Why did Curry lose to Honeyghan?

The draw and very close decision losses to Milton McCrory were fine performances by Jones.

He was a solid 3 in the World at 147 lbs when Curry comprehensively beat him.

Bumphus was damaged goods from the time his legs gave out against the ordinary Gene Hatcher in losing his 140 lb title

Starling liked guys that came to him, and could be quite inactive when he fought guys who didn't come to him. He was decisioned by the slick but highly ordinary Pedro Vilela, who, like Bumphus, was a safety first southpaw. Starling allowed Bumphus to peck and paw from the outside and didn't press the fight with much urgency, ie didn't test Johnny's fading legs. Then, because of the open scoring used in the fight, Duva pushed for the fight to be stopped when Johnny got cut. If the fight had lasted the duration, chances are Johnny would have been on shaky legs in the late rounds.

The next year when Johnny got the shot at Honeyghan, who applied pressure and tested his legs, it was readily apparent that Bumphus's legs were shot.

 

Please. He's been doing it in Curry threads for years. As a matter of fact instead of tag teaming with him as you are here you were sometimes opposing and casting him aside!!!

https://www.boxingforum24.com/threads/donald-curry.533403/

Here are some of your previous Donald Curry comments in the thread above -

Here is some more comedy gold/hate where someone had to slink back and delete all their comments -

https://www.boxingforum24.com/threads/thoughts-on-oba-carr.519600/

 

According to you guys "Everybody's legs" were mysteriously "shot" when Lloyd Honeyghan knocked them out. They seemed to walk into the ring just fine, though.

Too bad Bumphus' legs weren't shot when he fought Starling a few months before.

I guess Bumphus' legs got better when he fought Marlon. Then they went "shot" again.

 

I agree. Colin Jones was among the top welterweights when Curry beat him.

But that shows how week the division was, since no one seems to want to type who Colin Jones' best wins came against.

Colin Jones was a poor man's Dave "Boy" Green. Green beat much better guys. But when Curry fought him, Jones was among the best out there.

It was a good division at the time. The fighters were good. A very good group of fighters.

None of them were great, though. None stood out among all the others and dominated the rest. That's all I'm saying.

When Donald DID fight GREAT fighters, for example, he got knocked out. There's no shame in that. When the others in his welterweight era stepped up and fought a great fighter, they tended to get knocked out, too. Not always. But usually.

Because those welters weren't GREAT.

 

Your argument is unconvincing. Not sure what else to say.

 

Unconvincing? Lloyd Honeyghan knocked him out. Honeyghan was better. He proved it in the ring when they fought.

You guys are the ones who have to convince people why that knockout wasn't legit.

It looked good to me.

I'm not the one making excuses for KO losses.

 

No. Curry at that stage had moved away from his FW fan base and was fighting Internationally or in cities outside of Texas.
He had suffered several loses....and had dumped his original management team.

 

It would help your case if you had any kind of grasp of context. Oh well.

 

It would help open your eyes if you judged Donald Curry like you judge every other fighter, and if you judged Curry's opponents the way you judge others' opponents.

And don't make excuses for Curry.

Because you need those excuses to hold the myth together.

Honeyghan beat him straight up.

 

Sorry, that's just not true. I don't give two $%&# about protecting anyone's silly "legacy" or any of that nonsense. I do, however, understand that things don't exist in a vacuum. The Donald Curry that lost to Honeyghan was not the same one that fought McCrory or Jones. Just as, in fairness, the Honeyghan that lost to Breland was not the same guy that beat Curry.

This concept (again, it's called context, write it down, it's really useful) seems utterly lost on you.

Later.

 

Yes, CONTEXT.

The Honeyghan that lost to Breland had the holy crap beaten out of him by Marlon Starling. That's context.

Who beat up Donald Curry before Honeyghan got to him? No one.

Crazy thought. Maybe McCrory and Jones weren't as good as Honeyghan?

Did that ever IN A MILLION YEARS cross your mind? Jesus.

Name all the guys Honeyghan beat and then name all the guys who COLIN JONES EVER BEAT ... and there's your context.

Yes, Context matters.

Curry looked great against McCrory and Jones. Curry got knocked out by Honeyghan.

In most EVERY DISCUSSION on this board about other fighters, people would say "Maybe Honeyghan was better than Jones and McCrory? He beat better guys than they did after all."

In a Curry thread, Colin Jones was a great Curry win, so therefore Colin Jones is awesome. So nobody can say Honeyghan was better than Jones.

They have to trot out chestnuts like "Curry just wasn't the same. He had weight problems."

Honeyghan was better than McCrory. Honeyghan was better than Jones. Curry didn't look as good against Honeyghan because he was fighting a better guy. And Honeyghan just knocked him out.

If you rated the best welterweights of the 20th century, Lloyd Honeyghan would be rated higher on the list than Colin Jones and Milton McCrory because when you take this out of a Donald Curry discussion, EVERYONE KNOWS HONEYGHAN was better than they were based on who he beat.

Don't let the Donald Curry myth cloud your mind.

Just take that for what it is, and the whole picture is much clearer.

Honeyghan beat him straight up.

 

All of this did cross my mind actually. Then I discounted it because it was wrong.

 

So, if you were rating the best welterweights of the 20th century, you would rate Colin Jones HIGHER than Lloyd Honegyhan?

Seriously? You're going with that?

And you base that on Colin's wins over who exactly?

 

Mmmmm no, I never said that actually. We were comparing resumes.

 

Article on Terry Norris post SRL & Donald Curry victories:

https://www.si.com/vault/1991/06/10...d-curry-terry-norris-still-has-a-lot-to-prove