I would favor Foster for both as well, but I think it could be argued that Pryor's best wins (Arguello and Cervantes) outweigh Foster's best (Tiger and Rondon), and that perhaps Pryor's durability and resilience were more proven (albeit as a result of him being more hard-pressed by some opponents).
Well, both won titles against ageing greats by 4th round KOs. Foster dominated his division but against not particularly amazing competition. Pryor did the same and arguably had the best scalp of either man during their respective title reigns. Pryor never moved up and got beaten up by bigger fighters the way Foster did. I don't know if that really helps Foster or Pryor here. Had Foster just decided to stay put then maybe his overall rep would be better?
I think the biggest issue for Foster's legacy is that he lacks a singularly defining win (or two) like Pryor had. Outside of that, Foster is at least the equal, if not superior of Pryor in just about every respect that you could compare them IMO.
Yeah, I actually think Foster is better and greater than Pryor but I was just trying to make a case for Pryor based on X's original post.
