Aaron Pryor

[donnydarkoIRL]

Have to disagree with your last comment, i can't see how anyone don't rate Larry Holmes above Mike Tyson. He dominated the division for years and made 20 title defenses, aswell as having a good career past 40+.

Mike Tyson dominated only briefly and after he was beaten, he hardly done anything and was embarrassed numerous times. Prime Larry Holmes would beat Mike Tyson no doubt in my mind.

In honesty Ice I believe that larry was greater than Tyson.
I for one feel that his jab was the perfect offset to tysons aggression and during his prime he would have handled Tyson easier than many other greats.

However, few will acknowledge Larry above Tyson.
This is as much down to the hype surrounding the man and the aura of his legacy.
IMO not disimilar form the case of SRR

Although I personally rate Tyson on a similar level to Holmes, a prime Holmes would've been a completely different proposition for Tyson & I'm not sure he could've got in under that jab in the way he was able to once Holmes was shot. I also notice that the majority of people with good boxing knowledge tend to rate Holmes above Tyson. It's not how I feel, but that doesn't mean I'm right.

On your notes on the eras, fighters were FAR hungrier in those days & you would get a lot more even fights. SRR was being matched with guys with positive solid records from early in his career. Yes skill was not on the same level, however the argument that they were more poorly conditioned always strikes me as odd as those guys would fight longer fights often in poor conditions, meaning that their conditioning had to be pretty top-class. Whilst skill levels & instruction has been improved, the fact is the methods used to condition a fighter have not significantly changed in the past 60 odd years. Yes, things were crooked back then, but can you honestly say that under influence of the likes of Arum & King that boxing has become honest.

In terms of competition, as well as those mentioned, Fritzie Zivic, Bobo Olson, Paul Pender & Rocky Graziano are also worthy of mention, certainly the equivalent of Kalule, Lalonde or Hutchings. I would expect SRR to deal with the competition of both men handily with the exception of Hagler & maybe Duran, although I think he still beats both of them.

I can understand not putting faith in what you haven't seen, but from what I HAVE seen, he stands head & shoulders above, & when those such as Leonard, Louis & Ali all rate him as the greatest I think I'll trust in what they say. We all know Ali wouldn't say that if he didn't mean it.

Agred on Holmes, would've loved to have seen it.
It would have been excellent to see young Mike vs. Prime Larry as for me it would have given the young Mike that opportunity to truely prove himself.
As we know Mikes opposition at his peak was less that stellar.

Its an age old debate; old vs. new methods.
However, although fighters were extremely hungry back then, conditioning was simply not on the same level.
In other sports we see sprinters shattering records, jumpers going higher and longer, seconds peeled off old distance runs.
Modern athletes avail of a much greater knowledge on how to train the body and as a result competition is heightened.
Boxing has really only revolutionised in the past 20 years, but even in the amateurs, fitness is far more scientific nowthan in the days of Armstrong, pep and SRR.

That competition was commendable, certainly huge merit to his record.

We actually seriously differ here....I see Hagler take SRR out. Hagler in his prime...simply a force!
Duran may have been undersized for SRR, I'm not sure.

Ali's word is actually a viable arguement. He had a great respect for the man, which was representative of the huge respect and adoration that was held for SRR within the boxing fraternity.
Unfortunately my doubt lingers.

For me.....GOAT would be Pep