and I am not talking about the one which was mixed. I always thought that was nonsense.
and I am not talking about the one which was mixed. I always thought that was nonsense.
Pryor was unbeatable at 135 so if they fought at 35 Pryor would take him.
I would pick Arguello at 130 but by decision and any other weight class above that Pryor beats him.
Hearns was greater...Pryor has 1 name on his record....The Hitman fought Greats and beat some too
Would have loved to see them fight though, that would have been great....Pryor would have got DROPPED in a hurry
Hearns would have beaten him early.I never thought highly of Pryor his best win was beating a past his best S/ feather I had the vidio of there Amatuer fight it was man against boy. As pros the odds would have been reversed
Pain lasts a only a minute, but the memory will last forever....
boxingbournemouth - Cornelius Carrs private boxing tuition and personal fitness training
Hearns easily. Pryor's drug habits prevented him from being greater
This fight is interesting just because both guys were amatuer stars and became legends. Hearns fought everyone and had the full career most guys want. Pryor didn't last as long and who is greater? A guy who has 2 legends Cervantes/Arguello on his record, or a guy who has Cueves/Leonard/Benitez/Duran/Hagler/Hill/Barkley and who was first man to win titles in 4 and 5 weight divisions. Hearns had more perseverance than Pryor and lived better. Give him credit for that. The man was determined.
But hearns lost to thise greats in his biggest moments in the sun and Pryor beat Arguello and Cervantes in only his second fight at that weight didn't he?Originally Posted by EverlastReyes
Originally Posted by Majesty
Hearns lost to who? Leonard and Hagler, and those fights were great. There is still Cueves,Benitez,Duran, Hill and Barkley on that record, and the second fight with Leonard. Pryor beat up on a smaller guy in Arguello and Cervantes is sort of a legend. Hearns fought and beat legends. It is a no-brainer who is the greater fighter. Hearns fight clips are legendary. Pryor's film clip is one fight.
But hearns lost to thise greats in his biggest moments in the sun and Pryor beat Arguello and Cervantes in only his second fight at that weight didn't he?
this question has no wrong or right answer......there is strong facts for either side.....I can't choose...
It feels good to be back home.
....the answer is obvious Tommy Hearns!Originally Posted by THE Bigragu
There are your reasons
Originally Posted by EverlastReyes
if you are trying to compare Hagler and Hearns it would be hard to compare who is greater, but Pryor and Hearns is easy. Hearns gave us a whole decade and then some. He beat Cueves in 1980 and then 20 title fights later Virgil Hill. And since I mentioned Hagler.. just because Hagler beat Hearns at Hagler's natural weight does not mean he is necessarily greater than Hearns. Hagler fought Duran/Leonard/Hearns. Hearns fought Hagler/Duran/Leonard/Hill/Cueves/Benitez. you make the call. Hearns has the potential to be seen as greater in that he fought more legends than Hagler did. Maybe I am crazy for saying this.. by the way, I messed up my messages since I do not know how to use this site yet. I tried pasting.
Pryor had so many fights available to him at the time. Why the legends of the welts didn't fight him I am not sure. Duran and Hearns and Leonard all could have fought him, but they were busy with each other. Leonard vs. Pryor would have been a Split win for Ray I think Pryor had a great style ,but Ray was more polished.
I think Sugar Ray Leonard would have knocked out Aaron. Can you imagine what a great fight the Chavez of 1989 would have been fighting Aaron Pryor of 1983?Those are matchups we can only dream about. That is why the Hagler/Hearns matchup of 1985 was so good, it was that sort of matchup which came true.
wow!!!
IMO.... You can't compare them in the sense of asking who greater cause they were BOTH great in their repsective divisions.
To put them side by side and compare is unfair to either fighter.....
I say they were both GREAT.....
IF I had to side with one then you have to go with Hearns due to whom he fought and the divisions at which he accomplished a belt.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks