Aaron Pryor: Where does he rank?

I'm not saying it was the best Cervantes possible. I get that. But he was still better than EVERYONE in the division, and hadn't lost in 5 years, since losing to a very good fighter in Benitez.

It's easy to look back now and call him washed when they fought, but in that time, no one considered Cervantes out of it. So I am trying to put the fight and it's value in the context of when it was fought, not with a 30 spread looking back.

ANd Cervantes had a pretty credible win in his first fight back after that loss, though I forgot against who.


Keith

 

He won that split desicion in South Korea. From my recollection, most people though Cervantes won fairly comfortably and Kim got some home town love in some rounds.

Keith

 

Well lets move from that..I dont think we can really get anywhere because there is no measurable way to determine when a guy is in and out of his prime, it usually comes down to opinion.

But even then lets say Cervantes was actually in his peak.....does that still warrant Pryor being ranked among the best 30 fighters the sport has ever seen?
Because Im sure a lot of people wouldnt have Antonio in their top 50, 60, 70 or even 80 fighters of alltime.

Where would you have a fighter like Wilfred Benitez then?

 

I have Benitiez a little lower. His reign was a few years shorter, and I believe less dominant. He should have lost to Bruce Curry in 77, and was thoroughly erratic after he got Ko'd by Leonard.

I went and got my folder that i have all of this written down. Pryor is 40th right behnind Thomas Hearns and Benitez is 72nd.

Keith

 

Well that is a fair bit lower mate.

Compare their two best wins and it seems quite silly to rank him so much lower...Benitez beat a prime Cervantes and also beat Duran...Pryor beat Cervantes at the end of his reign and also beat Arguello.

They more or less had similar reigns of longevity at the top if anything Wilfred's was longer.

Wilfred won his first title at 17 and by 23 was more or less on the slide.

In that time he was only bested by Leonard and Hearns (and yes he did struggle with Curry, whom by the way Pryor did fight when both held belts.)

But he beat Duran, Cervantes and Palomino in that time also.

Pryor was champ for only 3 years in his first reign, had a hiatus then came back for two title fights...he didnt clean out the division, he beat most of the best contenders but there were still fighters around that he didnt face. So I wouldnt necessarily say he was as dominant as you say...his in the ring dominance was top notch but in terms of his dominance over his division, I think you are overplaying it to be honest.

For top shelf wins Wilfred has him, for longevity neither guy excelled but its not as though Pryor was any better in this regard...Wilfred was less dominate mainly because on the regular he was fighting better fighters.

I dont think Wilfred is that out of place where you have him....but to have Pryor among the 30 greatest fighters of alltime or even 50 when its pretty clear his achievements are no better than Wilfred is not being very consistent or objective IMO.

 

See, I disagree with the top shelf wins. Palamino, was Ok, but not in my top 150, so I consider him an era fighter, decent win but not great, and doesn't hold up to Arguello. The Duran win, while also nice obvisouly wasn't a good Duran, he was beaten by Leonard two fights prior and then lost his very next fight. I would put that win behind Pryors three top wins. (Cervantes and AA x 3)

As I only rank Benitez as the best fighter in any division for two years, while Pryor was 5.

But a huge factor for me, was theat Pryor was unbeaten in his prime while being the best fighter in his division. Benitez was not. Curry should have got the nod over him, and when Benitez stepped up to fight a true all time great, when the going got really tough, he got ko'd. When Pryor got that chance, he stepped up his game and scored the ko.


And in the grand scheme of things, the difference between 40 and 72 is not large. In fact it's tiny. How many fighters have been champions?? Let's say 1000, just for statiistical sake. 30 spots in 1000 in 3%. Do I feel comfortable saying that Pryor is 3% better than Benitez? Absolutely.


Keith

 

You wont see me argue with that. But I wasnt comparing it to the Arguello win.

What scalp on Pryor's record outside of Cervantes and Arguello is even close to that?
Benitez has him for depth aswell is what I was sort of getting at there.

He also had his career defining win only 3 fights before that.

Im a huge Duran fan..but Im not giving him a pass like that. He was a good Duran, better than the Duran from the 2nd Leonard fight and better than he was against Laing. Maybe not at his very best but not even I would downplay a win like that, that was an excellent display from Wilfred over one of the best fighters of alltime.

You seem to be insinuating that Duran was a spent force or something...he would come back and go on to add to his legacy, Arguello would not.

If you are going to question Duran's ability at that stage then you should be doing the same with Arguello and Cervantes..where is the consistency there keith?

Thats madness...but whatever.

Would Pryor have been the best fighter in a division he shared with Tommy Hearns or Ray Leonard?

Absolutely not.

Whats your feeling on the Hinton bout then?

At least Wilfred has the cajones to jump back in with Curry and prove he was the better fighter.

He got stopped...there is a difference and it was sort of bull**** anyway. He proved himself against perhaps the greatest H2H fighter that weight has seen and didnt cheat to do it.

Wilfred fought Duran and beat him convincingly..so that destroys that argument.

What?

In a top 100 it is...and you know that. The difference between 200 and 1000 is probably pretty insignificant but when you are talking the very best 100 fighters in history a 30 spot gap is pretty large.
And you said he is closer to top 30, not 40 old pal so thats even more of discrepancy.

Even by your criteria there is 5-10 spots between them at most.

IMO Benitez is clearly greater...He was just as good a fighter but far more accomplished.

3% better.. Sorry that just looks funny.

To put it simply you completely overrate Pryor...He just didnt achieve that much to have only 30 or even 40 fighters ahead of him alltime.
If you were consistent and objective in your rankings you would have Benitez and Pryor a lot closer. Aaron moving down to where you have Wilfred makes more sense then Wilfred moving up to where you have Pryor.

We will leave it at that though..this will just go in circles :good

 

Arguello is in many peoples top30 lists and the win is clearly epic

People detract from this win by saying:

'140lbs wasn't Arguellos best weight' - Pryor was a lightweight himself who went to 140lbs to get his title shot. Arguello always looked the bigger man to me and the frame to carry 140lbs very well, which he did, not an ounce of fat on his body and much stronger for the extra weight. This isnt a case of Pryor winning because of a strength/size advantage

'Pryor cheated, blk bottle blabla' - completely unproven in the age of substandard PEDs and there is the rematch without Lewis, where he still dominated

The Arguello and Pryor situation is 1 reason I don't do lists. Pryor proved himself the better man but clearly doesnt have the resume depth and rating him above Arguello leads to a forum crucification. I still think there's a case for it as I think theres an argument to rate Marciano above Archie Moore

Most people have Barney Ross in their top10 P4P lists but I'm pretty sure Pryor would completely maul Ross in the same way Armstrong did

Pryor beat the best lightweight and 140lber in Arguello. He beat the reigning no1 140lber in Cervantes. HE went undefeated and tried to make a fight with Ray Leonard. HE certainly doesnt have a deep resume or longevity he proved himself against the very best

What exactly could Pryor do within that period to improve his legacy?

 

Take the fights that were offered to him but he turned down.

Oh...and Flojo wasnt a proven cheat either.

 

:deal although he has his bright moment at times.

 

No you're not :good

 

Which fights did he turn down?

Bad comparison. FloJo has far more evidence against her. She stopped competing directly as a result of more stringent testing. Drastic improvements in performance, drastic changes to her physique, deepening of her voice, heart failure at a very young age indicated damage from drugs

Pryor's evidence - some random comment from Lewis about a mixed bottle and the fact he came on strong when Arguello was hurt. **** going after a man when hes got him hurt, he must be on something

I like to think FloJos innocent though, I loved that woman :|

 

He's certainly not in my top fifty. I can't remember if I have him in my top 100 (My slaved over list might be irretrievable now thanks to a computer crash) but I don't think so. I had a giant list, that had 250 because I'm dedicated and insane but I thought it would be fun. He was at least in the 101-150, I'm pretty sure. Mostly on H2H and only losing when he shouldn't have been fighting. He was an impressive guy but the Panama secret recipes damage him on a legacy level. Although I think he had a tenacity and durability that any enhancements didn't change that was impressive.

 

Duran...Mamby for unification.

Im pretty sure Leonard in around 81...Dont quote me on that yet, Ill check that one up. ThreadStealer would know.

Ok how about Marion Jones never turned up a positive result?

The evidence is the fact that Panama Lewis is a cheating piece of ****. And Resto is quoted saying Lewis used to crush up pills for opening up airways and mix them up in bottles.
Supposedly Steward has said something to the effect that Pryor confided in him about how he knew Lewis was giving him performance enhancing stuff or something like that.
Lewis is the all the evidence I need though. ****en dog piece of **** he is.

I dont hold that against Pryor when rating him anyway...his resume speaks for itself in that regard.