Frazier is definitely greater. I'd potentially hear an argument for Pryor being better. He was quicker, more skilled, could jab, and obviously had a way better right hand. I'd say he had a better chin pound-for-pound, too. At least, a more proven one. Frazier never sustainably took punishment from a puncher in Arguello's league. However, I'd say Joe was also better, simply based off having a single, far better weapon than Pryor did, and he has far more proven intangibles. He did beat the best heavyweight of all time, after all.
Frazier for obvious reasons. Pryor never beat someone as great as Ali. Frazier was also the more skilled fighter, although Pryor may have had a bit more speed, power, and a more two fisted attack.
Pryor more power????? Joe had arguably the single most potent weapon in the sport's history. Frazier was a much bigger puncher.
Good point. Although I still think Pryor showed explosive power in his weight class, he was a devastating puncher. Although he didn't have Frazier's potent left hook. I don't disagree with the notion that Frazier had more power in his respective weight class.
Hardest, no. Most effective, easily. Tua definitely had a HARDER left hook than Frazier - but damn sure not a BETTER one.
I agree - at heavyweight - but I don't understand why you brought it up. Remarking how good Frazier's left hook was doesn't really argue whether or not he was a harder hitter. It's like arguing Canto hit harder than Leonard because he had a better jab.
Frazier was a devastating puncher - not a Tyson, Lewis, Foreman level puncher - but a big puncher nonetheless. I brought it up because of the statement of Pryor being a bigger hitter - he wasnt.
Frazier was no devastating puncher IMO. Just a good one. A good puncher who's throwing 70 punches a round will knock people out. He really produced any good one punch KOs over a tough heavyweight (I don't count Jimmy Ellis as a tough heavyweight), and his KOs are mostly from wearing guys down and/or being way better than them. They're pretty much on the same level IMO. Frazier might seem like a bigger puncher because he's a heavyweight, but Pryor was far more explosive and snappy. In the end, I probably would still agree Frazier is a bigger puncher, but it isn't by leaps and bounds and I don't think referencing his hook as evidence alone as one of the 'best', not hardest, weapons in boxing history, is a particularly good argument. Which is all I was getting at.
Frazier. His run was champ was excellent, and as good of a win as Pryor over Arguello was, it’s not up there with the FOTC, which is about as great of a win as any ever. Pryor’s career was hurt by drug addiction, but his style wasn’t one generally meant for longevity, so it’s possible he would have aged quickly anyway. He was a whirlwind and used so much energy.
Pryor has become overrated in some circles. He was an excellent fighter but I wouldn’t pick him over any all time great.
