Lloyd Honeyghan v Donald Curry

Wilde,Calzaghe,Lennox Lewis,Benn,Lynch,Buchanan,Hamed,Hatton,Driscoll,Berg,Ted Lewis,Fitzsimmons,Eubank....and that's just off the top of my head,there's probably even more if I put some serious thought to it.

Guy's like Herol Graham and Michael Watson were probably better fighters as well even though they never won world titles.

You're obviously a big Honeyghan fan but I don't rate him all that highly even though at his best he was a top line fighter.

 

I am glad you said 'probably' with Graham and Watson, because no way were they better. LLoyd accomplished as much as either of them without winning the world title.

Hatton ? Driscoll based on what exactly. Buchanan why ?

Lloyds peak was short but during it he was a force of nature.

 

I'll take all of those fighters other than Hatton over Honeyghan.

Honeyghan was very good only for a short while.His form deteriorated rapidly after blowing out overmatched washed up 140lbers and even against Blocker he didn't really impress sa much as he should.

 

Nobody said Lloyd didn't fight a great fight. If you can't see the difference in the previous standard Curry both form and physical appearance wise to this one besides Honeyghan's excellent aggression then we'll have to stand to disagree. Blind Freddy isn't American and sure doesn't board their hype machine.

 

Curry was overrated.

 

I always found it very unfair and even a little disgraceful, that certain fighters get free passes for the kinds of losses that other fighters get ripped a new ******* for. Curry is one of those fighters.

A month or so ago, I raised this point and said that if Margarito was to get embarrassed by Mosley the way Curry was by Honeygan, he would get ripped a new ******* by the entire forum; no one would be saying the fight "doesn't count" because he was "weight drained" (there was rumors at that time of Margo struggling to make weight). Sure enough, I was right. Same goes for Pavlik when he lost to Hopkins. But someone like Curry loses in a big upset, and people act like the fight never happened.

He also gets off the hook for staying on his stool, and basically making a half-hearted effort in general. Another fighter would get criticized for a lack of heart and determination - but again, Curry gets off the hook.

There doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason to why certain fighters get flack up the ass, and others get off unscathed. It just seems to be whoever enough people happen to like.

Definite double standard IMO.

 

And you don't like Curry that much i take it.

Seriously though, There will always be an excuse for any fighter losing if you dig deep enough.After all we know especially from the tough schedules of bygone era's how tough it can be to be 100percent for every bout.

think this either\or mentality is just as bad as fanboy excuses shows a lack of respect for other posters, it shouldn't have any place in the classic section.all you can do is hve some common sense, glean as much background info on a fight as you can, then view it yourself and come to your own conclusion.HTere's enough info on the fight and the film itself that backs up the weightmaking excuse to an extent.Just depends how far you go with it.

Dismissing these things out of hand and you'll eventually end up with someone claiming Benny Lynch gets a free pass because he killed himself with alcoholism.Just wasn't good enough i tell ya.After all Jose napoles drank a helluva lot for much of his reign and he didn't run himself into the ground because of it.Lynch must just have sucked.

 

Based on what exactly. You also think Watson and Graham have a better resume than Hatton ?

Hatton has Tszyu, Castillo, Mayweather and soon to be Pacquiao on his.

Honeyghan has Curry , Rosi, Blocker , Hatcher, Bumphus, Vaca, Shufford

Graham has ? Watson has ?

 

Exactly. Curry always worked hard to make the weight, we all knew that, but there was no more talk of him being "weight drained" going into the Honeygan fight than any other; so why should it simply be assumed that it was more of a problem that it ever was, just because he didn't fulfill the expectations of him?

I wonder how many of the people that put his loss down to "weight making" were actually worried about that before the fight and fully expected him to not perform at his best?

Agreed there too. I believe a true boxing fan should look at every fight and every fighter objectively, say no more than what he sees, not make presumptions, and most importantly not cling to whatever notions he has made of a fighter. To me, it's wrong when someone makes up his mind about what a fighter is and then basically tailors whatever he sees from then on to fit those notions, rather than accepting what comes. Unfortunately, it's very common that people do that.

 

Hmm...so you don't buy Curry being weight drained as an excuse yet you expect us to swallow a 29 year old with two losses (one of them a tech decision) as being washed up.

Sorry you've badly exposed yourself as a Honeyghan fanboy here (as if putting someone of Lloyd's dubious credentials in your all-time British p4p top 10 wasn't enough evidence).

Such hypocritical opinions really weakens your arguments about Honeyghans true standing imo,as he really wasn't that great and Curry (for all his faults) definately looked a much better fighter at his best if we're to be honest.

That said Honeyghan deserved his win just like Breland and Pazienza deserved theirs.

 

So what if some fighters I mentioned earlier weren't rated at the top of their division? Every weight division's quality varies from year to year, and what may be just a contender in one era could very likely be a champion in another era.

It's not like Honeyghan cleaned out a welterweight division that was anything to be in awe of.There were no Leonard,Duran or Hearn's at 147 in 1986.Hatcher,Bumphus and Shufford don't really compare do they?

You also asked what did Ken Buchanan do to rate as high as Lloyd? He beat a great in Laguana to win the undisputed lightweight title as well as stopping another (albeit old) great in Ortiz as well as beating a young but very capable Jim Watt.Also he gave one of the very best fighters of all time in Roberto Duran a very tough tussle in a losing effort.

The Duran effort alone gives Ken a higher ranking when compared to Lloyds arse whipping at the hands of the capable but not really Duranesque Marlon Starling.

 

I usually do my lists Post-War. Even my ATG lists I usually define from where I start at the beginning.

My top 10 British fighters list is post-war.

10. David Haye
9. Nigel Benn
8. John Conteh
7. Honeyghan
6. Hatton
5. Eubank
4.Prince Naseem Hamed
3. Joe Calzaghe
2. Ken Buchanan
1. Lennox Lewis

 

fleaman david haye hasnt done enough for top 10

someone asked what has watson done to be ranked over honeyghan he beat nigel benn