Is Aaron Pryor really an ATG?

Depends what you consider ATG?

That term seems to be fluid and people change its definition to suit themselves quite often.

I would probably say no..Aaron is not a ATG.

 

I agree.

It's a broad term.

 

I consider him an ATG, but he'd be at the lower end of a top 100.

 

I do, he's somewhere between top 90-100.

 

He admitted to taking steroids for the Arguello fights, so that tarnishes his status in my book. I'm still leaning toward calling him great. Of course I'm going by what he was able to do in the ring. Nothing more.

 

He beat Arguello twice. So he has to be.

Keith

 

Vinny Pazienza beat Duran twice.

 

And lost to Greg haugen. Plus Duran was 500 years old at the time.

I might have made an incorrect assumption that fighters historical records didn't need to be broken down quite as explicitly here in the classic forum.

Dow I will. Pryor was undefeated best fighter at his weight class. He then beat another great fighter who had won belts at three prvious weight classes, who is UNDOUBTEDLY and ATG. So you have to consider Pryor in the same league as Arguello. And that league is ATG.

Keith

 

The point is Alexis was not at his peak there. That is pretty evident.

If you are going to give Pryor that same distinction then why not Vilomar Fernandez who beat a prime version of Arguello, at a weight which he was better at.

There is no way Pryor deserves to be put on the same level as Arguello just because he beat a shopworn version of him at the tailend of his career.
If that was the case then why not have Fullmer on the same level as Robinson or Zivic on the same level as Armstrong.

Your logic is flawed.

Pryor is one of the best H2H fighters Ive seen at that weight, that alone sees him rank well alltime...but who the hell did he beat outside of a shot Cervantes and a faded Arguello.

 

He may have not been at his absolute peak, but give me a break. Shopworn, lol who made him shopworn then? He was easily knocking out the other guys that he fought between 1980-83. He had no problem smashing mancini, rooney and ganigan, but once he loses to pryor, hes shopworn. Why was Alexis Argeullo the favourite then, if he was shopworn. I love it how people like to re-write history if a certain fighter that is supposed to win a big fight all of a sudden loses.

How was Cervantes shot when he was the world champ for 3 years in a row. You need to learn the difference between 'shot' and past prime.

Who the hell did he beat besides them? He fought and beat the other guys in his division. Thats what fighters can do, fight against whos there. Its not like he ducked anybody.

 

You underrate Arguello quite a bit. Though I will agree he wasn't quite at his peak, he defintely was not shopworn, and it still required a very special fighter to beat him. that was Pryor. Again, Pryor was not bested at his weight, (Unlike your aforementioned examples). And Arguello was not washed up as you intimate. Name one other fighter at that weight that would have beaten Arguello that night? there isn't one. He fought valiantly and with greatness. This wasn't a Lewis pummelling a washed tyson. these were two GREAT fighters going toe to toe at or near the top of their game.

So in summary, since you are so fixated on a specific point you have missed the picture.

Pryor was

1. and Undefeated fighter in his weight class
2. He is generally regarded as the best fighter at his weight class of his era
3. He beat a very good version of Alexis Arguello in pretty much a champ vs champ bout.
4. He then beat him in a rematch.

Keith

 

Brown..again stop commenting on things you quite clearly havent seen.

Arguello has been through many hard fights in a long career...The Ganigan fight probably illustrates my point more then any because no way does the Alexis who beat Limon and Olivares struggle that much against a fighter the calibre of Andy.
He brutally stopped him in the end but he walked some serious hell to do it.

Yes Arguello was shopworn by then...Ive read some say he was a lot earlier then that..but for the sake of this argument lets just say by 82, the signs of decline were showing.
Doesnt mean he wasnt still an effective fighter but it does mean you have to put the fight into perspective.

Aaron's stay at the top was short...mostly because of his coke abuse..Yes there are several fighters he could have fought..Im not saying for a second he ducked them but when he consistently feasted on the Blackmoore's and Furlano's of the division instead, Im not just going to give him a free pass.
His resume is fairly weak when compared to his obvious ability and is seriously lacking depth. The kind of depth that Arguello's had.

He gets a lot of mileage out of the Arguello fights..and some people take it to far. I think keith has.

I think its absolutely madness to put Aaron on the same tier as Alexis just because of their two fights.

 

This is my specific point.

Arguello...Olivares, Limon, Chacon, Castillo, Escalera, Legra, Kobayashi, Hafey, Edwards, Ramirez, Watt, Mancini, Navarrete.

Pryor..Cervantes..Arguello x 2..and Johnson was a pretty good fighter.

Who do think had the better career?

And therefore how can you justify having Aaron on the same level.

Fighters that would have beaten Arguello that night?

Chavez
Sweet Pea
Duran
Lochee
Carlos Ortiz..and probably Loi (though I havent seen much of him)
Napoles
Benitez

In their primes of course. Those I wouldnt hesitate to pick..Others maybe could have done it but Id have to have more of a think about it.

Edit...Or do you mean fighters who were in the division at the time?
It was fairly weakish after a long reign from Cervantes..I think Mamby was the other champ..which really indicates where the division was overall at that time.

 

how can i comment on what i havent seen. Alexis Arguello looked brilliant in his fights from 1980-82, aaron pryor was just a step up in class and he lost. All of those fights are on youtube and i have seen them many times, he even came back and stopped billy costello, so that argeullo was not shot.