Why do people rate Donald curry so highly?

Just showing that you have no idea what you are talking about dubs.

It's on topic as you said you know what you are looking at. That's certainly been proven otherwise.

You choose on emotion as much as anything.

 

LOL!

 

Deflect as best you can mate. The main nonsense in this thread is yours. You have no idea.

 

Wow. Why was the 80s welterweight era better than this one, John?

John: You're Don King's lovechild. (LOL)

Nice, John. But why do you think the 80s era welters were better than this era's welterweights? I don't see it. I think this eras welterweights are just as good, if not better.

John: You picked Fury-Wilder II wrong. (LOL)

That's nice. Why were the 80s welterweights better than this era?

John: You hate Curry.

No, I don't. Why do you think this era isn't as good as that era?

John: You support Don King and you think Carlos Monzon killed his wife, and that makes me angry.

Okay, but why do you think the 80s welterweights were better than the current welterweight era?

John: HATER!

But why do you think the 80s welterweights were better than this eras, when this eras welterweights stack up in terms of wins and resumes?

John: You picked Rosario over DeJesus and I didn't. So you don't know what you're talking about. Hater.

More nonsense. Way to kill a thread. Have a nice Saturday.

 

Deflect (LOL). Who is the guy posting links to dozens of off-topic threads because he can't say why he thinks the 80s era welters are better?

Jesus Christ. I'm tired of being nice to you. **** off. Thread killer.

 

Some more top shelf insights from the bloke best placed to judge Donald Curry, and others. I'd say go back to General but you've been disgraced in there already with your Wilder tripe -

Dubblechin said:

Here's Ezzard Charles seven years and 44 fights into his pro career getting dropped 50 seconds into the fight by Lloyd Marshall - who was bad.

 

Oh come on. You're a rude little obnoxious ***** at the best of times.

 

I really hope Leonard stopping Monzon is tongue in cheek...

 

Removed? The complete thread is there for all to look at. Please accuse me of doctoring it. Does it look that bad you actually think it isn't right? LOL

Banned? You'd be hoping. You're against guys that murder their wives but killing men is ok as long as they promote some good fights yeah?

 

There's that doctor accusation again. How does one doctor a thread without being a mod with the ability to remove posts? Your acumen is so embarrassing you think there's missing posts

 

My god NO. He's been consistent with such ridiculousness since he's been here yet he aggressively pursues others over much less controversial views.

 

This thread has actually been a really interesting read.

Everyone should know that Curry is one of the best WW fighters in history. He isn't one of the greatest because he couldn't make the weight for a long enough period of time.

But whilst he could comfortably make WW he was an absolute monster, everyone knows this.

There really is no debate there.

I think we're yet to see how good Spence and Crawford are in terms of WW greatness. Thurman has had his level found, so has Pacquiao.

Pitting a team of Curry, Starling, Honeyghan and McCrory against a team of Spence, Crawford, Pacquiao and Thurman is actually a good debate though.

Curry didn't lose at the weight until he couldn't make it any more.
Starling only really lost to Curry.
McCrory only really lost to Curry.
Honeyghan only really lost to Starling and Breland.

Spence hasn't lost yet and could be a genuine ATG WW talent
Crawford hasn't lost yet and could be a genuine ATG WW talent
Thurman has only lost to Pacquiao
Pacquaio has lost to Marquez and Mayweather (his other losses are questionable imo)

They do match up reasonably well. I think an argument in terms of strength can be made one way or another. So it kinda comes down to talent. If I have to rate those 8 in terms of talent, I'm gonna see a reasonably even split between the two eras.


The biggest difference is that this era doesn't have a ruler (yet) and that era did (Curry).

I mean Curry is undoubtedly a great talent, much more than say an Oba Carr or a Keith Thurman for example.

 

This content is protected

 

I totally get it now. Thanks for clearing this up for me.

Had Donald Curry never lost at welterweight, had Curry defeated Sugar Ray Leonard for all the belts, had Curry moved up to junior middleweight after cleaning out the division of all challengers and vacated the belts because he couldn't make weight anymore ...

And had Marlon Starling NEVER lost at welterweight except to Curry ... and Starling had retired with all the welterweight belts with only the Curry losses at welter on his resume ... I can see as clear as day how you'd think that era and those two guys were better than the current welterweight class.

I mean beating Leonard for all the belts, and never losing at welter is certainly better than Thurman's one loss at the weight to Pacquiao. Right?

I totally get it now. I can see why you'd think that.

EXCEPT IT DIDN'T HAPPEN THAT WAY.

Sugar Ray Leonard, NOT Curry, is the one who vacated the belts. (I can see why you were confused because they were so similar.) Leonard is the one who beat all-time greats like Benitez, Duran and Hearns for his welterweight belts. And Leonard is the one who vacated the belts.

Donald Curry 'got off the floor" to win his vacant belt against Jun Suk Hwang. And Curry picked up another vacant belt against nobody, it was just handed to him. And Curry picked up his third welterweight belt against Milton McCrory, who didn't beat Leonard, either. McCrory won a vacant belt, too.

And Curry didn't give up the welterweight belts as undefeated champ and move up after cleaning out the divsion.

Curry lost the belts via sixth round stoppage to Lloyd Honeyghan. Curry MADE weight. And Curry lost the titles IN THE RING. He left the welterweight division with a TKO loss and no belts.

And, Marlon Starling didn't go undefeated at welter, only losing to Curry. Starling lost to other guys at the weight, too. Guys who weren't even champs at the weight. Starling won two belts at welterweight and lost two belts at welterweight in the ring. And not to Curry. He didn't call it quits at welter with the titles, either.

You seem to want to compare the ACTUAL records of today's welterweights with FICTIONAL records of the 80s welterweights. I totally get why you folks are deluded. You're comparing fantasy records with actual records.

Got it. It all makes sense now. (rolls eyes)

Jesus. I think I've had it. If you can't even acknowledge the "actual" fights that took place in the 80s, there's no point.

 

This content is protected

This content is protected