Aaron "The Hawk" Pryor vs Terrence Crawford

[Fatboxingfan]

Hmmmm...... Basically, Pryor mops the floor with Crawford, and that's WITHOUT Panama Lewis.

That Lithuanian guy was good. He was no Arguello though!

[p4pking]

Crawford was also never close to losing that fight, clearly had way more in the tank, and is quite a bit bigger than Arguello.

[Dia bando]

I remember Pryor beating Hearns in the amateurs so I don't see Crawford being a problem at all .!
I remember Crawford fighting Ricky Burns he did not look brilliant far from it to myself he looked in truth nothing special.!

[Memphis]

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.

[Fatboxingfan]

Good points. I feel they don't make them like they used to though in general. This goes for stamina, power, diversity, slickness, chin, I mean fuck, Kaliaskes was solid, but every time he just touched Crawford on the chin Crawford was buzzed and shaking up slightly

On the other hand arguello landed bombs I mean atomic bombs and nuclear warheads all night long on Aaron Pryor's chin and the man just sucked it up and would come back with a 10 punch combination

[Dia bando]

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.

Keep on taking the tablets .🤭

[powerpuncher]

Ironically the same people who are complaining that Crawford hasn’t fought anybody are trying to pretend like Pryor had a great resume. If he were around today, you same people would talk about how overrated Pryor was and his only good win was a blown up past his best featherweight

[Spicoli]

Respect to the whirling cyclone, but Pryor could be as a sharp as a marble in deciding his dealings and some of the people he surrounded himself with. In a way he may very well benefit historically with the 'big fights' never actually happening for him. At least one, maybe two of which he had offers for..Duran and Leonard if I'm not mistaken but thought better of it.

[smashup]

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.

Could Crawford find away around the Hawks Moustache 🤔

[Memphis]

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.

Keep on taking the tablets .������

from the guy that said this?

I remember Pryor beating Hearns in the amateurs so I don't see Crawford being a problem at all

Im crushed