Sugar Ray Leonard vs Donald Curry.

Prime for Prime Itd be a good tough fight, but you have to favor Leonard

If it happened when it most likely would/could have, around 84' 85' (Hypothetically of course, Leonard retired again after Howard), Curry was around his absolute peak and Leonard was 2 years out of action, Curry should be the favorite for that hypothetical.

Arguable. I dont think a case can be made that he was definitely harder hitting, or visibly quicker.

I think youre mistaking flashy footwork for faster/better, Leonards footwork would be a plus for him in this fight, but Currys footwork was not slow, he was quick on his feet, Leonards movement was smoother and more flashy, whereas Currys was more purely functional, when coming forward his footwork was methodical and used to set up his offense, and his movement when backing away didnt look as pretty as Leonards but it was functional movement and served its purpose.

Duran was more fluid than Curry on the inside but smaller and not as hard a hitter, Leonard had a tough time with him there, I think Leonard trying to walk through Curry may eventually get him a win/KO/TKO but itd be a tough time until he gets it. But I dont think itd be as easy as you make it out to be. Curry was good there.

 

Leonard had that extra something that Curry really didn't demonstrate: that ability to adapt and change tactics on a dime. Leonard was more dynamic and had a better chin. Their skill levels are pretty close but Leonard seemed to be more fluid especially in the footwork department. I simply don't remember a fighter with a better boxing IQ than Leonard, and while we're at, a better welterweight in my lifetime. I see Leonard winning by decision or by late round ko.

 

Don't really see how this is a bad style for Curry. He had excellent skills and pedigree, rapier jab, hit hard enough to keep Leonard honest, and had a healthy dose of speed himself. Leonard never showed the kind of dominance against world class opposition to suggest this would be easy for him.

Duran couldn't beat Hearns, Benitez or Hagler, but he beat Leonard. Would he beat Curry? I'm not sure if he would. Curry would be older and more experienced than the Hearns who was beating Leonard. Hearns was 22 and hadn't been seriously tested up until then.

 

Very good points; I shouldn't have put it so strongly. To be clear though, I didn't mean to suggest that Leonard was a much better boxer than Curry or that he would dominate each round. But I don't think that Curry has the size or the aggressiveness to deal with Leonard's in-and-out ambushes well. Probably plenty of close rounds but I think most would end up going to Leonard. Sort of how I saw SRL-Benitez.

 

sugar and curry? ugh

 

I don't think it would be easy. I just don't think Curry would win.

Aesthetics are arguable, I agree. I do strongly believe Leonards footwork was more functional though. It kept him out of trouble vs Hagler and Duran the second time. It kept the opponent in trouble vs Benitez and Hearns. But Curry was a better ring general so that is largely part to brilliant footwork as well.

 

I always thought that Leonard was more fluid overall but Curry was being touted as Haglers successor before the Honneyghan fight.
Curry always seemed to box with his chin in the air but got away with it initially.
He made the fight vs big punching, Colin Jones look easy
Leonard would win but it's a good matchup

 

And when did Donald Curry become Hearns or Duran? And by the way that blown up "lightweight" went all the way up to middleweight successfully. Currys best wins were against Mccory and Starling. He was completely destroyed by Honeyhan, Mccallum, Nunn, and Norris (and by the way fought a way past prime Leonard,who was heavy on the the white powderand yet still managed to go the distance) the same year. Look I like Curry, thought he had very GOOD skills and was a very GOOD fighter. But to think he wouldve been a serious threat to prime Leonard, is crazy,and yes I could see Leonard pulling an Andy Price on Curry, maybe not quite as quick, but same results nevertheless.

 

I had the Title Bout board game about 35 years ago (with Ken Norton and Larry Holmes on the front of the box). I hadn't thought about that forever. I had no idea there was a computer game.

Thanks for letting me know.

 

Curry was a better welterweight than Duran was. Duran was always inconsistent above lightweight, and still the best version of Duran that Leonard fought beat him. Do you think Duran would beat Curry? He'd be more experienced and savvy than a 22 year old Hearns who'd never been past round 12 before and had no serious test prior to Leonard.

If you want to say Leonard would beat the Curry than Honeyghan fought then fine, but it's damning him with feint praise. What would Curry do to the Leonard who got flattened by Kevin Howard? You mention Curry being destroyed by McCallum and Nunn, both bigger men, yet did Leonard face either of those? He could have. So what Leonard managed to stay upright against Norris. He still took a beating and lost every round (and was a 3-1 favourite going in, BTW). Putting Curry on a par with Andy Price is absurd.

To pretend that Leonard will just go in there and blast out someone like Curry when he never did that against anyone who was any good and when he had to eke out all his best wins by the skin of his teeth, is pure fantasy.

 

A great post.:good

 

Great post! :good:good:good:good

 

No one is saying Curry was as good as Duran and Hearns. But, in his prime, he was very, very good.

McCrory and Starling were easily the #2 and #3 guys and he handled them. Jones was also a very good fighter and he toyed with him. LaRocca was also a very skilled challenger, with a great record, having only lost one fight, and that was due to a cut.

All those post Honeyghan losses are above 147 lbs and he was past prime. He seemed jaded for the Honeyghan fight as well.

From late '82 to late '86 Curry was the best Welterweight in the world. That's an impressive run.

Prime for prime this would not be a blowout, but a tactical, competitive fight.

Leonard by UD

 

Wasn't sure what I thought till I read this. There are some compelling cases put forward earlier in the thread - I like the point that the only one of the fab 4 plus Benitez that Duran could beat was Leonard but that doesn't factor in the shape Duran was in fr that fight (or not in for the Hagler/Benitez/Hearns fights). But I think this one is the most measured view of it.

Depends on the judges a bit too. In Leonard's three biggest wins - Duran 2, Hearns 1 and Hagler - he didn't half cover a lot of ground and if the judges interpret that 'flashy footwork' as running, the cards might not be as favourable for Ray.

 

So to eke out decisions in your opinion to two all time greats is a problem now, tell me how man a.t.g's did Curry defeat? So Leonard got flattened By Howard? Same way Curry got flattened by Juk su-Hwang. Personally I thought both were flash knock downs because both fighters got up and won the fights. Yes I could see the Duran that showed up in Montreal not only beating Curry but also stopping him. Look like Ali a lot of people personally disliked Leonard. Hell, some of the stunts he pulled I didn't like, (like the retirement game he played with Hagler in 82) I thought was classless. But I don't let my personal dislikes blind me to how special a fighter he was. Same with Ali. Or with any fighter. Some here let their personal dislikes show it even in their words they write here. (Flattened by Howard. Won by the skin of his teeth.). As if beating a Hearns, a Duran, a Benitez or A Hagler was supposed to be easy. Were not talking about a Mccory who almost completely disappeared after the Curry fight. Why? Because he wasn't special to begin with. So tell me how many A.T.G s did Curry ALMOST lost to. Or defeated by the skin of his teeth.