Were the four kings of the 1980s really scared of Aaron Pryor?

that's not false; that's truth

what's false is when you try to justify a lie with a complicated story

Just be honest like me and admit , your man backed down from him because he knew he couldnt take him

 

Curry was and always has been overrated.

People wanted a "new" Sugar Ray Leonard and heaped all sorts of praise on Curry when he was just another welterweight champ.

 

That's oversimplifying rather dramatically. Curry was more than that. McCrory was just another welter champ. Blocker was just another champ. Curry was a significant notch above them.

 

He was leagues better than anyone Pryor beat above 140, however you want to splice it.

And when speaking about overrated - who was the greatest 140-pounder Pryor beat? Seeing how Arguello did nothing of note in the division, it was probably a 35-year old Cervantes. And he needed a "magical bottle" to beat Arguello the first time as it was.

Is the black bottle a factor in these match-ups too btw? Not that it would matter, really.

 

the REAL question?

Aaron was shorter but Ray had problems with shorter men (Duran, Camacho, Howard, Rodriquez)

I don't think Ray could keep up with Pryor

It's not as tho he didnt have the opportunity to face him

so yea, Pryor would def have bested him

Jones? a cutter, not busy enough
Starling? a choker who wasnt busy enough in the ring. lost to Bum-phus, starched by a south american who name nobody remembers

actually, there is much truth to what you said.

He had talent and even rocked Norris once or twice (Until Terry's speed overwhelmed him)

but let's face it, the welters weren't exactly brimming with talent at the time

scan the field; sorry-ass Starling, so-so McCrory, Diaz while not bad, wasnt experienced enough. and then you had Jones who on a good nite, could only muster a draw with Milt.

so there really wasnt much out there until a Brit named Lloyd came along and made Curry pull a brexit from the ring

and then there was Brown and Trice, two very tough and hard working warriors

 

Not by much.

Usually, when there's a superstar in a division, the guy who follows him is ridiculed in the press for not living up to the previous champ.

With Curry, the opposite happened. He was christened the new Ray Leonard before he ever fought for a vacant welterweight title. And he fought an unknown Korean boxer for the vacant WBA belt and got floored on his way to winning a decision. That should've been a wake up call for everyone.

Let's be honest, Keith Thurman could've knocked out McCrory and Colin Jones. Curry was a good champ. But he wasn't the best pound-for-pound or whatever people thought at the time. He was overhyped by all the sportswriters then ... who were stunned when Leonard retired ... and that "hype" surrounding Curry lingers today, even though he NEVER CAME CLOSE to actually being a great fighter.

 

What a totally ridiculous comment.

Pryor was rated the best junior welterweight in the 20th Century by sportswriters and the second best junior welterweight EVER by Ring, I believe.

If Arguello had fought literally ANYONE ELSE in the 20th century for the junior welterweight title, he'd have accomplished more.

If every heavyweight had to beat a prime Ali for the heavyweight title, most would accomplish nothing. Same goes with having to face Pryor for the title at 140.

 

More oversimplification, I'm afraid. I don't think anyone here picks Curry to beat either Leonard or Robinson or any upper-tier guy, but anyone else is fair game. If you see otherwise that's fine, but there's obviously more than a little bias in your comments, and therefore they have to be taken with a healthy few grains of salt.

 

You compare Pryor to Ali and Curry is overrated? Vow.

Ali beat Liston, Frazier and Foreman and another 30 ranked HWs. He won 21 fights for the undisputed title. Pryor beat past prime versions of Cervantes and Arguello and won 9 WBA title fights and two IBF title fights.

 

Based on what? Who did Curry beat?

He barely edged Marlon Starling twice before Starling was fighting his best. Those are his big wins. Two close wins over a green Starling ... and neither win was decisive. Every other name Curry fought knocked him out.

One could argue STARLING ended up being a better welterweight than Curry did.

Curry didn't beat anyone Keith Thurman couldn't beat. But people still insist Curry was one of the best ever.

It's just never "washed" with me because Curry NEVER proved it in the ring against the best. EVER.

 

Ali was voted the best heavyweight - or some say the second best heavyweight - of the 20th Century. Pryor was voted the best junior welterweight of the 20th Century and the second best at the weight ever.

Of course it's an accurate comparison.

Am I supposed to compare Pryor to the tenth best in the division ever?

Ridiculing Arguello because he didn't become a champ at 140 is ridiculous. So what if he couldn't beat arguably the best ever at the weight. Nobody ever did.

Are you saying if Arguello had fought Billy Costello or Saoul Mamby or Leroy Haley or Sang Hyun Kim for a belt he wouldn't have won a title at the weight and made a bunch of defenses?

He lost to the best. Big deal. At least he went for it ... twice.

 

"your man backed down" ?
I'm hardly known as SRL's greatest fan ..... but then by your standard of dislike for him perhaps I might as well be his brother.

I don't know what happened with Pryor and SRL, and I don't care. Fight didn't happen and it doesn't seem like a great loss to me, tbh. Not a huge fan of either man's style.

I simply dispute your claim that when a man refuses a challenge it's always because he fears the man who challenged him. Look at all the fighters who called out Manny Pacquiao and Floyd Mayweather and Mike Tyson. You can't fight everyone who calls you out for a payday.

 

The division has only been around since 1959 to start with and its right between two more prestigious divisions. Of course it isn't comparable. It certainly lacks in great names compared to other divisions. That Pryor can be rated that high in the divisions history considering the short time he was in the division, that he never unified and only had 10 defenses is a testimony to its lack of depth.

Ali had double the amount of wins, an they were for the undisputed title, and probably three times the number of wins over ranked opponents.

Your comparison is ludicrous. Lopez is probably the best straw weight ever, still doesn't mean he's up there with Ali and Louis.

I'm saying that Arguello's most famous scalp had no important win at the weight and that Pryor cheated against him.

 

So what exacly is your beef here? I stated in my post that neither I nor hardly any oher poster would pick him to beat any truly ATG welterweight but you still seem troubled that he isn't knocked FURTHER down. To pick Starling over him is just silly, but let's put that off to the side for a moment. Where WOULD you rank him?

 

Where would I rank Donald Curry among the all-time welterweights?

His name never pops up when I'm thinking of them, let's put it that way.