess staying at welt. and fighting Curry or Starling and the up and coming guys would not have done as much for his legacy as fighting guys moving up like Duran or Benitez or Hagler.

 

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 don't think it's unreasonable to

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

This content is protected

You've spent more time playing the man than the ball, during this exchange, and I'm particularly amused by some of your interpretations/misinterpretations of my posts.

However, if you spent more time trying to address reasonable points with evidence (I did ask for some, two or three posts ago) instead of more or less repeating sweeping conclusions, which you drew from the outset, then it might be more like a discussion.

It would also help if you resisted the temptation to make inferences, which either bear no correlation to what I have put forward or require a leap of faith, with only your experience-based perspective to prop them up.

I've provide a position and a little evidence to support it. Maybe you can address that.

 

This content is protected

 

Oh really? And there was me thinking all you were interested in was a "discussion". At least you’ve dropped the fake self-righteousness. Now, let’s see what drivel you’ve churned up, this time.

That was your first misinterpretation. At no time was I or did I appear insulted. That’s just in your head.

You’ve maintained the same stance, probably because you don’t want to backtrack and admit that you completely missed the mark in your initial response to me. You've just added to your mistake, after each post, from then on and, quite remarkably, still failed to address any counterpoints made or even substantiate any of your own opinions, in the process.

Hmmn - "so fun to beat up on these boards". That's the sign of a stable and seasoned professional, right there!!

LOL! If you think that asking you to answer a simple query (which you still haven't managed to do, by the way), shows me to be “touchy” then what am I to think; that you're borderline demented? Probably.

I’m sure Muhammad Ali was just being polite, when commentating on one Pryor’s amateur bouts in 1975 and saying pretty much the opposite thing. But, never you mind. You're the expert.

Yep - anyone with eyes can see Hearns had developed his skills to a high level and I thought we'd already agreed on that. But, are you saying he was at his physical peak by ’81?

Bringing up the "black bottle"? That just seems like a swipe at Pryor. Is there more to your dislike of Pryor than just your idea of his lack of evolved skills/style?

Indeed and I've not said otherwise. But, you don't debate. You ignore points and queries raised; you make statements that are refuted and then cover this up by deflection or just plain old 'I was in the war, you know...' apple-polishing. It's quite funny - at first - but, it does have a short shelf-life (like, maybe - one-post-per-every-100-thread's worth).

???

I'm not sure I'd speak those words out loud, amongst life-long friends, let alone put them in writing to an utter stranger.

No. This is what you said: “

This content is protected

”

This is clearly not the case. No clarifications, retractions or counter claims to the contrary to be found.

If there are any you know of, please let me know about them.

There’s a certain irony to you questioning my use of language, in a sentence, which goes on to make no sense whatsoever.

LOL - You are full of it. The data you had led you to state categorically that “

This content is protected

”?

Now, you're telling me that you were aware of these reports but just knew better. Sure you were; sure you did.

More like you have to discredit a newspaper report you were never aware of until just recently, because it contradicts your "data". As above, I’d gladly receive any evidence to the contrary, as opposed to you dishing out more insubstantial criticism of the messengers.

Would help anyone in a civil debate, which clearly you have no interest in. It seems you’re more than willing to hold your "experience" up as a de facto superior position, as though, with it, your thoughts on a matter surpass anyone else’s opinion - or written evidence, for that matter.

I wonder if Historians, in any area of their research and studies, who gather written source materials, are just consumers, as well, in your mind.

It seems you don’t want a discussion after all; just someone to agree with you because, after all, your experience of which I see absolutely no evidence of at all, should elicit one’s immediate belief in what you have to say.

I'm sure the fact I have not just taken your word for it must gall you, immensely. But, if you're interested in discussion and debate then there's more to it than just waving your **** around.

Have a good day.

 

This content is protected

 

I'm not the one going on about my experience like it's god's gift to the world of boxing debate, am I?

No. You're imagining it, trust me. I should know. I posted the response to which you refer.

You were responding to their post as if it were mine. That's missing the mark. Moreover, whichever post you were referring to, your response could be considered an overreaction.

As I've stated before, I don't think it's unreasonable to consider that a bout between Hearns and Pryor would have been an intriguing one and not necessarily an automatic blowout.

You agreed it was not unreasonable, open for debate and yet, here you are now implying otherwise, in the extreme.

Who's "we"? Perhaps you and your alter ego should go find some then. I'm not easily offended by clowns. Particularly those who think the more they repeat a falsehood, the more true it becomes. That's your delusion but that's fine, if it brings you comfort.

Only to you. Probably because you keep repeating it to yourself.

It doesn't - - You said "...watching any of his pro and amateur fights Pryor was not very evolved physically or skill/style wise."

Ali's comments were during an amateur bout, featuring Pryor.

His lack of having fully physically matured at 147 and, given he was tight at the weight, in '81 (as I have mentioned before) makes his being at his absolute optimum, a debatable point, in my opinion.

That's drawing a considerably speculative conclusion on the motivation for Panama Lewis' cheating. And, to be fair, we don't actually know what the black bottle meant, in terms of the edge it may or may not have given Pryor.

Yes. Over money, which was ultimately justified in the purses he received for the Arguello bouts.

Pryor was definitely trying to get in on the money. That alone, however, does not mean he was pure hype.

But, you've convinced yourself that Pryor had zero substance and that anyone who thinks otherwise is a "sucker".

That's fine. But, you're expecting people to believe in your spin and ignore anything else as spin. That's fairly priceless.

 

Great. So that's your source. Buddy LaRosa? Now there's a man whose version of events, at that time, you could take to the bank!! LOL

So the guy that's in the midst of a court battle with his commodity, Pryor, after just getting the shaft from him, is going to give a complete and honest appraisal of the goings on to SI, is he? But, MSG's John Condon, is either a highly motivated liar or has been totally libeled by the New York Star Gazette?

Get real.

I just did and there's probably some truth in it - albeit from another sports reporter, giving the side of a story from a guy, who's on the verge of losing his investment. But, that's besides the point, because, here's the thing...

You started out by stating that Pryor's management had no interest in getting Pryor into those types of fight and yet, here you are now, referencing material, which obviously contradicts that.

You have twice now contradicted yourself, on this point you are pushing about the seriousness of Pryor's and/or his management's intent to fight at the elite level.

This does not serve your argument well, since it has somewhat been the foundation of your position.

That's your interpretation of my initial post. Over-extrapolated from and over-elaborated upon, as I pointed out from the start. If anyone's been getting upset, it's you; the overreaction to my initial post being the first sign.

Pryor's place within the picture is not all that relevant to the question being posed; no matter how many times you want to imply that he was a hype job that no one wanted to take seriously; not even his management. This is a point you have tried to make over and over and it has now been blown apart by your incessant need to defend your own contradictions.

We can now, at least, see two sources, which corroborate the fact that the Duran bout had been agreed to - just not signed for - the reasons, no doubt, having to do with money and Pryor's deal with LaRosa, which was rubbish.

This still shows you to have been incorrect in stating Pryor had not agreed to fight Duran and none of this adds weight to your reasoning for Pryor's position, in the scheme of things.

We've established the reasoning for the Buddy LaRosa version of events. In any case, it proves you were off the mark when you said:

"

This content is protected

"

They were trying to get to Leonard by whatever means and this included a bout with Duran. The evidence you have put up demonstrates that. Do you not think Duran was a high-risk bout for Pryor?

That Pryor was after more money and wanted his crappy deal with LaRosa amended and had, according to the article you quote from, the belief that Don King would get him the Duran fight anyway, illustrates he wanted the match.

By the way - you have to read the whole article by Pat Putnam to understand the context of your selective quotes from the same.

Reasonable people don't create a blown-up and distorted version of someone else's quite simple viewpoint to serve as a soap-box for their own subjective and demented ranting - then go on to introduce irrelevant elements to the exchange, purely to prolong the same purpose - such as you have done. Your lack of interest in a reasonable debate has been clear from the beginning, despite your hollow calls for "discussion".

I am not one to be easily sucked in by hype and I am certainly not buying into your perspective as realistic. I'm not even sure I am clear on your motivations for replying to my post in the first place but, I get the impression it's kind of personal for you, which comes across as a bit weird.

For these, amongst other reasons, I hold my original position on how I think a Hearns/Pryor bout might have gone. 'Intimate involvement' has not been required to determine this. Nor has it been required to ascertain that your argument is fairly baseless.

If you'd have had genuine, relevant insights to share, I'd have gladly read them but you started, in your response to me, from a skewed position and have not sought to correct that, even several posts later; instead, preferring to be goading, contradictory, inconsistent and - - - just strange, really.

On that note, I am bowing out of this one. I'd like to say it's been good, enlightening even - but it really hasn't been.


Have a good evening.[/QUOTE]

 

Well I thought to myself maybe I am being unfair about Pryor and decided to watch some of his fights and title defenses again I had never been very impressed with him when he was fighting and suspected he was on something......WOW I am more convinced than ever that had DuJuan Johnson had been a little more aggressive and faster and more importantly wasn't 20 but maybe a more matured 25 fighting Pryor he would have stopped him in the first round.....the size difference between Johnson and Pryor was dramatic and the way Pryor hit him flush with some shots without much reaction from Johnson showed he wasn't the hardest puncher for 140 and the way Johnson put him on his face in the first round I thought its a good thing that wasn't Duran, Benitez, SRL, Cuevas or Hearns that hurt him.....here is the video of that fight

This content is protected

 

[/QUOTE]

Well a Dullard without the ability to look beyond the hype and study the man that regurgitates a sports writer is always the dangerous guy to trust when it comes to historical reference..... it is those with the courage to question the ethics and honesty of a sport known for its corruption and twisting of public perception for top dollar that will avoid the blindness of being a follower or being taken for the fool at the bookie. You would think here nearly 40 yrs later that a man with some perspective would be able to look back at Pryor and say of course he was on something and no way could he have handled top welterweights he struggled with 140 fighters. He was an attrition fighter with average power a decent chin and he did the best he could given his turbulent lifestyle......his unwillingness to go straight for the money by fighting his way up the ranks of the 2 tougher divisions directly above and below his weight must bring into question why he went the 140 route.....he didn't want the fight with Duran when it was offered and turned down 1/2 million to fight Leonard which speaks volumes to the threat they thought he posed......superstars like SRL and Duran do not offer to fight dangerous fighters for paltry sums in comparison if they are perceived as indeed dangerous.