Just because he didn't blast the men he fought out in one round shouldn't be an indication of his vulnerability.. He was a welterweight and a boxer at that. Besides it was never my claim that he looked unbeatable. Only that he was a gifted fighter who's abilities were short lived. McCrory, Rossi and starling were good fighters.
Between late 1982 and late 1986, Curry was the best Welterweight in the world. He officially sealed that recognition in late 1985 when he brutalized WBC champion Milton McCrory. Quality names on his list of wins are Marlon Starling (twice) and Colin Jones. Curry looked ready to move up to 154 lbs as early as mid 1985. He decided to stay at 147 and looked great in the McCrory fight. The effects of having trouble making 147, combined with Honeyghan peaking on the night they fought, resulted in a very surprising loss to Honeyghan. Curry never looked prime after the Honeyghan loss, although he was able to win a version of the super welterweight title over Gianfranco Rossi in 1988. Almost all of his post Honeyghan losses were to elite fightes like Nunn, McCallum and Norris. The loss to Rene Jacquoit, who was pretty mediocre, was embarrassing and showed how far Curry had fallen from his prime form. I think just based on the fact he held a world title at Welterweight for almost four years, and unified the title at that weight, is enough ring accomplishments to warrant entry into the Boxing Hall of Fame. Apparently the most important criteria for entry into the Hall is not ring accomplishments. Others with less ring accomplishments than Curry are in.
Bobby Joe Young was a good puncher, but Curry would have eaten him up. Curry would have easily exposed Bobby's defensive deficiencies. The Korean, Hwang, was tough as nails, pretty much impossible to stop in his prime. Curry got caught, but it looked like a flash knockdown and he wasn't dropped again during his reign.
McCrory was the reigning champ and unbeaten, and Curry demolished him in a way that no one else could. McCrory gave McCallum a much tougher fight a while later. Starling was an excellent fighter and two-time champ who also wasn't easy to look good against. Curry still beat him pretty handily both times.
Those were great performances and I loved all the above mentioned names.. Especialy starling who was one my favorites of all time. 80s were a golden age for welters.
Jun-Suk Hwang caught him with a right hand off the ropes which showed no signs of coming, after Hwang had been telegraphing. He was not just tough as nails, but also a pretty good defensive fighter. It was a no-win situation for him unless he managed a knockout in Fort Worth, but Jun wasn't stopped, or even shut out, but managed a respectable showing. Later took a ten round MD over Pipino Cuevas in LA.
The era was arguably the toughest in boxing history and Curry didn't have a long prime. Honeyghan was great for a night, while McCallum is the best ever LMW. Curry probably beats any WW before Leonard/Hearns bar Robinson and probably beat any WW after Honeyghan. AS talented as he was Curry didn't seem to have the mind set to have great longevity
Never said they weren't! I was writing in the context of an earlier post that said that early/prime Curry was Tysonesque and seemingly unbeatable.
The first win wasn't that impressive. You could make a case for Marlon winning the first fight. If Donald fought Milton around this time, like originally stated, Curry would've lost.
He looked no worse than Tyson did against Bonecrusher or Tillis. It's not easy to look great against an awkward opponent who uses spoiling tactics. I thought Curry won well enough regardless.
His prime was short, but that run from '83 through the fall of '86 was as impressive as you could ask. We sit here (most of us anyway) speaking glowingly about Starling and how he was so this and so that and so underrated, and Curry beat him both times. The first fight was winnable for Starling had he worked just a little harder, but Curry was the first to hang a number in his loss column. That means something. One thing that rarely gets discussed is how he cut through multiple styles with equal ease, slashing apart boxers (Larocca) huge punchers (Jones) and excellent boxer-punchers (Starling, McCrory) as though they were nothing. He let the bright lights and high times get to him and he proved to not have the right stuff to be a long-term proposition, but who does, really? Not many have primes lasting ten years, after all. His career is a bit like Michael Nunn's in that way.