Where do you have Hearns? Im intrested to see your list, I have him 10th but its hard to seperate some of them.
It's true. Pryor defended against some good fighters, but nothing particularly noteworthy outside of the Johnson fight. He didn't get anywhere near enough work done to be considered in the top 50, and I'm going to say it, I think Marco Antonio Barrera and Erik Morales should both be ranked higher. Accomplished more in more weight categories, have deeper resumes, and enjoyed a longer stay at the top of the sport.
Pryor would beat the **** out of them. seriously though, i'm not a huge pryor fan myself.Chang was the better swarmer for that era overall imo.
Chang was a better fighter than Pryor, Tyson was too, but I like Pryor's resume better than either man's. That may just be ignorance on my part because I don't know everything about all of the men on Chang's ledger, but that's my feeling on it at this point. I agree that Arguello was past-prime and above his best weight, but I still view that as a helluva win and a helluva performance.
Well seeing as he didn't make my 30 at all, I'd have to say yes. I should have put Meldrick in my Honourable Mentions though, forgot about him (I knew there'd be one! :fire). At his best, Taylor was a sensational talent.
This content is protected I just think Mike Tyson's first reign as Heavyweight champion was more dominant and filled with better quality fighters than Aron Pryor was fighting. Likewise, outside of the 5-7 years Pryor had as champion, that was it. There was no second career for him whereas Tyson came back and notched up some good victories against the likes of Donovan Ruddock, Alex Stewart and Frank Bruno...regaining the title in the process. Mike Tyson above Pryor for me, and Chang's reign at Light Flyweight was filled with better quality too...Zapata, Torres, Chitalada...all guys that would hold titles at 108lbs today. This content is protected
I disagree on Tyson. For a start, I view his 'second coming' as basically worthless. That doesn't enhance his greatness one iota IMO. Routine win over handpicked patsys, had his ass handed to him by a past-prime Holyfield, and then treaded water until Lewis humiliated him. His first reign was dominant, but his comp was no better than decent. I like Pinklon Thomas, I rate that win, and Ruddock and Spinks were good wins, but there is not even a single win over a great heavyweight, or even a guy with great ability at heavyweight. Personally, I think the Arguello who Pryor beat did have great ability at light-welter, I believe Alexis would have crushed the vast majority of the best light-welters of the past 30 or so years that night. Chuck in a win over Cervantes who was on a good tear at the time, and I am steadfast in my position on Pryor vs Tyson. It's one of those ones where I wouldn't argue with anyone who had it the other way round though, I can most definitely see the case for having Tyson higher, he was more dominant and probably was more effective overall, there's not much between them at all as I see it. I don't see much between Pryor and Chang at all either to be honest, again I don't have an extremely strong conviction either way. Chitalada was a novice when Chang beat him, that's a deceptive win. The win over Zapata was great, but is it better than the win over Arguello? I'd say definitely not. Chang had better ability though, so I can see the case for him.