BoxRec

I've always thought of Pryor as the greatest light welterweight of all time, due to his record at the weight, but I have to say that had he fought Whittaker (who also held a version of the title) at that weight, he would have been boxed into oblivion.

I couldn't see a KO, as Pryor had a granite chin, but he had a tendency to get hit a lot & I can see PW landing too many punches & building up a commanding lead which would see him win a lopsided decision.

Pyror would have knocked "Sweet Pea" senseless......

Pryor too busy, wins on pts over 15

Pryor would have to land first something big and that is very difficult to do against a master defensive fighter like Whitaker. Pryor would pressure all night, but Whitaker will make him miss most of his punches and Whitaker will counter all night long. . I’ll go with Whitaker by SD.

I'd say Whitaker by unanimous decision but a close decision, Pryor can box and can pressure fight also, but Whitaker would take a few rounds to figure him out and pull out the decision.

Pryor by KO late in the fight. Pernell wasn't as fast and as good a defensive fighter as he was at 135.

I have a feeling we are gonna hear from Mr. Boxbuzz soon .

Right you are Expug

This is honestly a walk in the park for Sweet Pea, however the park has thugs and he has to be a bit careful. If they both turn in their best work, it's a total shut out. But as I have always said anything can happen when good talent mixes it up. Pryor was good...Sweet Pea was great.

And yes I'm a broken record on this....Loi, Cervantes and Loche and yes Meldrick Taylor were all better than Pryor in my estimation. I like him in the all time in this division about number 12 or so. (BoxRec has him at 14) but I'm feeling generous. I'm not going to be drawn into a long and winding rambling on this. I'll keep my energy for the Patterson trolls.

There seems to be a "spike" in the ratings of those fighters who fought in the "golden age" of Televised boxing. Pryor gets quite a perceptions boost from being in front of the right cameras at the right time with the right opponent. IMHO

BoxBuzz wrote:Right you are Expug

This is honestly a walk in the park for Sweet Pea, however the park has thugs and he has to be a bit careful. If they both turn in their best work, it's a total shut out. But as I have always said anything can happen when good talent mixes it up. Pryor was good...Sweet Pea was great.

And yes I'm a broken record on this....Loi, Cervantes and Loche and yes Meldrick Taylor were all better than Pryor in my estimation. I like him in the all time in this division about number 12 or so. (BoxRec has him at 14) but I'm feeling generous. I'm not going to be drawn into a long and winding rambling on this. I'll keep my energy for the Patterson trolls.

There seems to be a "spike" in the ratings of those fighters who fought in the "golden age" of Televised boxing. Pryor gets quite a perceptions
boost from being in front of the right cameras at the right time with the right opponent. IMHO

I think Wilfredo Benitez was better than him too.

As good as whitaker is, this matchup is all wrong for him.

Pryor is a guy who throws lot's of punches and that is exactly how you beat a slick defensive fighter.

I think Pryor will walk through all of Whitaker's punches and beat him to death in a UD.

and that my friends....is a Grimm assessment indeed.

Definitely this would have been an excellent match up -

Pryor does have the type of style to beat Sweet Pea...to a degree. Tons of pressure and can bang to boot!

With that said....Sweet Pea in his prime at 135-140......On his best night.....is darn near as good as you get defensively as well as ring generalship wise -

I'll take Sweet Pea by close UD -

Pryor fought enough southpaws to deal with "Sweet Pea" and his backward ass southpaw style. The Hawk would have become a vegitarian for a night, and would have made "Pea Soup" out of the "Sweet pea" after walking through Pernell's pit-pat punches like a girl southpaw style that Whitaker employed. BoxBuzz is delusional.

BoxBuzz wrote:and that my friends....is a Grimm assessment indeed.

That's just cause you don't like Aaron Pryor.

Btw, I would rate Whitaker over Pryor in an All time sense, but this is a matchup that is just wrong for Whitaker.

Like Barkley vs. Hearns or Forrest vs. Mosley.

After three shaky rounds, Whitaker settles down and pitches a shut out the rest of the way. Whitaker UD 12 or 15; it didnt matter.

Grimm wrote:

BoxBuzz wrote:and that my friends....is a Grimm assessment indeed.

That's just cause you don't like Aaron Pryor.

Btw, I would rate Whitaker over Pryor in an All time sense, but this is a matchup that is just wrong for Whitaker.

Like Barkley vs. Hearns or Forrest vs. Mosley.

The idea that I don't like Pryor is becoming a common misperception, unlike Patterson whom I admit to having a bias against, this is not the case with Pryor. I followed him from very early on and either actually went to his fights or watched them via tape or tv BEFORE he had his greatest fights and earned his reputation. I have a certain loyalty from a "fan" perspective. And I think he's damn good.

It's just that I am very familiar with the guy, his history and what I consider to be his well scouted career. I have rendered a judgement on this particular fighter not on a few sensational fights with Alexis but with his entire body of work, management, skill, talent, behavior, and the timeing of his signing to fight various foes. I think the only chance he took was with Alexis and he happily aced it. He is not to my estimation the "Joe Frazier" of the Light Welters, and yet based on a few fights he seems to have gotten that reputation. Prime for Prime and no funny business I would put money on Cervantes, Loi, Chavez, Taylor, Whitaker, Kostya, Benitez and Locche. That is not selling him short it's being honest based on my what I have seen for myself. And I understand that one on one with boxers in the ring, surprises happen and anything is possible.

I rate him above what BoxRec rates him at 14. Maybe he even makes my top 10 if actually made a top 10 in this catagory. But Benitez and Whitaker would not be ranked in this division in my estimation and perhaps Chavez would not be ranked in this division either.

I speak a lot on this subject because I have been exposed to his career in life to a greater degree than most. And coincidently I have checked my notes with others from the Cincinnai area who would have been as marinated in this knowledge as myself and they tend to agree in general rather than take me to task for being short sighted, ill willed, or generaly full of bologna.


And for those opponents he did face he showed "Frazieresque" abilities. But you really have to admit that his dance card was not littered in numbers with the very best. Oh and I for one based on what I was aware of during those times do not beleive that "everyone was avoiding him" though I do know for a fact that this is what "Team Pryor" would have had eveyrone beleive both then and now.

Am I sounding defensive? I hope not but it is very tough to give a "reality check" to any of the greats. And perhaps I should be more generous and acknowledge that to achieve what he did achieve truly was great. He is the talent, I'm simply rendering an opinion on his body of work and I need to remember to do so in all humility.

Depending on what the sales were on his autobiography, I think there may be a book in this for someone. There is lots of interesting information out there to be gleaned and seperating "fact" from "factoid" would be an absorbing discovery process. He is nothing if not a fascinating story.

BoxBuzz wrote:

Grimm wrote:

BoxBuzz wrote:and that my friends....is a Grimm assessment indeed.

That's just cause you don't like Aaron Pryor.

Btw, I would rate Whitaker over Pryor in an All time sense, but this is a matchup that is just wrong for Whitaker.

Like Barkley vs. Hearns or Forrest vs. Mosley.

The idea that I don't like Pryor is becoming a common misperception, unlike Patterson whom I admit to having a bias against, this is not the case with Pryor. I followed him from very early on and either actually went to his fights or watched them via tape or tv BEFORE he had his greatest fights and earned his reputation. I have a certain loyalty from a "fan" perspective. And I think he's damn good.

It's just that I am very familiar with the guy, his history and what I consider to be his well scouted career. I have rendered a judgement on this particular fighter not on a few sensational fights with Alexis but with his entire body of work, management, skill, talent, behavior, and the timeing of his signing to fight various foes. I think the only chance he took was with Alexis and he happily aced it. He is not to my estimation the "Joe Frazier" of the Light Welters, and yet based on a few fights he seems to have gotten that reputation. Prime for Prime and no funny business I would put money on Cervantes, Loi, Chavez, Taylor, Whitaker, Kostya, Benitez and Locche. That is not selling him short it's being honest based on my what I have seen for myself. And I understand that one on one with boxers in the ring, surprises happen and anything is possible.

I rate him above what BoxRec rates him at 14. Maybe he even makes my top 10 if actually made a top 10 in this catagory. But Benitez and Whitaker would not be ranked in this division in my estimation and perhaps Chavez would not be ranked in this division either.

I speak a lot on this subject because I have been exposed to his career in life to a greater degree than most. And coincidently I have checked my notes with others from the Cincinnai area who would have been as marinated in this knowledge as myself and they tend to agree in general rather than take me to task for being short sighted, ill willed, or generaly full of bologna.


And for those opponents he did face he showed "Frazieresque" abilities. But you really have to admit that his dance card was not littered in numbers with the very best. Oh and I for one based on what I was aware of during those times do not beleive that "everyone was avoiding him" though I do know for a fact that this is what "Team Pryor" would have had eveyrone beleive both then and now.

Am I sounding defensive? I hope not but it is very tough to give a "reality check" to any of the greats. And perhaps I should be more generous and acknowledge that to achieve what he did achieve truly was great. He is the talent, I'm simply rendering an opinion on his body of work and I need to remember to do so in all humility.

Depending on what the sales were on his autobiography, I think there may be a book in this for someone. There is lots of interesting information out there to be gleaned and seperating "fact" from "factoid" would be an absorbing discovery process. He is nothing if not a fascinating story.

I think that much of the mystique of Pryor being avoided by everyone was a result of him beating Leonard in the amateurs. He got a fair amount of mileage off that I think. I dont think Sugar really ducked him, I dont recall any serious negotiations going on to make that fight.

I agree with BoxBuzz that Pryor is often given much more credit than he deserves off his victories over two aging legends,Arguello and Cervantes,but I have his win against Cervantes and Tim Ryan does say that Pryor was ranked #1 by 2 sanctioning bodies at 135 but that he couldn't get a fight which is why he was facing Cervantes,a contemporary account from Ryan so I think it's safe to say that the lightweight champs may have been avoiding him but people who think Leonard,Duran,and whoever else were avoiding him are treading on very unsure footing.

I think Whitaker - Taylor is a more interesting match-up.



But, in attempt to stay on subject... I'll go with Whitaker over Pryor.

i say pryor watching some of his fights like against Alexis Arguello once hes found an opening and got you hurt he finishes you off beatifully... but then again Whitaker is a defence wizard..

i say Pryor SD..

Even if you don't like Pryor or think he's overrated or etc.

This is just a plain bad matchup for Whitaker.