Aaron Pryor 1982 vs Meldrick Taylor 1989

cybox · Post by **cybox** » 17 Dec 2005, 03:05

Both these guys in their primes. What a fight that would be.

walshb · Post by **walshb** » 17 Dec 2005, 08:46

Meldrick too small and not strong enpugh to bother Aaorn. He can't hurt Pryor, but Pryor can definitely hurt Meldrick...late TKO win for Pryor

kick asner · Post by **kick asner** » 17 Dec 2005, 15:15

Size wise they should be equal if they are both in the same weight division.

Nile4000 · Post by **Nile4000** » 17 Dec 2005, 15:32

Meldrick is somewhat faster, but Aaron was force personified.Pryor by late round stoppage or decision in a close fight.

kick asner · Post by **kick asner** » 18 Dec 2005, 13:30

I always thought that size was a wash other than heavyweights. What you give up in height you gain back in bulk and vise versa. If you take two guys like Marlon Starling and Mark Brealand, Brealand usesd his supperior height to establish himself but later on Starling with the stronger build used his streangth. It just depends wheather prefer height or bulk.

Jaclem · Post by **Jaclem** » 18 Dec 2005, 14:07

decagon...no...he's right.

Jaclem · Post by **Jaclem** » 19 Dec 2005, 02:59

..and every fighter you mentioned has wins over taller fighters. plus..the heavyweights don't count. in the smaller divisions where the weight is the same, the weight will be distributed in different ways...as already pointed out...short and strong...smaller midsection target...long and lean...maybe not as strong...but better for fighting outside...longer target inside. besides...an 8" reach advantage as measured in the older way..by wingspan..is really only a four inch advantage on each arm.

jack lamotta made a career out of beating taller fighters.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 19 Dec 2005, 06:01

I actually think Taylor can win this if he sticks to a biox and move gameplan. The problem would be if Taylor decides to start mixing it up with Pryor.

In terms of weight it's not always as it seems. Putting on muscle will help you but it's not the same thing as being naturally at the weight. Also, some guys come into the ring bigger. Eubank always looked a much bigger amn than his opponents. Pedroza was the same too. I also heard that Don Curry was much bigger than his opponents by the time they got in the ring.

iceman21287 · Post by **iceman21287** » 19 Dec 2005, 07:37

walshb wrote:Meldrick too small and not strong enpugh to bother Aaorn. He can't hurt Pryor, but Pryor can definitely hurt Meldrick...late TKO win for Pryor

If Taylor was good enough to beat a prime JCC...he could figure out a way to beat Pryor

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 19 Dec 2005, 08:33

iceman21287 wrote:
walshb wrote:Meldrick too small and not strong enpugh to bother Aaorn. He can't hurt Pryor, but Pryor can definitely hurt Meldrick...late TKO win for Pryor
If Taylor was good enough to beat a prime JCC...he could figure out a way to beat Pryor

Not sure I agree with the analogy here. While JCC was a great fighter, his style and strengths were quite a bit different than Pryors. Pryor was much faster than JCC and his style was much less predictable. Of course, I still think Taylor gives him some trouble for a a few rounds, but I'll go with Pryor by TKO around the 8th round.

Plus, as I recall, Taylor didn't beat JCC.

kick asner · Post by **kick asner** » 19 Dec 2005, 09:25

Decagon wrote:An 8" reach advantage is an 8" reach advantage. Think of the best fighters in every weight class; Ali, Spinks, Hagler, Robinson, and he's almost always taller than the average fighter of that weight.

I can't think of any off the top of my head but their has been the occasional instance where the shorter man had the reach advantage.

Jaclem · Post by **Jaclem** » 19 Dec 2005, 14:10

..jimmy bivins had a longer reach than was consistent with his height, so he probably had some wins over taller fighters with shorter no more than equal reaches.

the original joe walcott..the barbados demon.....was about three feet tall and had a reach as long as primo carnera's. at least, that's the way writers about the old time fighters describe him. never saw him fight....can't dispute or confirm.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 19 Dec 2005, 14:26

Jaclem wrote:..jimmy bivins had a longer reach than was consistent with his height, so he probably had some wins over taller fighters with shorter no more than equal reaches.

the original joe walcott..the barbados demon.....was about three feet tall and had a reach as long as primo carnera's. at least, that's the way writers about the old time fighters describe him. never saw him fight....can't dispute or confirm.

yeah sam langford was the same

. so was sonny liston in a way. i cant think of one other fighter at 6'1 with a 84" reach

ringsider · Post by **ringsider** » 20 Dec 2005, 04:24

Aaron Pryor vs. Meldrick Taylor would be just like Chavez-Taylor, without the first 35 minutes.

Well said!!

It is hawk time!!