bill1234

These two iron chinned, hard hitting, endless stamina, high pressure fighters were pretty much even in every aspect. With speed in favor of Pryor, but all around toughness in favor of "The Onion Farmer", who takes this slugfest?

__________________
MEMBER OF BOXINGFORUM.COM HALL OF FAME-JANUARY, 2008

Obama

Basilio hands down. Too strong for Pyror. Pyror was junior Welterweight and Basilio eventually became Middleweight Champion. Basilio beat a slightly past his prime Ray Robinson. All of Pryor's wins pale in comparison to that.

__________________
Just when you count us out, we come back stronger:

DRPUGILIST

Pryor was actually a lightweight, he moved up to 140 because he knew he wasn't getting a title shot. Basilio might be too strong, but he wasn't a knockout puncher, he'd wear guys down. I refuse to believe he'd wear down Pryor at 147 where Aaron wouldve had more power. Pryor wins by UD or possibly a stoppage since Carmen was there to be hit and The Hawk was there to hit (as often as possible).

Basilio has the better win, but that logic isn't useful for this discussion (unless Sugar Ray Robinson had the same style as Pryor and Pryor himself didn't do good against that style) because that's more of a testament to styles.

__________________

Obama

Robinson had a pretty simple but effective style. In short, it's called perfection. That's not the only better name Basilio has on his resume either. There's Tony DeMarco, Ike Williams, Johnny Saxton, Billy Graham, Gil Turner, and Chuck Davey. Pryor beat club fighters compared to these guys.

Basilio fought in the golden age of the Welterweight division. His career ended having a total of 5, I repeat FIVE, fights of the year. Pyror was good, but not good enough to fight a bigger man of this quality and expect to win.

__________________
Just when you count us out, we come back stronger:

DRPUGILIST

Pryor has 3 KO victories over 2 Hall of Famers (Cervantes and Arguello) and 1 over Hearns 1 year before The Hitman turned pro, he also destroyed the rest of his opponents.

Basilio was not unbeatable and anyone that had excellent stamina and chin (like Pryor) had a good shot at beating him.

5 fights of the year means he was prone to be in exciting fights.

__________________

Obama

Bringing in amateur records to pad his lacking resume...and it still doesn't match up.

Basilio wasn't unbeatable but if Pryor had the amount of fights Basilio had against this lvl of opposition he'd have multiple losses to. I don't give Pryor 1 chance in hell against Kid Gavilan who Basilio got a split decision lost to. If they fought 10 times Basilio wins around 7.

__________________
Just when you count us out, we come back stronger:

DRPUGILIST

Bringing up his amateur win over Hearns further shows how good he was against A level boxers. It wasn't modern amateur boxing with headgear much bigger gloves, etc. It was a 3 round boxing match where Hearns was a year away from turning pro. It's more than a legit overall highlight to mention in a shortened career.

I'm not trying to "match up" by stating there resumes because they don't. Basilio had a full career where he went up 2 full weight classes, Pryor didn't. But for the time he was at his best, he was among the best, during his prime he was undefeated against the highest opposition available to him with only 2 fights going the distance.

Why wouldn't you give him a chance against Gavilan? Kid Gavilan wasn't invincible either (no knock on him), he only had like 20+ knockouts in 100+ fights. Pryor in his prime was like Henry Armstrong in style and you already know what he did. AP showed it, him and his drug use just didn't let himself prove it.

__________________

SRCJJ

I've always been a huge Pryor fan. I'll never ever forget the first Pryor/Arguello fight. One of the greatest fights I've ever seen. I'd definitely go in favour of Pryor, I've seen Basilio vs Sugar Ray (both fights) and I've seen Basilio vs Fulmer I, still need to see the second fight. As for the fight itself, I'd favour Pryor. I rank him as the greatest Jr. Welterweight of all time, I think his quality of opposition in his pro career may not have been as good as Carmen's (Gavilian, Fulmer, Robinson, Graham etc..), but I still think Pryor was a tough, quick boxer who'd have won a close decision in what would have been a classic fight. I like Basilio's chances though, it could go either way because there is no stoppage in this fight, a decision is 95% likely.

__________________

Obama

People like Gavilan and Robinson would clown Pryor not necessarily by KO...but just sheer boxing skills. He'd eat flush shots all night. And not like the Arguello fight, it would be like the worst round of that fight for Pyror in ever round. Arguello was merely a B level technician who gave Aaron all sorts of problems, and was over the hill and coming up from lighter weight divisions.

About Hearns...he just wasn't the Tommy Hearns we all know until he turned pro. Pryor could have never beat him later. Sugar Ray Leonard himself needed a miracle to beat Hearns the first time and get the gift of a draw the second time.

__________________
Just when you count us out, we come back stronger:

DRPUGILIST

Tony DeMarco (fought at lightweight), Ike Williams (fought at super featherweight), and Billy Graham (fought at super featherweight). 2/3 of them beat Basilio in his prime, so I'd think Pryor had a great shot at winning.

I know you want to talk about their opponents so you can have a shot at discrediting my argument, but that doesn't dictate who would win in a head to head match. Styles and attributes make fights and Pryor's matches up well against anyone in history under welterweight.

There's a reason Leonard, Hilmer Kenty, and Jim Watt (or their management) kept away from Pryor. He is A class whether you like it, agree with it, accept it or not.

__________________