Why do people rate Donald curry so highly?

You are sounding like Mendoza.

You said Honeyghan was a step up but are already running away from that among numerous other things, obviously. There are also any amount of silly claims in the threads I've linked. Man up.

It belies belief how much stock you put into this HOF bull ****. You've been doing it for years as if it is the be all and end all.

 

Actually I'm not. I'm just more balanced emotionally than you I guess.

But please......by all means continue to smash your head against that brick wall you've made for yourself.

 

Good Lord. The answer is they haven't been knocked out and they've only lost to each other, not to guys like Pedro Villel and Tomas Molinares. If that's all you've got, thanks for proving my point.

Subpar.

 

I'm not running away from anything.

My point is this era is as good or better than that one. That's it. That's the point.

 

Examples of my apparent "hate" ... according to JohnThomas:

"Donald Curry was a good welterweight champ in an era of good welterweights. Just like Danny Garcia and Keith Thurman and Shawn Porter are good champs. But none of them are Floyd Mayweather or Manny Pacquaio."

"Honeghan wasn't better than all of them. Curry wasn't better than all of them. Starling wasn't better than all of them. It was just a good group of welters whose names you could throw in a hat and pull two names out and anyone could beat anyone. None stood out above all others."

"That era, like this one, is just a bunch of solid welters who all could beat the other on any given night (which is EXACTLY what happened back then ... and is what happens now.)"

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

"I give him credit for being the true welterweight champ. But he wasn't great by any stretch. He had the opportunity to be great, but he didn't win those fights."

Clearly, no fighter in the history of this board has had as much "HATE" heaped on them as I've heaped on Donald Curry over the years. (Rolls eyes.)

You are drunk on Kool-Aid, John.

 

Yes you also told us Wilder was the heavyweight GOAT.

Nuff said.

 

Lets see where it all settles after those that need to have looked thru said links.

Good luck.

 

(LOL) If you have to make stuff up, then enough has been said.

 

Dubble once said that Wilder had a better chin than Foreman.

 

I'm sorry, John. Did that sound hateful? I know how sensitive you are to hate speech.

 

(Scratches head). Okay.

 

Yes. Everyone be ready for some Curry HATE coming your way. (LOL)

 

No what I have you wouldn't listen too or anyone else.
But since you keep spitting out those two names as if
it was a crime to lose to two capable undefeated fighters
at the time they fought Starling initially, learn something
about them first. Also since you keep spitting out those two
names, did Starling re-match Villel and won ....right?

Their was one fault Starling had that kept him from being
upper echelon , it was lack of motivation, it's the main
reason why he lost to the fighters you keep repeating.
Certainly not lack of skill level.
I'd pick a motivated Starling over Garcia and Porter.
Prime vs prime any day of the week, twice on Sunday.
I'd pick prime Curry over anyone of them, with Spence
only giving him a tough fight.
So again they are for the most part subpar fighters
from a subpar era.

 

Scratches head? Have you confused yourself?

 

Just because you'd pick Starling over someone like Garcia doesn't make it a subpar era. Garcia has had a fine career. Arguably, better than Starling's. Two-division champ. Beat top names. Never lost in his prime to a journeyman.

There is nothing subpar about this era. Lots of solid welterweights at the top.