Why do people rate Donald curry so highly?

Pedro Vilell beat Starling. Tomas Molinares wiped out Starling. Johnny Bumphus beat Starling. Honeyghan knocked out Curry. What kind of skill level did they have?

Who has beaten or knocked out Spence, Garcia, Thurman or Porter?

The overhyping of the Curry welterweight era is one of the great mysteries of the sport.

It was a good group, but they weren't any better than the welters now.

 

I hate the word potential this guy career personifies it he was a good fighter jumped to many weight classes to early and never avenged any of his losses.

 

What do you mean too many weight classes too soon? He went from 147 to 154 and stayed there quite a while, only moving on to 160 when he was completely cooked.

 

Realy accurate and precise. Beautiful to watch when at his best.made Jones who was a good fighter look like a amateur. A short peak but would beat a lot of fighters in history at that point.

 

Good stuff. Even taking out Stafford, who had never been stopped before in half a round is an interesting result.

 

The guy actually jumped too late. He should have slipped up to 154 earlier. His weight problems are well documented.

 

Because he faced better competition? Porter does have 3 losses right? Thurman did lose to ancient well beyond prime Pacquiao right? Garcias best 2 opponents beat him right? So let's get your facts right first. By the way u sound like a guy that goes on how many wins, not the quality of those wins, I use this example for guys like you, Jaime Garza was 40 and 0 as a pro, but got K'oed the minute his competition got better, Canelo Alvarez fought 1 Atg and was 40 and 0 he lost to that 1 proven ATG. Thurman fought 1 proven Atg, guess what he loss to that fighter.
So having more consecutive wins than Jose Napoles, Kid Gavilan, or Ray Leonard doesn't mean the fighters you named are better fighters, it only means the competition they faced was worse, in fact much worse. If you can't see the difference in skill level and competition between fighters from past decades than fighters of today, maybe you should stop watching boxing and start observing it.

 

The reason Don didnt get to fight Marvin was due to that snake in the grass Saccharin Ray Leonard. I refuse to call him Sugar. Supposedly retired & acting as Don's advisor, Leonard kept telling Don to wait to fight Marvin, to age him. All the time that POS was negociating with Hagler for the fight for himself & he got it & robbed Marvin in the process. Leonard refused to fight Don.
He keeps well away from Texas he's not wanted here

 

I was right there in Texas almost a fixture in Dave Gormans gym saw Donald, Gene Mad Dog Hatcher, Little Stevie Cruz,Troy Dorsey etc all win titles. Donald's biggest mistake was getting involved with Akhbar Muhammad they sold him down the river

 

I swear to God, we could start a thread here about favorite sandwiches and your post there would be an anti-Leonard diatribe somehow.

Learn a new trick already.

 

If you dont like my posts dont read them its your choice. I take it youre a Sacharin Ray fan LOL

 

I must admit I do get a bit misty-eyed when I think back to the halcyon days of the Great Grigorian!

 

I presume you call him this because you consider him 300-500 times sweeter than Ray Robinson. Too true Leonard's boxing was sweetness personified

 

Very astute point about porter giving him trouble.porter was similar to honeyghan....in that...strong as an ox...fast...could box or slug...honeyghan though was more skilled...and the curry of 1982-85 beats both easily.

Id disagree curry fought sub par guys....two wins over marlon starling and mcrory are v impressive..colin jones..nino larocca was no joke either.

I think hes rated so highly because during his amateur career (wouldve been 1980 olympics golden boy) and during 1982-86 he could do it all.....sharpshooting skills...mobility....defence....heart....power....

Even as a shot fighter he was outboxing mccallum for 4 rounds ...he was on a par with nunn after 7...and he beat gianfranco rosi.

The point is curry only fought the very best.

I think starling on his best day is better than quartey,trinidad and the shot whittaker DLH beat...

To be frank i still think ODLH has the much better resume at 147...in a h 2 h on their absolute best day its one rare fight where i may think curry may lose for a second... oscar was very good...but i still think curry was better in every department.

I can confidently think curry beats mayweather but de la hoya is more debatable.i still go with donald though

Also in currys era it was a,far harder one...by de lay hoyas time 4 world titles were well established....so it was easier to build up fighters.....eg vargas...carr..quartey and some of odlh "s wins.......in the mid 1990s la rocca would be a 56-1 wbo champ who"d dominated europe before he fought curry....same honeyghan.....odlh"s wins over chavez...Gonzalez...etc he has far more wins as his career at elite level was longer......don was finished at 25.....so hard to compare them.

Crawford and Spence are good but inferior to curry. spence was having trouble with a one eyed brook and porter.crawford doesnt have the all round game of curry. ......and what would curry have been without 400 amateur fights...and with the relaxed comfortable 1 or 2 fights schedule of todays fighters....with the next day fight weighing in with todays nutritionists....a master strategist like curry....with youtube at his fingertips...wouldve been ahead of todays WW"s.......says a lot that a 41 year old pacquio beat the long time king thurman....garcia beat shot fighters...matthyse was hardly monzon....

I agree the magazines were in a hurry to annoint curry #1 p4p....and it was premature based on beating Mcrory.....v good point....they had magazines to sell

But dismissing Starling that way is unfair

Starling had one bad year 1986...losing to vilella..and bumphus...guys he"d beat any other time....the molinares fight was a punch after the bell ..marlon had his hands down had relaxed...it didnt count...fight was a non contest........destroying honeyghan,brown and breland is v impressive.....the blocker defeat was controversial.

I think crawford,Spence ,porter,thurman are easily interchangeable with starling,brown ,honeyghan and breland....but donald curry rules them all...with historical hindsight as to who h2h prime for prime wins

 

I rate Curry as a very good welterweight rather than a great one such as Robinson,Leonard,Hearns,Napoles etc. In the same bracket as Carlos Palomino and the man who ended his unbeaten record - Lloyd Honeyghan.


For a while Don looked like the successor to Marvin Hagler as P4P best because of his unbeaten record.