Donald Curry

I don't believe so.

All those guys you mentioned were bigger.

McGuigan's fights unified a country torn apart by the battle between Protestants and Catholics.

Mitchell was a part of the whole Apartheid era - and he spoke out against it while defending his title a dozen times all over the world because he couldn't defend his belt at home - because the WBA banned fights in South Africa.

Over a seven year period, Gatti was involved in four fights that won FIGHT OF THE YEAR.

Mancini was a huge boxing personality, a household name (and remains so to this day) and his killing Deuk-Koo Kim in a nationally televised fight directly affected the sport - the WBCs response was mandating that all their title fights be shortened from 15 to 12 rounds.

Tszyu, Mancini, and McGuigan also all beat Hall of Famers.

Curry didn't do any of that.

Curry didn't beat any Hall of Famers. (He fought two and stopped both times.) Curry wasn't involved in any fights of the year. Curry wasn't a part of a bigger "cause" or global story. Curry didn't impact the sport.

Curry was just a welterweight champ like a lot of welterweight champs.

That's why he's been on the ballot for more than a dozen years and never gotten in. When you actually look at his "accomplishments" ... and not what people "thought" he "could've" accomplished, he doesn't stand out any more than a lot of his peers that decade.

 

Wow. I haven't seen anyone this down on a particular fighter in Classic with such fervent lead-foot-on-the-gas-pedal dogma since the good old salad days of Rooster shredding Leonard.

 

Yeah, but I can't say I wasn't warned :

lora called it right. :good

 

I don't think he's an all-time great. And the Hall of Fame voters agree.

He was a good champ. Frankly, I don't understand why so many insist he should be considered a great.

Based on what? Wins over Starling and McCrory?

How does that get you in the Hall of Fame?

The answer is "It doesn't." That's why he's not in.

 

Well, first off, most, I believe, don't consider ATG to be synonymous with HOF.

The latter includes virtually all of the former but not everyone in the Hall is considered to have All Time Great status.

Second, his name, or rather its omission from the ledger at Canastota, is among the most frequently mentioned as being a horrific oversight. It might be the most frequently mentioned. So this isn't some minority view that he belongs in there, except in terms of the voting body. (of which it constitutes a minority, obviously, as he isn't yet in, but a very large one)

You can argue he doesn't cut the mus**** for ATG consideration, but to justify his exclusion from the Hall is another matter. In the eyes of most fans and historians, I think, not a defensible position.

 

Oh please.

The only time I hear Curry's name mentioned is when someone is running down someone else for getting in.

They never talk about how great Curry was ... they just say he was better than someone they didn't think was good enough to get in.

There's a big difference there.

This isn't an election where you have to choose between two negatives ... and whichever candidate "is not as bad" as the other guy wins.

What's your pitch for Curry being an "all-time great."

Who did he beat that you believe qualifies him for this elevated status? What great fights did he engage in? What great impact on the sport did he have? Please share. I'm curious why you think he was among the greats ever.

 

Doublchin

What happened. Did he steal your girlfriend or something

 

Or, um, you know, boyfriend...

(given the rumors and everything)

 

Two hours later, and that's it? atsch

I thought since you said Curry's omission was "such a horrific oversight" that you'd be able to add something.

What's your pitch for Curry being an "all-time great."

Who did he beat that you believe qualifies him for this elevated status? What great fights did he engage in? What great impact on the sport did he have?

Seems like when I ask someone to make a pitch for why Curry's great, all they can come up with is: "Well, I think he's better than that other guy who I don't think should've gotten in."

I don't want to include you in that group.

Not sucking as bad as some other guy that didn't deserve to get in isn't exactly a great endorsement.

So why do you believe Donald Curry was one of the greatest fighters ever? There must be some reason why it's a "horrific omission" in your mind?

Go ahead. The floor is yours. Explain why Donald Curry was one of the greatest ever?

 

There is no burden of proof on me to demonstrate Curry should be termed ATG since I already clarified that ATG isn't a synonymous term with "deserving International Boxing Hall of Fame entry".

You seem to have forgotten or conveniently glossed over that fact. You define those as synonymous terms, do you? I don't.

I think you can reasonably argue that Curry is no ATG.

I think you can't reasonably argue that he doesn't meet the criteria to be in the IBHOF.

Again, they aren't the same thing.

One is an even more rarefied tier. The oversight is to do with Curry's HOF status (or rather lack thereof) - and so proving whether he is a genuine ATG or not has no bearing on the conversation. That's a different level, the way most people use the parlance.

If you don't think his resume, title captures, and miscellaneous honors racked up (Ring Mag co-Fighter of the Year with Hagler, cited by most contemporaneous publications as the pound for pound best in the sport for a time, etc) warrant inclusion, fine - but yours would be the minority view, outside those who decide the ballot.

If you want to say the above sees him fall short of ATG status (beyond "merely" entering the Hall of Fame, as it were) - as in, among the absolute best of the best, ever - not many are going to find any umbrage to be taken with that.

 

This isn't a difficult question.

If I asked Klompton why Harry Greb was an all-time great, he could spend days explaining why based on the guys Greb fought, the all-timers he beat, the significant battles he won, the impact he had on the game ... and on and on and on.

If I asked some Ali or Klitschko fanboy in the general forum why they are all-time greats ... they could list fighters they beat, fights they engaged in, the impact they had in and outside of boxing.

If you believe someone was an all-time great, it shouldn't be viewed as a "trick" question when you ask why that fighter was great.

You apparently can't -- or you're afraid to even try to - explain why you believe Donald Curry is one of the greatest fighters ever.

I can't either. Because he's not.

I don't know why that's so hard for some of you to just admit.

I don't have anything against the guy. He was very good. There's nothing insulting about being very good.

Everyone who won a title wasn't among the greatest fighters who ever lived.

That's all.

 

I don't think anyone's even said he's "one of the greatest fighters ever".

The facts :
*He held world titles at welterweight , and defended against genuine contenders.
* He won EIGHT world title fights at 147 pounds.
*He unified the welterweight titles by destroying his rival McCrory.
*He was one of only two undisputed champions in boxing at that point in time, alongside Hagler.
* He lost the title and moved up to light-middleweight.
* He challenged perhaps the best ever champion at 154pounds, and was unsuccessful, getting KO'd.
* He eventually did win a title at light-middleweight.


His record is very good.

 

I agree. His record is very good. So were the records of his peers. That said, I don't think it's a "horrific omission" that Curry, Honeghan, Starling, Brown, Blocker and Breland aren't in the Hall of Fame.

They were all very good, just like Curry.

Simon Brown:
* Won 9 World Title Bouts at Welterweight
* Unified the Title by destroying his best friend Blocker
* Moved up to light-middleweight and knocked out a Hall of Famer to win the title there

Lloyd Honeghan
* Won 6 World Title Bouts at Welterweight (including a destruction of Curry)
* Two-time welterweight champ
* Won-Held multiple versions of the belt

Mark Breland
* Won Olympic Gold Medal
* Two-time Welterweight champ
* Won 6 World title bouts at Welterweight (including a brutal stoppage of Honeghan)

Marlon Starling
* Won 5 World title Bouts at Welterweight
* Beat Breland, Honeghan and Brown (in a non-title fight)
* Lost title fights to Blocker and Curry

Maurice Blocker
* Two-time Welterweight champ
* Won Three World Title Bouts at Welterweight (defeated Starling)
* Lost his titles to Brown and later to Hall of Famer Felix Trinidad

 

Who did Gatti or Mancini beat ?
The HOF is meaningless it's a popularity contest eventually every fighter will be in it.

 

Like speaking to a wall...