i CAN SEE A PRIME CURRY KNOCKING MCGIRT OUT AT ANY TIME,BUT 6 XOUT OF 10 MCGIRT WOULD LAST THE DISTANCE BUT CURRY WINS THIS 115-112 OR 9-5-1 OVER 15
taylor stopped him. curry was accustomed to 15 rounds. curry by a stoppage inside 15 or a decision after 12. if not a stoppage inside 12. honeyghan used his head smart against curry + curry was drained.
Curry would probably stop Buddy late.In his prime, he was just a better fighter, and primed for greatness, of course we know the story.
Curry was quality. Buddy was not that great. He was marketed well. When he lost he always had the excuse that the reason was his left rotator cuff. Curry would wear him out and stop him in mid rounds.
Curry bested Starling 2X during his prime and Starling was a slicker boxer than McGirt... I see 1984 / 1985 Curry scoring a TKO over 1987 to 1989 McGirt... NOTE: McGirt was a better puncher than Starling... Not a better boxer... MR.BILL
Would be a great fight. Curry never really pushed a fight at a pace like a Frankie ****** or Meldrick Taylor did and the more measured approach would suit Buddy's suspect stamina. McGirt would give him some good angles but I think Curry's being a little bigger and rangier would be the difference in the end. If they were both naturally the same size it would be a pick em fight for mine...
No way Starling was slicker than McGirt, and Buddy was a much better fighter at 147 than at 140. The McGirt that beat Simon Brown was a very good fighter. Off the top of my head- and I'm sure somebody will dispute this- but I don't know of any fighters as good as Brown that Curry beat. McGirt would beat Curry more often than not. He has a lot of skills and, above all, he was really smart in the ring. I thought he won the first Whitaker fight, and, even if you don't agree,he was smart enough to walk the "great" Whitaker into a whole bunch of right hands when everybody in the world knew he could only throw right hands.
Starling was a better fighter than McGirt was p4p or h2h. That is my opinion and at 147 much better and stronger. McGirt had 2 decent wins, Frankie ****** and Simon Brown, and Brown I recall had some sort of virus, but no excuses, McGirt won, but Brown was not the level of fighter as Marlon Starling, who was strong, was rarely hit clean and experienced. Starling would have beaten McGirt similar to how he beat Honeyghan I think.
I disagree. McGirt beat many more quality fighters than did Curry. Starling was the highlight of Curry's career- by that I mean, he was the best that Curry beat- and I don't see Starling beating McGirt. Granted, he was hard to hit, but he was lazy in the ring. McGirt would present Curry with something different. He could punch pretty good, fight inside, fight outside. Curry was pretty good for the few fights that he had at his 'peak', but, all in all, he was a flash in the pan and didn't amount to much. McGirt proved his worth over 80 fights at a pretty high level.
Starling was a superior technician over McGirt... I'd bet on that.... The middle 80s where Starling was schooling Simon Brown and kayoing Mark Breland, as well as getting a solid 1989 TKO over Lloyd Honeyghan was a master boxer of the highest nature.... Plus, Starling going 12 rds with 160 lb. champ Michael Nunn tells of "Moochie's" greatness as a boxer... MR.BILL
Aha, you got me there. I'd forgotten that Starling beat brown. But I still don't think that starling was better than McGirt. He lasted against nunn because he fought a survival fight, while McGirt would've tried to win. My thought is that, at a particular day in Curry's short peak, he may very well have won. McGirt would have won more often.
