Good insight. I've often thought Taylor would make an excellent Dr Frank N Furter in a revival show. It was something about the way he let Ouma back him up in the later rounds, like he was almost admiring his opponent's aggression. Good job Fitz in catching this.
Thread, how does one guy throw a punch before the bell, and the other after? I ask this for this reason. I know that this isn't what you said, but both threw right hands at the same time, and if the decision was overturned, then one threw a punch before and after the bell or both threw after the bell. Molinares knocked Starling out, and I never knew that they over turned the verdict. I have Curry higher than Taylor, but I wanted to see what posters had to say about the two. We shouldn't mention Chavez in any debate concerning Curry and Taylor. If you're going to mention that you think Winky beat J.T, and then put in quotes that you think Starling beat Curry in fight 1. This comparison by no means Curry blowing J.T away. Good post though Thread.
yeah i agree that his decline was kinda shocking he had over 400 amateur fights and i think that must've had something to do with it, these were real fights too not the amateur fights they have today
If you think beating Honeygan or Breland were better wins than Hopkins, then yes. In that case, does that mean Maurice Blocker is better than Taylor too?
I don't know exactly when, but the verdict was overturned and it's gone down as a NC. Starling didn't get his title back, for whatever reason, but his next fight was the beating of Honeyghan anyway. There's an article about Starling on this page. [url]http://www.eastsideboxing.com/news.php?p=17051&more=1[/url] They both threw punches after the bell. It wasn't some blatant cheap shot as both of them threw and only one landed, but still, it shouldn't count if both of them threw after the bell, and it was the right decision IMO to change it to a NC. [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbMWtTP6A2g&fmt=18[/url] I know the Chavez example was extreme. I was just using a more extreme example to show how I can value a solid number of wins over good fighters than one (or two) wins over a great. Obviously the gap between Curry and Taylor is much closer than the Chavez comparisons.
This is why even a fighter's resume can be taken completely out of context. In the grand scheme of things, Taylor was simply a mediocre fighter. Curry, despite his short prime, was a phenomenal talent. They're not even comparable as far as I'm concerned, regardless of a few wins and losses that have been, once again, taken completely out of context.
Taylor is athletically very gifted. But Curry was something else. Not many fighters are as well-rounded as he was.