What was so special about Donald Curry?

He also had a long Amateur career. "Curry's amateur record is usually listed as 400-4, but it is sometimes listed as 396-4 and 400-6. Curry thinks he might have had more than 404 bouts, but he is sure he had only four losses." Curry came up about the time SRL was moving on up....then SRL had trouble with his eye thing....so Curry was media available. Plus, TV had some good fights with Curry vs Starling, ....vs McCrory, vs LaRocca, etc.
Curry fit in well with the home TV fights of the mid-80's.

 

Classic forum's a funny place. People almost universally respect Marlon Starling in these pages but Curry, who beat him twice, gets sh/t on.

 

Curry was a well schooled fighter with a high ring IQ...he wasn't a mover but his control of the ring was impressive and his reflexes fit his nickname the "lone star cobra". Curry had a long career that should have culminated in the 80 Olympics Gold but it never happened. IMO he was close to the tale end of his peak when he KO'd McCrory and within a few fights he hit burn out and fell off. He was hot and cold but even at that state of washed up as a talent he was still able to win titles and beat world class fighters. In reality he was not a professional ATG as an accomplished champion as a talent at his peak he would have given any great a scare if not a loss. But because he fell off so quickly which IMO was due to a life time of fighter discipline and him getting tired of the work....anyone that has done it that long at that level does get tired and to be honest I have no idea how he kept his discipline up as long as he did? I still have never seen a left hook as fast as the one he hit McCrory with it is a thing of beauty even SRL should have been jealous.

 

He had a very solid run there for awhile. When guys put together that kind of momentum, it usually shows that they're great enough to have substantial longevity, but sometimes it just doesn't turn out that way. Curry had a great career in my opinion, just not as stellar as it appeared he was destined for.

 

can you imagine that amount of fights amateur or pro. That is incredible. I wonder how he would have done with 200 fights. I know Hearns had 166 fights, which I thought was a lot.

 

His style was always in position to counter. He was the ultimate counterpuncher, which then hurt him if a guy got momentum and let his hands go.. At one time he could not be hit much, but once Honeyghan beat him he started to slide a little. When he fought Mike McCallum he was still good, but I never thought he was ready for Mike after being stopped by Lloyd not even a year before.

 

I believe him to have been a great fighter for a brief period.Maybe he stayed in the amateurs too long?That and weight making ?

 

I tend to agree with Mac, from around '83 to '86 when he came unstuck against Honeyghan he was at the very least borderline great.
When someone's prime is that short though you can't as an overall conclusion call them a great fighter.
I believe he was having weight problems as far back as the first Starling fight, and the Honeyghan fight weight issues are well documented whether they're excuses I wouldn't know.
I just know in that short spell he looked devastating.
A very intimidating proposition for most, right there in front in the pocket, he was like a coiled spring just ready to pounce, with speed and power.
I loved his style.

 

His accuracy was just sublime , if you were good in the 80's you are great today.

 

Donald Curry had a very nice boxing style even if he didn't move around on his feet. For a short time, he was one terrific fighter, but it appears that he neglected his training and really didn't take a punch well.

- Chuck Johnston

 

I think it speaks to the whole wasted potential aspect. Curry teased us with visions of greatness.

Starling was just plain good and got more out of his ability.

 

Donald was an excellent counter-puncher with poise and balance. He destroyed a very good Milton McCrory and put paid to Marlon Starling. There were talks at his peak of having a square-off with Marvin Hagler.

 

Did he? Losing to Pedro Villela and the dessicated remains of what had once been Johnny Bumphus (not exactly a world-beater in his prime as it was) while still very much in your physical prime doesn't sound like living up to one's potential. I'd say Curry did more with what he had.

 

Starling was good (while not as good as Curry at his best) for longer but a bit inconsistent.