Why do people rate Donald curry so highly?

Ive seen guys on here say he's one of the most talented welterweights ever so I checked him out and all I saw was a skilled sharpshooter with mostly subpar opposition. So why do people treat him as being so special? What makes him better than someone like De La Hoya?

 

He looks like the kind of guy whod have massive trouble with Shawn Porter

 

At his best he was terrific.

 

He was built up as a beast. His opposition was very solid, it is just at his peak he was so far above that level of talent.


It may be hard to believe 30 odd years on, but plenty were touting him to be the man to unseat the Marvelous One, his kudos was that high.


And have no doubt, when he had his bubble burst by Honeyghan, the upset was that shocking, it was considered comparable with anything we had previously seen in the sport. Curry was that highly thought of...

 

Bad opposition? He unified the welterweight decision against Starling and McClory who were the best WWs of his day. Here's the 1984 annual ring rankings, he beat the bolded and Stafford was also ranked. Because of this unification Curry was considered P4P number 1 by many and nearly fought Hagler in a super fight. It's speculated that Curry lost dedication and maybe wasn't as tough with his back against the wall.

Title Vacant

1. [url]Milton McCrory[/url]
2. [url]Donald Curry[/url]
3. [url]Marlon Starling[/url]
4. [url]Nino LaRocca[/url]
5. [url]Colin Jones[/url]
6. [url]Elio Diaz[/url]
7. [url]Tommy Ayers[/url]
8. [url]Roger Stafford[/url]
9. [url]Milton Guest[/url]
10. [url]Mauricio Bravo[/url]

 

Curry was excellent all-round.

A physical phenomenon, he was very quick, very well conditioned, and very dangerous. Brutal KO power which was delivered via sneaky, short shots with unerring accuracy. The shots which iced McCrory would likely take out most welterweights in history.

His foot-work was amazing. All of that amateur experience definitely paid off. I love watching how he effortlessly switching laterally out-boxing, to cutting off the ring and pinning his man down. The form he threw shots with is immaculate. So short and tidy, there was no wasted space or energy. And he set them up proper too, just watch how he shifts forward slightly when coming in with that left hook vs Milton. He was a master of getting the most done with the least amount of energy. This may have been because he had weight struggles, but he seemed happy to coast for a lot of rounds and win them on flashes of brilliance. His defence was very good, except he constantly made a basic mistake, which was to lean back when being pressured. Honeyghan kept catching him when he did that, and it's how McCallum set up that amazing shot. I do think Curry's defence was good, though. He knew how to parry, slip, roll and knew how to keep someone at arm's reach. His ring IQ is vastly underrated, too.

I do agree that his competition was pretty poor, all things considered. Beating Starling twice is highly impressive. But after that his record is very thin; LaRocca was more style than substance, McCrory and Jones were clearly about the same level and that level was hardly ATG, Diaz never beat anyone of note before or after, but did lose to Michael Olajide. Stanford is a good win, but was clearly worse than McCrory, as evidenced, and I highly doubt he'd have beaten a pre-Hearns Cuevas. I don't know why people doubt him due to the Honeyghan fight, though. He had the first part of his camp cut short due to managerial issues. A week and a half before the fight, he was still 20lbs over the limit and then his grandad died, halting his training even more. He had to drain himself horrendously to get down to 147, and it showed in there. The versions who fought Starling would've destroyed Honeyghan IMO.

He'd absolutely school Porter, I can't believe that's even up for debate. De La Hoya probably doesn't have the engine to compete with the aggressive Curry who rematched Starling, and I highly doubt he'd out-box the normal version of Curry who liked to counter-punch but stayed out of range.

 

I tend to think Curry-Delahoya looks a bit like Delahoya-Quartey with Curry doing a bit better. And I had Quartey winning that.

 

On top of his pro career he was an absolutely outstanding amauter fighter as well that fought against the very top fighters on not just a National but I international level. He was immensely talented.

Honestly, with over 400 fights as an amateur, he probably had his best days there

 

Mass delusion.

When Sugar Ray Leonard retired in his prime as World Champion due to an eye injury, and Thomas Hearns, the second best welterweight moved up, fans and the networks televising boxing looked for the next superstars to fill the void left at welter.

Rising welterweights Curry and McCrory fit the mold. They were kind of similar to Leonard and Hearns in style, McCrory was even from Kronk, but neither guy was nearly as good as Leonard or Hearns. Didn't matter. HBO said they were great. Networks like ABC said they were the next great stars. Magazines announced Curry was the best in the whole sport based on what they expected him to become, not based on any great wins over great fighters.

It was sort of like if you say they were going to great, they just would be.

When it became clear neither was remotely as good as Leonard or Hearns, which is fine, not everyone is, those who built them up just kind of collectively shrugged and said "they should've been great" and continued to highly rate them.

I've said this before and I'll say it again, the welterweights today (Spence, Garcia, Thurman, Porter) are BETTER than Curry and McCrory and Starling. They have as good, if not better, wins. And they don't have the humiliating losses. And guys like Spence and Garcia are just as "smooth" as Curry ever was. And I don't necessarily think this is an outstanding class of welters. But they are as good, and certainly no worse, than the likes of Curry, McCrory and Starling.

I lived thru the rise and fall of Donald Curry (and McCrory and Starling), and I still don't get it. (LOL) Curry was a solid fighter and champ. Looked really good in the ring until he was about 25 (not 35, 25).

But special? No.

 

For a few years he was Fantastic. All ended quickly unfortunately.

 

But he DIDN'T unify the division against Starling and McCrory.

After Leonard retired, Donald Curry won the vacant WBA Welterweight title against Jun Suk Hwang (where do you have Hwang rated in that era or all time at welter?) ... and Hwang even dropped Curry hard in that fight.

Donald Curry won the vacant IBF Welterweight title against NO ONE (where is no one rated in that era or all-time?). The IBF was formed and they just presented the IBF belt to Curry. He didn't fight anyone for it.

Donald Curry won the WBC Welterweight title from Milton McCrory, who won a vacant belt himself and never took a title from a reigning champ in his career. Good win, though.

Nothing to write home about there, really.

 

Curry would wipe his ass with that skill-less hack.

 

Better overall winning opposition than some other hofers like Gatti, Mancini, Tzyu and Brian Mitchell. The body of his work until the Honeyghan fight was HOF worthy

- beat Starling who was at the time in his prime and no worse rhan #3 WW in the world

- beat Colin Jones who was at the time no worse than #3 Ww in the world

- Unified against McCrory who was at the time #2 Ww in the word

- Beat Nino LaRocca who was at the time very highly thought of.

- Was one of only 3 unified champions in 1985. The other two being Marvin Hagler and Michael Spinks

 

Curry was never Leonard, that's for damn sure, but it's really absurd to say that Thurman and Garcia are on the same level as prime Curry and Starling. Absolutely absurd.

Thurman and Garcia are PAINFULLY ordinary fighters. They'd struggle to get past Nino Larocca and Colin Jones. That Herrera journeyman beat Garcia and got jobbed. You think a guy like Larocca couldn't beat him?

Curry was several levels above Thurman and Garcia.

If wanna argue for Spence and Crawford, I'd disagree, but okay... I can live with that.

But Thurman/Garcia are nowhere close to Curry.

 

The IBF gave it to him because he was clearly the best WW at the time. They also gave IBF titles to Larry Holmes and Aaron Pryor. The IBF did this to earn prestige. They were a startup organization. Most of their initial champions were not highly regarded. The IBF needed Donald Curry more rhan he needed it. In his first defense of the WBA/IBF titles he beat Marlon Starlimg who was at worst behind only Curry and McCrory. He beat McCrory later so its really a non-issue.