What was so special about Donald Curry?

Long Donald Curry article dated 2015.
https://www.star-telegram.com/sports/boxing/article19557516.html
Save & read later.

 

Do you think their talent was compara

Do you think their talent was comparable?^?

 

They had different styles , so it's difficult to say. Were they as talented as each other? Not sure there's any real way to answer that question. Curry had more power and was better offensively and was more intense in the ring. Starling was better defensively and more relaxed, often to a fault.

Apples and oranges.

 

I have to say.... this one of the dumbest threads I've ever seen. But not really surprising... this Jay clown is a know-nothing when it comes this sport.

Curry lacked the intangibles to be an all time great, but to question his talent is beyond stupid.

He was one of most physically gifted welterweights of all time.

 

His fall from the top was so dramatic which is what shocked everyone. In one year he went from in some people's mind top fighter in boxing (although Hagler and Hearns were probably near the top that year) to being stopped twice. And the McCallum loss was almost unbelievable. He was in that fight one moment and out the next. And the odd thing about that fight is the punch although it looked hard, was almost Mike reaching out but it didn't look power hard like Barkley over Hearns the following year. Mike had to have seen the opening and he reacted. The observation is that Donald had not recovered mentally from the Honeyghan fight 10 months before. And those 2 Jr. Mid fights he had with disqualifications should have told Donald to have more tuneups. I suppose in hindsight those 2 fights vs. Montgomery and Santos meant something. .

 

That is what is interesting about Donald. His peak was better than Starling, but Starling held his skills longer. Maybe the style of blocking the punches was easier to preserve than Donald's speed and counterpunching. Even rating who was better is difficult. The way Starling got over the Molinares disaster was impressive. Came back and beat Honeyghan up his next fight and won the title.

 

I remember when McCallum knocked him out, HBO showed a slow motion replay and it shows Donald's corner as he goes down. Gorman just sits there looking without much expression. Donald should have stuck with Gorman and kept things simple and not involved Akbar. I always thought how terrible it must have been after Mike knocked out Donald and going to the dressing room 2 losses in less than a year after being undefeated.

 

So Curry didn't have extraordinarily footspeed. He was old school in that way. He was fundamentally sound with speed and power. He exhibited punch precision and a cool demeanor. He was an efficient fighting machine in his prime. That prime ended relatively early but he accomplished a lot in a short period of time. Won a title at 21. Undisputed titlist at 24. There were very few undisputed titlists in the early to mid 80s. There was Hagler, Michael Spinks and Curry. Curry should have followed Spinks example and moved up. They were both viewed as having no more serous challenges left in their weight class. McCrory, despite historic revisionism, was seen as a very live 1A at 147 lbs and the way Curry totally blew him out was extremely impressive. They were a bit like Leonard/Hearns but on a lower plain. But, they were the best of this time. Starling was right behind them. The Honeymoon loss was a complete shock as Lloyd had not beaten a high level of opposition. He had never really beaten the best in Europe, and hadn't done anything on the world stage. He had beaten Rossi and Mittee but never fought Jones, who was seen as the best European 147 pounder but quit after losing to Curry.

The OP seems to think lack of foot movement is a disqualifying factor in judging a fighter's greatness. By this definition, Joe Louis and Rocky Marciano would not be seen as great fighters, but someone like Nino LaRocca, who called Curry a statue, would be. Lol. Sounds like OP is making the same mistake LaRocca made in judging Curry's worth.

 

You always read about boxers who come after great fighters (like Holmes after Ali or Charles after Louis) and how fans just won't accept them even though they were also great because they lacked the charisma or whatever of the previous fighter.

Donald Curry is the RARE exception of a very good fighter who came after a great fighter (Leonard) and people decided CURRY WAS GOING TO BE JUST AS GREAT as Leonard, too. And they still won't accept they were dead wrong. Because Curry never came close. Didn't have the charisma of Leonard, or the talent or the wins.

Not only that, they somehow equate Milton McCrory, Curry's chief rival at welter, along the same lines as Leonard's chief rival Hearns, because Hearns and McCrory came from the same gym ... and McCrory wasn't even a "Poor Man's Thomas Hearns." He wasn't even in the same ballpark as Hearns.

Donald Curry was a good welterweight champ. And he was an average junior middleweight champ. And that's it.

He belongs in the Hall of Fame like Danny Garcia belongs in the Hall of Fame.

In fact, a prime Curry and a prime Garcia is a pick'em fight.

Honestly.

Very good fighters. Well schooled. But nothing really special, if we're being honest.

 

I disagree to an extent. I think he was indeed special, if only for a very brief time. McCrory might not have been Hearns, but he was still very good too. So were Jones and Starling, and he beat them all impressively.

 

I disagree.

Colin Jones arguably wasn't even a good as Dave "Boy" Green.

McCrory was just a "guy." He was not a standout welterweight champion at all.

Would you pick Milton McCrory to beat any of the top welterweight today? Any of them? Bud Crawford? Errol Spence? Kell Brook? Keith Thurman? Danny Garcia? I wouldn't. Hell, I'd probably make Shawn Porter a favorite over McCrory.

McCrory was painted as the second-coming of Hearns like Curry was hyped like he was the second coming of Leonard. Curry was a very good fighter. McCrory was just a guy.

It was a bizarre time where boxing writers just ASSUMED the next belt holder would pick up the mantle and be as great as the great champ who just left the division.

It doesn't usually work that way. And it certainly didn't with those guys, even though the boxing writers hyped the living hell out of them.

Curry, to me, is like when HBO just assumed Nonito Donaire was going to be the next Manny Pacquiao and Adrien Broner was going to be the next Floyd Mayweather. Donaire and Broner were good fighters. But they weren't all-time greats. Certainly no Pacquiao or Mayweather. And the "experts" seem to have let that go now and just weigh them on their own merits.

With Curry, some guys just won't let it go even though it was clear he wasn't an all-time great.

 

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on some points. McCrory wasn't just "some guy." As to whether or not I'd favor him over those others, I have no idea. I don't watch today's boxing and have no idea who any of them are.

Incidentally, the terms "special" and "all-time great" are not necessarily the same thing. I never called him an all-time great. You used both terms as if interchangeable in the span of two posts there.

 

I stopped reading Dubble's post after he said that prime Curry vs Danny Garcia is a pick em.

 

yeah he was . No doubt about that. Many people say his amount of amateur fights is why he burned out, but he didn't have a really fought fight prior to Honeyghan. He fought McCrory and had that fight on regular tv against a southpaw. I forget the guys name. He knocked him out in 3 rounds. They blamed the weight and it had a little to do with Lloyd being a heck of a force at the time and a decent puncher to be honest and a little awkward.. Probably more Lloyd than anything else.

 

I think he was right below great or close-he was heading toward fights with guys who might have made him great like Hearns or Hagler.. The guys who made someone great, or Mike McCallum who at the time was not Hearns or Hagler level, but now would have been a great win. I think he needed a win against a real great, and I don't think he had that. Not close. The thing about weight problems is a lot of fighters have those issues and they don't rely on the excuses. He did look great for a short time. I remember that Honeyghan fight. I was 21 years old and listening to my car radio and this was a day after Bramble lost to Rosario I think... which was a Friday and Honeyghan/Curry was on Sat... So it was a shocking weekend..