Thoughts? Feelings sure have changed on this one. Like 15 years ago I would have gone Pryor, but that goes to show you perspective changes after a guy retires for awhile. I think it's Mike clearly on both - a better fighter and a greater fighter. But I wanna see if there's still many who side with The Hawk.
I'd say Tyson is unequivocally better. I suppose you could say Pryor may be greater depending on how you rate him at 140, and how you rate the bastard divisions in general. I'd say Tyson being a top ten heavyweight has more weight than Pryor being a top ten junior welterweight.
I only bring this up because I believe we did have a similar question to this in the VERY early Fightbeat days. The forum sentiment at the time was Pryor. But at the time, Mike was losing to guys like Danny Williams, and Pryor was a God on boxing forums, so it stands to reason why no one picked Mike. No lie, Aaron Pryor was easily the most untouchable fighter on Forums in the early 00s, you should have seen it. The general thinking then was that he beats Duran and might even beat Leonard. We've all definitely come down to Earth about him since then.
Nah, he used to be held in higher regard. In 2005, if you had suggested that Floyd beats Pryor, you'd be laughed at. But at that time, Floyd wasn't considered the ATG we know he is today.
Pains me to say that I think Tyson was at least as good and greater too. Although Pryor's win over Arguello is better than Tyson's over Spinks (given the circumstances, I mean, rather than purely on paper).
Mayweather-Pryor is a pick-em to me. Pryor’s whirlwind activity could give Floyd all kinds of problems. Floyd was selective with his punches and output and could get outworked, he even got outworked and lost 3-4 rounds against old Fishnets Kitchen Master. But Pryor was also pretty open as well and Floyd would take advantage of that. Floyd would also probably clinch and the right times to lower Pryor’s workrate and disrupt his rhythm. People really seemed to buy into the whole “Leonard and the big names were scared of Pryor” nonsense. Nowadays, there’s more stuff online to either watch footage or read articles to get a more accurate representation, of both the timing and situations and his overall ability.
Agreed. I still feel Pryor beats Chavez though. That's the best guy I'd pick him over. I realize that's a hotly debatable matchup, and I have no issue w/anyone who picks Chavez, but I see Aaron's speed, activity, and angles being very problematic for JCC. However, Pryor beat Duran and Leonard? LOL. Please. They would both knock him out.
I think how you rate Pryor has to come down to how you rate Arguello at 140. After watching Arguello vs Costello, Noel and Rooney (and I'm assuming he looked equally good in the Fernandez rematch, haven't seen that one though), then rewatching Arguello vs Pryor it's clear that Arguello was a phenomenal fighter and puncher even at 140. Because of this, I'm actually quite confident in picking Pryor over PBF. Not because I think Pryor is better or out, it's just that there's no way on this earth Floyd has what it takes to lower that output, deal with Pryor's strength, and the way he handled Castillo's workrate was God awful. I just can't see him fighting at range like that and winning, and he sure as hell isn't gonna be able to out-fight him. Pernell could potentially be in similar situation, but Whitaker dealt with pressure much better than Mayweather. Pryor's style is awful for out-boxers, and nobody is out-working him. So that makes brawling him really difficult. Not impossible, but difficult. Guys like Loi have no chance in winning a war with Pryor, and Loi is one rugged muthafucker. So for me, there's only two men who make short work of Aaron Pryor. Ike Williams and Manny Pacquiao. Just too much power, speed and accuracy in their combinations, plus the style to annihilate ultra-aggressive fighters. I think Chavez, Duran and Napoles beat him but they'd all be competitive. I think Pryor gets taken out before the halfway mark by Williams and Pac, in fights he's being beaten up in.
Pryor would be less competitive with Duran than people think. Really, what in the world does Pryor bring to the table that Duran can't quickly adjust to? He's a guy with a wide open defense against arguably the best counterpuncher who ever lived. On top of that, Duran was physically stronger, which is important because Aaron depended a lot on outmuscling guys. Duran, in all honesty, would give Pryor a Davey Moore like beating, I truly believe that. Pryor would be far more competitive with Pac, and yes, I still feel he beats Pac. So I misspoke, Pacquiao would be the best guy I pick Pryor over. Ike Williams, yeah I agree Pryor gets beaten up badly there.
I like Pryor but i don't see how this is close at all. Tyson was the youngest heavyweight champion in history and then went on to become undisputed world champ and the baddest man on the planet. The biggest star in boxing history behind only Ali and easily a top ten heavyweight of all time which needless to say is a wee bit deeper than 140. What exactly is the argument for The Hawk over Iron Mike?
Its two things. For one, like Erratic said, in the pre-YouTube era we were all pretty caught up in the Pryor legend because of the Arguello fights, and because the "false" narrative that Leonard feared him. The other thing, Mike, like ALLL greats, didn't get his just appreciation until he retired. When Tyson and Lewis left the sport, we all gained a better appreciation for them, ESPECIALLY with these fucking stiffs Wilder and AJ that we have today. Those two factors are why people used to side with Pryor over Tyson.
I haven't been on message boards quite as long as you but i don't recall a time when Tyson wasn't appreciated. It didn't take his retirement for him to be missed or to recognize his place among boxing greats like so many others. If people sided with Pryor that must have been a very narrow window of time and a lack of perspective with or without youtube.
Tyson definitely had more detractors in the early 00s than he does now. Without question. There were a plethora of posters back then who questioned if he should even be considered a great. In 2021, you dont hear that kind of talk anymore, even among guys who aren't fond of him.
Every fighter has detractors. If internet message boards were around when Ray Robinson was in his prime there would have been people calling him overrated. Not just trolls and racists but people who honestly felt that way. I wouldn't exactly be shocked to see some people say Bob Fitzsimmons was better/greater.
I actually find it crazy how there was nearly NO detractors of Robinson. Barely anybody in public was saying he wouldn't last with so 'n so from the past. I mean, I can see why he wouldn't, but c'mon it's boxing fans. There's normally ALWAYS guys who say that their eras were better. And there were at the time too, people were saying Charles would've been destroyed by Fitzsimmons or schooled by Carpentier. Funnily enough, I think I'd pick Charles over every HW champion before Louis, let alone the LHWs. Although I'd give the LHWs a better chance of beating Charles than I'd give the likes of Baer or Jeffries.
In terms of quality of opposition, I think they're fairly comparable - they each beat one aging ATG (Holmes and Cervantes) and one ATG who peaked at a lower weight class (Spinks and Arguello). From there, I think the argument for picking Pryor would be favoring his versatility and resilience over Tyson's greater dominance and explosiveness.
Tyson fought the better opposition, and I dont think its comparable at all. Guys like Tony Tucker, Biggs, Thomas, Smith, Bruno, Ruddock, Tubbs blow away guys like Dujuan Johnson, Miguel Montillo, Akio Kameda, Gaetan Hart, ect. Like Gaetan Hart, are you kidding me? That's a journeyman level of fighter that Tyson was moving up the ranks against, not defending his title against. But that was the level of no-hoper Aaron was defending the junior welterweight title against. Pryor's resume is actually putrid if you take away washed up Cervantes and moving up Arguello. Mike's resume is still respectable even if you remove Holmes and Spinks. And, Tyson unified the titles. And, Mike was more dominant over better comp than Pryor was over lesser comp. There isn't much of anything comparable about it. It would take a big stretch to favor Pryor resume wise. So big a stretch that I don't see how it can be argued. Aaron Pryor beat up a bunch of fringe no-hopers outside of those two names.
It also looks more damning for Pryor when you factor in that Holmes found success years AFTER getting blown away by Tyson, which made the win age well. Kid Pambele was effectively finished after Pryor beat him - only fought a handful of times more, and dropped a decision to some nobody. So, yeaaaahhhh... you'd have to really dig and dig to come up with an argument for The Hawk.
