I mean, Tiger actually beat the lineal light heavyweight champ in Torres. Arguello's only notable win at 140 was against Rooney. I'd rate Foster's blow out of Tiger higher.
I completely disagree. Arguello was a much better than Tiger at the respective points in their careers. Just by watching them on film.
Tiger was coming off wins over Giardello and Jose Torres and only a loss to Griffith when he fought Foster. Granted he was already 39 when he got slept by Foster. Can't argue either way though.
Aye, Foster in both regards imo. I'd agree that bombing out the old version of Tiger probably tops beating down the old Arguello in a competitive fight too. Sorry George ☹️
I think Foster ranks higher for both too, just to be clear. But I'm not seeing anything about Tiger around that time that convinces me he was a better fighter than Arguello was when he fought Pryor. Arguello was far more suited to 140 than Tiger was to 175; and while Tiger had done more at 175, he'd only beaten another former middleweight. One who he was absolutely made to beat, at that. Then the fight he put up against Foster was pitiful, followed by an extremely tough war against a veritable journeyman in his next fight. Tie in that he only carried on fighting after 1967 to disassociate himself with Nigeria and was likely already suffering with cancer before his actual diagnosis. In contrast, Arguello would beat two champions after his fight with Pryor, and was clearly much fresher. And a better fighter to begin with; without the massive size disadvantage. The manner in which Foster won was obviously, much more impressive, but I don't think the opponent isn't even in the same realm. In my mind, it's an almost prime Arguello against a very far past it Tiger.
Tiger looked fine against Benvenuti as I recall and was good for that win, been over a decade since I watched it though tbf. Benvenuti supposedly didn't train iirc as was his tendency by that point but was still an excellent fighter.
