Ring Magazine ''Aaron Pryor Is Greater Than Thomas Hearns''

[The_Bringer]

Originally Posted by prinzemanspopa

Ring Magazine make this claim on their '80 Best Fighters of the Last 80 Years' list that they made back in 2002.They rated Pryor at number 35,meanwhile placing Thomas Hearns all the way back to number 67.


http://boxrec.com/media/index.php/Th..._Last_80_Years

That is just absurd.

[Forza]

What can you expect from a mag owned by ODLH? Pure trash. And pryor was an amazing boxer but not as great as hearns.

[blaze778]

Who the fuck works for Ring Magazine?

Prior was a great fighter. Very exciting and always came to fight. But I consider him to be a pretty big underachiever.

Hearns on the other hand fought the likes of Hagler, Leonard, Duran, Barkley, Benitez. Won 5 division world titles.

You could debate what Hawk could have done, who he should have fought, but Hearns retired leaving little questions about his career and resume.

[BennyST]

That's just ****ing stupid. No one, except the retard that obviously wrote this article, could place Pryor above Hearns without just taking the piss.

Hearns is a legitimate ATG of the highest caliber. Pryor was very good, but lacked in terms of everything compared to Tommy.

How they can put Hearns at 67 and Pryor at 35 is beyond comprehension. Pryor at 67 and Hearns at 35 is a bit better, but even that's probably too low for Tommy. Pryor does not belong in the top 50 at all. Hearns belongs in the top thirty easily.

[XionComrade]

I guess to be fair, they said BEST fighters of the last what the hell ever...but that Makes it even more insane, because BEST means who could whoop who p4p...And Hearns would dominate and KO Pryor very early...They also have mostly old school fighters near the top, now don't get me wrong, I do think that SOME of them really had it going, especially Joe Louis, and could dominate ANY division. But the whole Take a punch to give one just isn't smart boxing, and most of the older fighters had no style whatsoever, no defense, and no punch...So that list is total ****...Foreman and Liston near the bottom? Ridiculous

[RubenSonny]

Originally Posted by XionComrade

I guess to be fair, they said BEST fighters of the last what the hell ever...but that Makes it even more insane, because BEST means who could whoop who p4p...And Hearns would dominate and KO Pryor very early...They also have mostly old school fighters near the top, now don't get me wrong, I do think that SOME of them really had it going, especially Joe Louis, and could dominate ANY division. But the whole Take a punch to give one just isn't smart boxing, and most of the older fighters had no style whatsoever, no defense, and no punch...So that list is total ****...Foreman and Liston near the bottom? Ridiculous

What fighters were these?

[XionComrade]

Originally Posted by rubensonnny

What fighters were these?

Just the basic fighters, brawling was the big thing in older fights. IE Jack Dempsey...

[RubenSonny]

Originally Posted by XionComrade

Just the basic fighters, brawling was the big thing in older fights. IE Jack Dempsey...

And so what if he brawled? fighters still brawl today, atleast fighting on the inside was used regularly back then.

[XionComrade]

Originally Posted by rubensonnny

And so what if he brawled? fighters still brawl today, atleast fighting on the inside was used regularly back then.

Lol at least balls of steel and courage were a big thing then, not anymore :/ Not to say we don't still have give all fighters, but it is not the big thing anymore

[JAB5239]

Originally Posted by XionComrade

Just the basic fighters, brawling was the big thing in older fights. IE Jack Dempsey...

Dempsey was much more than just a brawler, though admittedly that is what he's best known as.