I keep hearing on this forum that he's basically on the highest echelon. Maybe a little lesser than SRL and Hearns, but equals with everyone else. I still haven't bothered looking into his era. Being a simpleton boxrec warrior, he didn't heavily outscore his opponents, whether the fight ended in a knockout or not. And what of his loss to Honeyghan? What happened there? This was the only fight I watched, and that was in 2012. He looked a little flat, slow, off etc. Are there any circumstances that explain his shoddy showing vs Honeyghan? I'm not going to inquire about his career as a light middleweight, although apparently being 4-0 ahead vs Mike McCallum (although KO'd) indicates great boxing ability.
I can't think of any here that rank him at the very top either. If I were you, I'd look into some of his fights. Get off Boxrec and go do some real research.
He was awesome.. About as naturally gifted as anyone. Real pleasure to watch too. But he his prime was short lived and his durability limited.. Once it got to the point where he couldn't keep his weight down at welter he pretty much had nowhere to go. He wasn't tough enough for the above classes.
Sorry for the tangent but would you mind explaining you mean by "naturally gifted"? It seems to me that it would apply either to guys who had immense physical gifts (like Hearns and Leonard) or guys who were extraordinarily effective despite reaching the sport later in life. Am I misunderstanding the term? Someone recently used it here to describe Wilfred Benitez, who had a decade of hard experience boxing and street fighting by the time he ascended the junior-welter ranks.
people have been claiming Curry as this perfect boxer for years when he was in his prime,,, personally I thought he was damned good but not as great as many hyped him up as,,,, His shoddy showing vs Honeyghan was related to Honey's blazing hand speed, aggression and aggressiveness against Curry, Honey was amazing vs Donald.
He was damn good at his best. Beautiful boxer-puncher, had some fine wins and looked destined for greatness. Tyson-esque in the way he reigned supreme for 3-4 years and was thought untouchable before the spectacular and unexpected fall from grace. The wheels really began to come off when he thought he could manage and train himself, added to him trying to stay at 147 when he was tight at the weight. If you have a spare few hours, checking out his career is worth the effort.
I agree with this. His peak and his days as a well-hyped prospect were a little before my time, so I was initially very surprised that people wrote so highly of him. Having gone back and watched his earlier fights, I'm still not convinced that he was as great during his short peak as people make him out to be-- I suspect that he probably always had limitations. Difference is that Tyson was demolishing champions, former champs, and perennial contenders. Curry looked great against far lesser competition.
I don't know if it's something that really requires a great deal of explanation.. The guy was exceptionally good at what he did. Very fast, accurate,skilled and it all seemed to come natural to him and at an early stage in his life..
Donald didn't have the greatest chin, and was lucky that someone like Bobby Joe Young wasn't in there with him instead of Jun-Sok Hwang. Beautiful boxer, tremendous talent, however, but a lot of his sucess, in some ways, was due to his timing.
Not sure that I'd classify Milton mcCrory, Marlon Starling and Giangranco Rossi, as being "lesser" opponents than Tony Tucker, Pinklon Thomas or an ancient Holmes but we all have our opinions. And losing to Lloyd Honeyghan and Mike McCallum is preferable to me than losing Jim douglas.
Curry certainly didn't look Tyson-esque unbeatable against Starling though. Surprised that you hold McCrory and Rossi in such regard. And the Rosi fight seems beside the point anyway, in that it came after those two losses at a point in his career when nobody would have mistaken Curry for being unbeatable.