Duran v Pryor

Skill and defense is the difference here.


Duran W15 Pryor

 

Exactly :good I see Duran winning by 9 - 6 or 10 - 5.

 

As just mentioned, skill and defense is the difference here, enabling Duran to take a hard-fought points verdict.

 

Aaron was a tough guy with a good chin. His offense often was his defense. He was a fast swarmer who threw punches from all angles. He did switch gears and box with Arguello when he needed to. That was an impressive infight adjustment.

Problem is that he was getting tagged by clean righthands from Alexis.

Ah...if that was Duran hitting him I dont think Aaron makes it the distance. Duran would finish him. U cant be hit clean by Duran and expect to get by.

 

Was this fight ever talked about? Love to have seen it.
:good:good

 

Aaron was one of the most exciting fighters ever, but....
Fists of Stone by KO in the 8th.
Duran was the greatest fighter of all time at this weight, and in his prime he simply outclassed and outgunned Pryor.

 

I think it was in the early 80s. I dont have a source but at that time I remember Pryor stating that Duran was one of his idols and that "I only act crazy, Duran really is crazy".

Aaron wouldve fought him though.

 

I think The Hawk would have fought the Hulk if he stepped in the ring. Dude was fearless, which is what would have cost him the fight against Duran.

 

He might have beaten Pryor, but had he lost like he lost to all the other greats Hearns,Leonard,Benitez,Hagler, he would have made an excuse that he was not in shape and people would have bought it, But in a h2h thread he always comes out the winner. Had Duran not fought Hearns or Benitez, people would say he would have won by late knockout against both. But since we have the proof he didn't win, he says he was out of shape. Yet when he fought lesser guys like Moore and Barkley, who had less skills, he won and he got in shape. Why? He was in the same shape against those guys,he just couldn't beat them. His track record against truly great fighters is not good no matter what. But he was great at lightweight and when he had the right style in front of him.

 

You forget that he beat Leonard and 8 other hall of fame fighters. and you forget I said "at that wieght." Old Duran gave Hagler all he could handle, and was one of only two fighters to go the distance with Hagler after he won the title...the same Hagler who destroyed Tommy Hearns.
Duran fought until he was 50. Of course he lost a few along the way...does that mean that only undefeated fighters can be considered great?

 

Yeah Hagler destroyed Hearns in a great fight, but Duran did not. Hearns destroyed Duran easily and conclusively. Duran did not beat Hagler, in what Hagler called a sparring match where all he had to do was turn up the heat and he won the last few rounds. Hearns beat Benitez, and Benitez easily outboxed Duran the same year. And that was a great as well as Hearns being a great. Leonard was the only great Duran beat, because Ray fought his fight. Ray said it just after the fight. " After that Ray easily beat Duran 2 times.
I wanted to beat that man at his own game" Leonard said. Duran fighting to 50 doesn't mean that much. He fought all the legends 32 and younger, except for the last Leonard fight. The 50 age proves he was not washed up when he fought the greats he fought. But on this thread people say he would have knocked out Pryor? He never knocked out a legit great fighter. Had he lost he would have said he was out of shape and people would have bought it. I think Duran is great, but the fact he made excuses after he lost to the best fighters he fought is significant. I alway thought that. That was my point. Had he never fought Hearns or Benitez, the threads on here would have him wearing out both and knocking them out. But in reality he didn't.

 

Sometimes it's easy to hunt for a way to underate a guy because everyone else rates him so highly. I do it myself, but I grew up watching Duran as well as all the fighters he fought, and to me it's obvious why he's always in the top 10 and usually top 5 p4p of all time.
I think many people who don't like Duran may be coming from a point of only having seen him near the end of his prime, when he finally moved up to fight Leonard.
I think too, that maybe you made points on both sides of the argument, when you sad " The 50 age proves he was not washed up when he fought the greats he fought." Maybe that's why he was so highly thought of...even so many years past his prime, he could still hang with the top fighters alive. Imagine how good he was when he ruled the lightweight division...

 

According to an article in Sports Illustrated, and the Roberto Duran bio, the fight was talked about in 1981-82. Pryor was offered like $700k, but he turned it down because he had managerial issues. One of his managers was a criminal and got charged with embezzlement or some ****. By the time he sorted out his managerial mess, Duran had moved on to another fighter.

The fight was supposed to be at 150, so Pryor would've been moving up 10 lbs.

 

http://www.eastsideboxing.com/forum/showpost.php?p=11586357&postcount=6