Donald Curry

Donald Curry was a good fighter. But, during his rise and his welterweight run, he was "wildly" overrated.

I followed boxing back then. I remember the buzz well.

I think if people go back and read the magazines from that time (I still have a lot of mine), you'll find that right around 1980, there was a big overhaul of boxing writers. I don't know if it was because of the Ring Magazine scandal, or the fact that a lot more magazines were getting wider circulation - like the Big Book of Boxing - and young writers will work for next to nothing (and sometimes nothing).

But as was the case when boxing sites started popping up on the internet, you had a lot of very young guys writing about boxing for the various boxing mags. Steve Farhood was writing a lot of articles back then when he was like 22 or 23. Mike Marley was writing a lot - also in his 20s. And many of the articles then were like the internet boxing articles are now. A fighter would win look imprssive in one or two fights, and the young writers then (like they do now online) immediately began to write articles pondering whether this guy was one of "the all-time greats."

When Greg Page turned pro, and Ali was on his last legs, Page was dubbed the "Next Ali" by most of those young writers. Page was a top amateur, he boxed like Ali, he was from Louisville like Ali ... so he was the next Ali.

Maybe it was the boxing writers' inexperience in that they just "assumed" when one great fighter exits his exact replacement steps up. You see a lot of young internet writers doing that today. "Who's the next Mayweather?" "Who is going to replace Mayweather when he loses?" But boxing doesn't work like that.

And, in 1981, Ray Leonard and Thomas Hearns were arguably the two biggest stars in boxing. By 1982, Leonard was retired and Hearns had left the welters.

So the young writers at the time dubbed Donald Curry and Milton McCrory (like they had with Page), the next big stars. Curry was the new Leonard (Curry was the top amateur, he was handsome like Leonard, he was a boxer/puncher like Leonard) and McCrory was the new Hearns (he was a tall, skinny welter from the Kronk Gym handled by Manny Steward) ... it all fit.

I liken it to a year or so ago when Adrien Broner was supposed to be the "Next Mayweather." Cross-armed defense. Flashy. He even called Mayweather his "big brother."

But boxing doesn't work like that.

Page wasn't the next Ali, Curry wasn't the next Leonard and McCrory wasn't the next Hearns. (Just like Broner isn't the new Mayweather.)

Donald Curry got a lot more television hype and print hype because he followed Leonard and was supposed to be his heir apparent. In hindsight, Curry was probably on the same level as guys like Simon Brown, Marlon Starling, Lloyd Honeyghan, Maurice Blocker and Mark Breland who came after him at the end of the 80s ... and none of them are considered all-timers.

But, to this day, people remember the "hype" around Curry more than his actual "big wins" ... because he really didn't have many. And those "big" wins came against guys who weren't all that special either.

There were a lot of good welterweights in the 1980s. Curry was a very good fighter. But the "hype" surrounding him kind of got out of hand because people wanted a replacement for Leonard ... and Curry looked like he'd fit the bill.

If he came later in the decade, boxing writers at the time may have viewed him more realistically.

 

I make you right.

 

Isn't that the job of all boxing writers, of all ages? To try to convince people that a sow's ear is really a silk purse.

Personally I take little notice of most of them, particularly when they claim to have " inside knowledge. "

If you want inside knowledge go to a gym, you are more likely to find it there rather than reading some scribes sensationalism.

 

You can make an even stronger case that Ray Leonard and Thomas Hearns were HYPED into "legends" (prematurely) by young boxing writers, TV announcers and the media in general who were hooked on boxing due to the phenomenon that was Muhammad Ali.

 

On this point specifically, Curry put together a good string of title fight victories (more ww title wins than Leonard ?). He destroyed his rival McCrory, and he beat Starling, who was very good.
Colin Jones, Nino LaRocca, worthy contenders. etc.

What you say is correct, but I think the same could be said of Mike Tyson too, and to a far greater extent.

 

I wouldn't bother with him unforgiven, he's got some weird angry agenda against Curry, as was shown the last time all this was discussed and he totally went off the deep end.You're not going to get a measured, non-intellectually dishonest discussion here.

 

I agree Curry was a cut above those other champions mentioned. I was a huge Starling fan but Don was better at his peak. Curry held a version of the Welterweight title for almost 4 yrs. straight. That's a long time. He also won a couple of non-title 154 fights while welterweight champion. I encourage people to watch his pre-Honeygan championship fights on youtube. He was a complete fighter.

 

First of all, you write about Curry as if he was a "flash in the pan." Over a nearly four year period he won and defended his welterweight title many times. And the only close fight was the second Starling fight. These writers weren't hyping him. He had actually run out of worthy challengers by the end of 1985 and should have moved up after the McCrory blow out.

Also, I have to say Steve Farhood, even at 22 was an excellent writer. He did have a bias towards NY City fighters. I remember he loved Eddie Mustafa Muhammad. But, his writing was was very strong and he could paint a picture. His writing was way above the average stuff you find on internet boxing sites.

This is what he said about Matthew Saad Muhammad in 1979 (Farhood was 22 at the time). I repeat this from memory:

"Eddie Gregory has a better jab. Marvin Johnson wields more power. James Scott does more push ups. But Muhammad's heart is the size of a turnbuckle, and it anchors his title reign."

 

I don't know.

To me, the Curry and McCrory hype was different than someone like Tyson in that Curry and McCrory seemed to get "selected" to be the next big stars based on the fact that they kinda resembled or reminded people of the two guys the writers and fans at the time wanted to keep around.

They did the same with Page and, to some extent, with Broner a year or so ago. It's a different kind of "hype" where they just kind of pick a guy who "mirrors" or reminds them of a star and then heap praise on them that the other "actual" star earned.

Tyson didn't resemble an outgoing champ. Quite the opposite, he made his name knocking off the champs who came before him (Holmes, Spinks, Tubbs, Thomas, Berbick, Tucker, Smith, etc.) and becoming a unique personality. And he legitimately became the biggest star in the sport for many many years.

Curry, on the other hand, didn't beat the former champs like Leonard, Hearns, Benitez, Palomino, Cuevas, etc. Curry barely got past Starling twice and he got floored winning the vacant belt against a no-hoper. And McCrory barely edged Jones after drawing with him the first time.

They weren't lighting up anything. They were just "picked" to be the new stars because they had some talent and there was suddenly a void at welterweight when Leonard retired and Hearns moved up.

Don't get me wrong. Curry was a perfectly fine fighter. His win over McCrory was great. But a lot of welterweights had a "great" win or two in that division that decade. Brown knocked out Blocker. Starling knocked out Breland. Honeghan knocked out Curry. Breland knocked out Honeghan. Blocker beat Starling.

If you take a step back, Curry didn't really distinguish himself from that group in the ring. But a lot of writers were falling all over themselves to tag him as the best in the whole sport when he hadn't really done anything to deserve it.

They just "wanted" him to be.

When a truly big "star" - like Hall of Famer star - emerges in boxing, he doesn't tend to be exactly like the last truly big star to come before him.

Instead of waiting, though, there seems to be a habit with younger writers that they want to "find" the next big star by looking for someone who resembles or fights like the guy currently on top. But when they go that route - like they did with Curry, McCrory, Page, Broner, etc. - it never seems to pan out.

 

Simon Brown held a portion of the welterweight title for just as long. He scored a dramatic KO in a unification, too. And Simon Brown knocked out Terry Norris to win the junior middleweight title, too.

 

Curry beat the relevant fighters at the times.
Benitez, Palomino and Cuevas would not have been good opponents around 1983-'85.
Palomino was in retirement. Curry beat easily guys who were beating Cuevas at that time. Benitez was at 154 and damaged goods.

To me, Donald Curry was nothing like Sugar Ray Leonard, I fail to see the similarities, so I'd be surprised if the entire boxing media were pushing that line.

Donald Curry was a young fighter who beat the relevant fighters in his weight class for two of three years, unified the titles, then lost the title to an inspired underdog.
Therefore the Tyson comparison is valid, imo.

That's fair enough.
But Curry put together a good string of wins, unified the titles, and scored some devastating early KOs over some decent rivals.
I think he ranks way ahead of Mark Breland !
(and I liked Breland)

Well, he beat who he beat (Starling, Stafford, McCrory, LaRocca, Jones, that Korean guy ... etc.) and he lost to Honeyghan.


You're dwelling on the hype when all you have to do is make an accurate assessment of his record.

Well, since Curry fought NOTHING LIKE Ray Leonard, those writers should be ignored.

 

That's a pretty interesting comparison, seeing how Honeyghan also was somewhat of a Buster Douglas to Curry. And McCrory was his Spinks in a way.

Did Tyson in fact ever beat anyone as good as Starling?

 

I don't think so.
But Tyson extended his title run two or three fights longer than Curry did.
I think they rank around the same, pound for pound, in a historical sense.

 

... but I'd rank Honeyghan way above Douglas, to be fair too.

 

Mike Tyson and Donald Curry are equal in a historical sense?

Um, no.