This is my point exactly. Pryor is rated off beating a past prime great who didn’t do **** at 140. And he needed PEDs to do it. Pryor has almost nothing else to his name (don’t name that other singular win that isn’t really that good).
I take you mean a past prime Cervantes. That's better than anything Postol has done, in fact why even bring him up? We both know Pryor disposes of him like a **** bag. You don't need to have a résumé to be rated high H2H. It helps as an argument but it isn't required. Lomachenkos résumé is poor at SFW but he's high H2H. Pryor has a poor résumé in a very weak division but would still beat most fighters from there, with the exceptions being Whitaker and Napoles
Hey Choklab, you right with Foreman. Not too sure I agree with Tubbs and Tucker 2 talented guys who under achieved for a multitude of reasons.
Lomachenko actually has a really solid win over Russel, although it was at 126. Pryor is overrated. He might beat Postol, but I think it would be a very difficult fight. I think Vernon Forrest would school him. I also think Crawford would have his way.
I have to agree with you. I never understood where this massive Pryor hype came from. Although I think he beats Postol (would still get dropped though, poor balance). Forrest would definitely beat him. Chang, who took his nickname, was much, much better. A better boxer and swarmer.
Throw Lewis on the list. Look how Bowe did against undefeated best ever versions of Holyfield and look how Lewis did against faded broken down Holyfields. There's good reason why big Lemmie ducked Bowe in 1992
Who was it who threw there belt away? Who? Look at how Bowe did against Golota and look at how Lewis did... Ye I can do that as well. And you say it like Lewis lost to Holyfield, he clearly won both fights and took less damage than Bowe
Golota was a broken man after facing a past prime Bowe. Lewis fought a Golota who suffered mental breakdown in he dressing room.
