The guy from yesteryear always gets a run up in these debates, always has a head start, it's the easy call to make, the safe bet. We know everything we ever will about Pryor, we don't Crawford. A complete career set of a great fighter V an incomplete career of an exceptional fighter who might be great. Crawford is behind the eight ball from the off isn't he?

There's far more validity in the snapshots we look at on the record of the fighter from then, they aren't as scrutinised as the ones from now, or rather we can't scrutinise them as we can now. Stands to reason, we know everything about the now guy, everything about their opponent, no tricks, no smoke and mirrors.

Crawford easily beat Burns, a two weight 'World Champion' at the time and three weight 'World Champion' after. Because we know everything about him and his record, it can be picked apart. I guarantee you this though. Stick Burns on Pryor's record, it not only becomes far healthier because Arguello aside, it ain't nothing to brag about, but if Pryor canters past Burns like Crawford did, it becomes something. It becomes another bullet point in the why Pryor beats Crawford argument, and no longer a reason Crawford can't beat Pryor.