Curry-Starling

That, in itselfs, is truly amazing:huh.

 

Curry ****ED UP hard by doing two things........ 1.) He remained a welterweight for too long........ After his KO of McCrory in 1985, Curry should've moved straight to 154 pounds in 1986.......... 2.) Curry ****ed up when he left redneck manager / trainer Dave Gorman and then signed with that Muslim ****er Akbar Muhammad as his new manager......

Donald Curry didn't need them two welterweight defenses against "Rodriguez and Honeyghan" in 1986........... Curry still looked great against the lesser guy Rodriguez, however, Curry was flat as a tire against Honeyghan........ Curry never truly rebounded from the Honeyghan fight..........

Curry's title win over Gianfranco Rosi in 1988 was no real biggie......... The victory and title was short-lived...... Curry would soon choke to Rene Jacquot in early '89 and basically fight on as a desperate fighter looking to hold onto the past..........:deal

MR.BILL

MR.BILL

 

I think both Curry-Starling fights are good value. I've underplayed them in the past but they are highly skilled affairs with good action throughout.

Arguably there hasn't been a better technical boxing match since their rematch. Only ones that rival it imo are Whitaker-McGirt I and Toney-McCallum I.

 

That's an interesting point about the rematch as a two-way technical fight, there certainly haven't been much to cmpare to it since..Might be worth making a list of the great chessmatches if i can be bothered.

I'd put the McCallum Kalambay rematch over the Toney fight though.I thought Mike aged before our eyes and got quite ragged over the second half of the latter.

 

I never liked McGirt in either fight with Whitaker........... McGirt had a missing piece to his puzzle.............. McGirt had NO luck with Olympic Gold medal winners at all........ EXCEPT for a shot Howard Davis in 1988........... Davis was age 32 at the time to McGirt's 24 yrs...........

MR.BILL

 

An all-time chess match/technical masterpiece thread would be great to read about.

Mike did get a bit sloppy towards the end of the first Toney fight, but as a spectacle overall I thought there was some sweet technique in that one.

I've only seen the first McCallum-Kalambay fight, which was another good technical display, though Mike looked a bit befuddled there, and out of sorts. Kalambay's skills account for that of course.

 

Buddy had a tendency to gas, but he was otherwise quite a complete fighter at his best (that is, he was at least good in every facet of the game). The McGirt of 90-92 could quite conceivably have beaten all the top welters of the late 90's (Tito, DLH, Ike).

 

OOOHH!!! That is a BOLD statement my good fellow............ In my book, McGirt had ONE great showing at 147, and that was against Simon Brown in 1991............. McGirt looked great, but Brown was heading for a fall by then...... After his title win against Brown, McGirt started having all those ****in' shoulder and rotor-cuff injuries / problems........
hat

MR.BILL

 

It is bold, I certainly wouldn't favour him to beat all three, but there's a chance that he could.

I think he had quite a few good solid showings at welterweight. I thought he looked good against Gary Jacobs and Patrizio Oliva, and he did well to come back after being knocked down and rattled early by Tony Baltazar, outboxing and outclassing him as the fight went on. During that period, where he had full operational use of the left hook, I think he was a hard guy to beat.