I also think that Norris is a H2H nightmare especially against those that couldn't bang. Like you said, if you can't hurt him you're in trouble.
He didn't really look like he was drawn into anything in that fight. His chin was just, well, "Terrible", and he looked clueless in there. Credit to him for boxing smart in the rematch, but the fact remains he should've never had any problems with a more or less washed up Welter like Brown. To answer the question: my personal preference is easily Curry, if that wasn't obvious enough from my above paragraph.
Well what I mean is Norris could exchange punches and was more confortable doing it than Donald. Donald was a sharp counterpuncher, which would not have been great for Terry when Donald was prime. If Terry had a jab which could hit Donald it would have countered a little Donald's counterpunching, but most guys could not counter Donald. Incidentally, Milton McCrory for being 6-1, only had a 73 inch reach, shorter than Leonard's (74) or Hagler's (75). So McCrory was tall but the reach was not that great. Hearns on the other had had a 78 inch reach. I think Norris had a 73 inch reach if I am not mistaken.
Actually, I think his reach was only 68. I hear you man, but I still gotta go with Norris on this. I might be a little biased, he's one of my 3 favorite fighters.
well I see your point in that Terry had speed which was the greatest thing he did have. Donald in his prime was so great. Terry would have to almost hurt Donald in the first round before Donald got his rhythm. The fight they had in Palm Springs in 1991 was brutal. Donald gave a good accounting of himself.
Curry did give a hell of an account of himself that night past prime. Would have been a barn burner either way I think, but yea, if Curry got into rhythm it would e big trouble for the terrible one.