I’m leaning towards McCallum but know Pryor is highly thought of in some circles. Would like to hear what others say.
McCallum by a sizable margin. Both made significant marks in junior divisions and there isn't much difference between McCallum's run at 154 and Pryor's at 140, but McCallum moved up and fought and beat (or arguably beat) a wider collection of high-quality names. He also had greater longevity and was less vulnerable.
As an interesting aside Ring mag had Pryor #35 and McCallum #79 in their best 80 of the last 80. I'd go with McCallum's longevity personally. The strength of Pryor's resume is that no-one was able to come close to beating him before he was totally drug ****ed. Admittedly the cupboard was a little bare at times. So if you strongly regard not getting beat in ones prime Pryor would perhaps run him close.
Looking at Pryor he's got Cervantes, Arguello x 2, about four top 5 type contenders and another top 10 contender. Cervantes was of course old and beaten by Benitez more than four years earlier. Arguello was up three divisions from his first title but still very formidable. How high does one personally rate the Arguello wins as a lot rests there? It was a weak era but he did win consistently impressively too.
