BoxRec

I lean towards Oscar but I'm not sure.

Pryor by KO

I'm going with Oscar on this one, I believe we have let too much positive nostalgia grow around the myth of Aaron Pryor. IMHO. Maybe this thread will coax Jaclem out of his cave for comment.

Favoring Pryor? The Blur of time and his Alexis triumphs have been far to kind to the hawk. He wouldnt go 3 rounds with Hopkins. I would bet on Oscar I'd take the odds and I'd pay for my upcoming vacation with my wise financial management.

Was Oscar a better faster boxer than Alexis, with a great chin and brilliant footwork. I believe so. No way Pryor knocks out Oscar. Oscar proved he had heart and a chin. I see Oscar being too fast and slick for Aaron. No way Pryor catches Oscar the way he did Alexis. Arguello was a punchbag. Also Oscar would be firing rapind fast combos, quicker and more than Alexis did, with greater accuracy. Oscar had a good dig also at 10stone, enough to make Aaron think

Don't sell Pryor short, he used his unothadox style to great effect. Delahoya looks like the better boxer in the classic sense, but I think Pryor could nullify that with his swarming attack.

Who thinks Arguello was at his peak when the Hawk picked him off?

I haven't seen a terrible lot of Alexis, but from his fight with Pryor he looked very amateurish, yes he landed constantly but he was far too easy to hit, his footwork was non existent and he was far too predictable. A Whitaker, DLH, Mayweather all would have done a number on him if he tried to face them like he did Pryor. That's why I say Oscar beats Aaron, if that Arguello could be competitive for 13 rds and land so easy, then Oscar must also be able to land even easier, but Oscar's skills, speed and footwork mean Pryor would have to be at least 30% better than he was V Alexis, in order to be as effective. I just do not see Oscar allowing himself to be so easily hit.

I'd say Pryor, losing on the cards, by late Ko. I don't think we truly seen Pryor's prime, in my opinion.

...i'm posting here only to tell you all to read boxbuzzy's comments and ignore the others.

oscar gives a boxing lesson ....pryor might go the distance but that's all he'd do.

when buzz and i are on the same page, take it as revealed knowledge.

Pryor, Panama, no pad in gloves & "black bottle" would destroy Oscar :(

The Hawk took out some impressive names to be sure, and the record as it reads is very shiny and sparkly just like some of these belts we have come to "appreciate". But the details....ah the details. He had the benefit of great management, career timing, luck, and some other things that are not meant to be considered or allowed within the hemp ropes.
Cervantes and Arguello would seem to speak to competence and skill at the very top of the game wouldnt they? You'd think so. But the details....ahh the details. Don't take from this that I am saying he was not good, indeed he had some very strong points. Lasting with Oscar into the championship rounds would be a a rather likely scenario.

Prime for prime all things being on the up and up bet your wealth on DLH and you would put your kids through college. I do not fault Decagon at all, I think his numbers would be popular and supported making it all the more ripe for a great financial harvest.

This may be controversial but I suggest to everyone that they get familiar with this bit of boxing history. It is one of the more interesting topics you can read up on. The more you know about this the more fascinating it becomes. There is a gold mine of a book in this for some one at some point. If they are willing to do a bit of sleuthing. Of this I am certain.

And that's all I've got to say about that.

Pryor KO in 5.

BoxBuzz wrote:
This may be controversial but I suggest to everyone that they get familiar with this bit of boxing history. It is one of the more interesting topics you can read up on. The more you know about this the more fascinating it becomes. There is a gold mine of a book in this for some one at some point. If they are willing to do a bit of sleuthing. Of this I am certain.

And that's all I've got to say about that.

Buzz

You've certainly hooked me in but you're not helping me regarding what topic I should be researching. I think you should share a little more (at least in terms of your resources) than you currently appear willing to... Isn't there a law on this site against arousing everyone's curiosity and then declaring "that's all I've got to say about that" (or something in a similar vein).

And you being a moderator and all... Where's your community spirtit? Sense of duty?

A lot of you guys are selling Pryorr short... who did Delahoya ever fight that was as good as Pryor?.... The Hawk was a non-stop fighter who wouldn't allow Oscar to fight at his own pace like he always tried to do. Pryors speed would give Oscar a heck of a lot of trouble... the Hawk always raised himself to the level of his opponent and would not take chances against Oscar like he did against some of his other opponents.
Having seen most of Arguellos fights I'd say that he was mightily close to his prime when he fought Pryor... a tad slower perhaps but how many of Delahoyas best opponents were at their peaks when he fought them?.... Chavez for instance was just a shadow of his prime.... Pryor would be too fast and too powerful for Delahoya... he would swarm over him and not allow Oscar to dictate the fight.... The Hawk by late ko or clear points decision....

Decagon wrote:For me it isn't about Cervantez and Arguello. It's about Pryor. How could De la Hoya withstand someone who threw that much of a volume of punches? Just take a look at the first Mosley fight, and you'll see my prediction.

My view as well... and also Pryor could really box when he wanted to.... I can see him swarming over Delahoya one round then outboxing him the next... Delahoya wouldnt be able to deal with the Hawks speed.... for my money Oscar is more style over substance... he's not really in the class of the Hawk imo....

I saw Pryor many times when he trained for the Arguello fight and I saw the fight live. Pryor had Beau Jack conditioning him and his workouts were far from orthodox. He did not work by rounds but would punch the heavy bag non stop for fifteen minutes then go to skip rope non stop for a half hour, do several hundred sit ups, do twenty minutes in the speed bag etc. His workouts were about two hours long without a second's rest. His condition was beyond superb.

I don't see Oscar at 140 surviving the fight tempo that Pryor could set, nor the avalanche of punches he threw.

Pryor by a KO sometime after the seventh round.

enrique wrote:I saw Pryor many times when he trained for the Arguello fight and I saw the fight live. Pryor had Beau Jack conditioning him and his workouts were far from orthodox. He did not work by rounds but would punch the heavy bag non stop for fifteen minutes then go to skip rope non stop for a half hour, do several hundred sit ups, do twenty minutes in the speed bag etc. His workouts were about two hours long without a second's rest. His condition was beyond superb.

I don't see Oscar at 140 surviving the fight tempo that Pryor could set, nor the avalanche of punches he threw.

Pryor by a KO sometime after the seventh round.

Great points... its a shame that so many people today are taken in by the delahoya and Trinidad myths and yet believe Pryor to have been overrated... I wonder how many of the Hawks fights they've actually seen?!!...

enrique wrote:I saw Pryor many times when he trained for the Arguello fight and I saw the fight live. Pryor had Beau Jack conditioning him and his workouts were far from orthodox. He did not work by rounds but would punch the heavy bag non stop for fifteen minutes then go to skip rope non stop for a half hour, do several hundred sit ups, do twenty minutes in the speed bag etc. His workouts were about two hours long without a second's rest. His condition was beyond superb.

I don't see Oscar at 140 surviving the fight tempo that Pryor could set, nor the avalanche of punches he threw.

Pryor by a KO sometime after the seventh round.

Wow... I workout the same way I've never heard of anyone else doing this.

..i saw more of pryor's fights than anyone on this forum....and national boxing writers and tv commentators as well.

read boxbuzzy and agree and you shall all be fine.

when he suggests you study this period of boxing history (or any other) you'll just have to dig in somehow. if you want to do it the easy way just click on all my posts. ignore the first few...i entered as a horse's ass jut to see where this forum was coming from. i was not the sainted historian that i am now.

Jaclem wrote:..i saw more of pryor's fights than anyone on this forum....and national boxing writers and tv commentators as well.

read boxbuzzy and agree and you shall all be fine.

when he suggests you study this period of boxing history (or any other) you'll just have to dig in somehow. if you want to do it the easy way just click on all my posts. ignore the first few...i entered as a horse's ass jut to see where this forum was coming from. i was not the sainted historian that i am now.

Sorry, you may be a sainted historian, but that doesn't mean you can't be wrong and if you think Oscar would beat Pryor then you are just plain wrong imo... and I'm guessing that Enrique has seen a good few bouts himself and he agrees with me... and I personally have seen a few fights myself and know what I'm talking about to be quite blunt...

silkov wrote:

Jaclem wrote:..i saw more of pryor's fights than anyone on this forum....and national boxing writers and tv commentators as well.

read boxbuzzy and agree and you shall all be fine.

when he suggests you study this period of boxing history (or any other) you'll just have to dig in somehow. if you want to do it the easy way just click on all my posts. ignore the first few...i entered as a horse's ass jut to see where this forum was coming from. i was not the sainted historian that i am now.

Sorry, you may be a sainted historian, but that doesn't mean you can't be wrong and if you think Oscar would beat Pryor then you are just plain wrong imo... and I'm guessing that Enrique has seen a good few bouts himself and he agrees with me... and I personally have seen a few fights myself and know what I'm talking about to be quite blunt...

As have we all I'm quite sure.

Differing opinions make the world go round don't they? And popularly held opinions can set the oddsmakers to work in ways that can make the well informed folks rich indeed! This is simply one theoretical I would bet my house on based on multiple sources inlcuding of course my own personal observations.

Recently there have been examples of popularly held opinions working well for the observant ones willing to take that chance. I was on the short end of a Calzaghe/Lacy assessment recently so I know what it is like to be caught up in "popular opinion" without really doing the required studying. Hatton Tszyu may be another.

In this case though there is much to be preened from the past easily accessable record....do a little CSI type work on both DLH and the Hawk and I think based on the proponderance of the available evidence most could make a compelling case for an easy DLH victory. I"ve been watching both of these guys on tape for the last two days and I've never been so sure of a bet in my life.

I only wish they were both in there prime and fighting tomorrow night so I could carry my wheelbarrow of cash over to Atlantic City and happily commit to a DLH bet.

I simply don't buy that the Hawk was quite the predator he was groomed to appear to be. That doesnt make him a Turkey by any means but somewhere in between in that "fowl" territory.

BoxBuzz wrote:

silkov wrote:

Jaclem wrote:..i saw more of pryor's fights than anyone on this forum....and national boxing writers and tv commentators as well.

read boxbuzzy and agree and you shall all be fine.

when he suggests you study this period of boxing history (or any other) you'll just have to dig in somehow. if you want to do it the easy way just click on all my posts. ignore the first few...i entered as a horse's ass jut to see where this forum was coming from. i was not the sainted historian that i am now.

Sorry, you may be a sainted historian, but that doesn't mean you can't be wrong and if you think Oscar would beat Pryor then you are just plain wrong imo... and I'm guessing that Enrique has seen a good few bouts himself and he agrees with me... and I personally have seen a few fights myself and know what I'm talking about to be quite blunt...

As have we all I'm quite sure.

Differing opinions make the world go round don't they? And popularly held opinions can set the oddsmakers to work in ways that can make the well informed folks rich indeed! This is simply one theoretical I would bet my house on based on multiple sources inlcuding of course my own personal observations.

Recently there have been examples of popularly held opinions working well for the observant ones willing to take that chance. I was on the short end of a Calzaghe/Lacy assessment recently so I know what it is like to be caught up in "popular opinion" without really doing the required studying. Hatton Tszyu may be another.

In this case though there is much to be preened from the past easily accessable record....do a little CSI type work on both DLH and the Hawk and I think based on the proponderance of the available evidence most could make a compelling case for an easy DLH victory. I"ve been watching both of these guys on tape for the last two days and I've never been so sure of a bet in my life.

I only wish they were both in there prime and fighting tomorrow night so I could carry my wheelbarrow of cash over to Atlantic City and happily commit to a DLH bet.

I simply don't buy that the Hawk was quite the predator he was groomed to appear to be. That doesnt make him a Turkey by any means but somewhere in between in that "fowl" territory.

I don't see how you can make Delahoya an easy winner over the Hawk... who did Oscar really beat at 140 or 135?.... he never fought anyone approaching Pryors speed till Mosely, who gave him loads of trouble... imo Oscar wouldn't be able to live with Pryors speed and power, he would be swamped and unable to fight his own fight...

There are few remarkable wins on this record in my opinion but I will grant that a few were accomplished in remarkable fashion. And then hyped a bit too much. DLH's record easily eclipses this IMHO.

One can make a very good arguement that this is one of the most hollow records imaginable for a guy who has been given such a good rep. I think it's all about a shot Cervantes and a waning Arguello.
And a few dramatic moments that were caught on camera and overhyped.

http://www.boxrec.com/boxer_display.php?boxer_id=8993

But still what you say is fair enough. I'm just not in agreement, I think DLH's opponents at the time he fought them were not as weak as you portray, though you do mention the perhaps obvious one eg: Chavez.

Cervantes was ripe for the picking and timed perfectly and opinions will differ on the Hawks timing of the other various names notched on his belt. I watched a few of those fights close up myself. I think his career was well rehearsed like a fine tuned orchestra to give great perceptions and maximum pump for least risk. Very effectively too I might add. And every fighter that he ever purported to "want" to fight that he did not fight is an interesting side bar to this conversation and a place of intrigue for the sleuth minded.

I do not have a dog in this race other than what I see as the facts. I'm not a DLH promoter nor a Pryor Naysayer..... And I see the Hawk as being target practice for DLH precision and no nonsense style. Soliman and Wright come to mind here. But more one sided

There is no way to my way of thinking that Pryor would have taken anything but a serious beating from Cervantes at his best, but the great ones do get old eventually. DLH would have been a formidable opponent for Chavez at any time. IMHO.

I probably can add nothing more to this discussion other than to say that the truth is trapped in time and we can't bring this theoretical to reality so I'll leave it at that.

..silkov....i was mainly answering your question of how many fights of pryor have "they" seen. As one of the they i can assure ..again...that i have seen more of his fights than anyone here. if there is someone who thinks otherwise, please enter a description of what you looked like at the time and i will tell you if i remember you from ringside...and i do mean ringside...and in the dressing room either before or after the fight.

as for my being a historian....of course i can be wrong..especially in theoreticals. however, i am not wrong in this one....and that damn buzzhead knew i'd get into it again when this thread came up. he sums up the outcome perfectly, so much so that he makes my comments superfluous but i keep coming back in the pryor discussions anyway...no matter how many times i promise myself not to.