I lean towards Pryor but this is not some gimme fight. Bud would be real dangerous for the Hawk to simply wildly attack as he did so often early and Bud has good power.
For me, Pryor, along with Foreman and Norton, are the three most overrated fighters of the 1970s and 1980s. This is not to say they weren't excellent fighters. I'm just saying their achievements don't match their statuses (statii?) Anyway, the only two really top fighters Pryor fought were Antonio Cervantes who was in his 17th year of his career and Alexis Arguello who was at the end of his career fighting out of his weight class while trying for a world title in his 4th division. They were very nice wins but the reality is that Pryor never fought a great who was even near his prime. The same can be said for Crawford but I do believe the ultra-calm Crawford picks apart the whirling dervish that was Pryor and beats him by decision whether it is 12 or 15 rounds.
Always been mystified by Pryor 's extremely lofty ranking by many. I'm not saying he wasn't a great fighter but his resume is just not that impressive and he clearly cheated in his signature win against Arguello. The fact he stole a huge part of Arguello's legacy from him doesn't sit well with me at all, especially given what a classy gentleman Arguello was.
Pryor was not a big man I don't think he would be as successful as a Welterweight, if people look at Pryor's fight vs Gary Hinton he struggled immensely vs a clever Southpaw. I think Crawford would win at Welterweight.
Classic case of ability vs achievements when rating ATGs. Some fighters had the oppurtunity to prove their greatness, while others didn't (not always their fault).