More technically skilled - Donald Curry or Ricardo Lopez?

I think Curry edges it IMO, Lopez was superb but he wasn't as proven as Curry IMO.

I'll go into more detail if this thread takes off.

 

to stir the pot (and get more out of gpater, who knows a ton about lopez) i think it's tricky cause they were both brilliant in their own ways. i'll play devils advocate and say that curry relied on athleticism, specifically reflexes, a touch more than lopez. not to say he was sloppy or wasn't textbook, but watching lopez he just didn't make mistakes. curry occasionally did, they just weren't caught by most fighters.

 

Donald Curry.....most skilled boxer in the period 1983-1985.....

 

Curry was a skilled offensive fighter. Never impressed with his defense, either upper body movement (he didn't have any) or ability to slip or parry.

 

Lopez could be pretty stiff as well.

Curry gets my vote.

 

I always thought it was Hearns or Hagler in that time period over Donald, simply on quality of opposition. Donald was quick and a great counterpuncher and always kept himself in position to counterpunch. His best win was probably McCrory, and he was great in that fight and peaking. Also McCrory only had a reach of 73 inches believe it or not.

 

Curry a bit smoother and better athlete, but I think Lopez in some ways was a better technician.

 

Great thread, really good question I've never considered before.

I see the case for both guys, don't really have a strong enough conviction on it to really argue the point, but I think if pushed I'd go with Lopez, because I think he was marginally more complete and was technically proficient both offensively and defensively to a greater extent than Curry.

 

From a trainers perspective you couldn't fault Lopez. It was once jocosely discussed whether or not he goes to bed with those hands up; they really were pinned to his head.

When you factor in his gliding movement and that ferocious arsenal he really is a special one in the boxing landscape. There were parallels with Erik Morales but he was superior defensively, and in terms of inducing concussions.

Curry's style had a greater element of improvisation. His great strength was in his grand ability to not give the slightest hint of what he was to do next. When that decision was made the execution was Louis-esque in its uncompromising precision.

It's difficult to compare the two. The closest thing to the truth that can be said is that they were both brilliant.

 

From a trainers perspective you couldn't fault Lopez. It was once jocosely discussed whether or not he goes to bed with those hands up; they really were pinned to his head.

When you factor in his gliding movement and that ferocious arsenal he really is a special one in the boxing landscape. There were parallels with Erik Morales but he was superior defensively, and in terms of inducing concussions.

Curry's style had a greater element of improvisation. His great strength was in his grand ability to not give the slightest hint of what he was to do next. When that decision was made the execution was Louis-esque in its uncompromising precision.

It's difficult to compare the two. The closest thing to the truth that can be said is that they were both brilliant.

 

*well.. don't understand the comparison... Lopez went 50-0, defended his title 20x's and had a 80% ko ratio and is gernally considered the most under-rated ATG of all time... did Curry do anything close to that?... case closed... NO COMPARISON.

 

that's because you are a naive ******. Curry's win column is probably better than Lopez's

 

hahahah..what an idiot! i bet ur a David Haye fan too...

 

Haye fan there isn't a single HW out there that I like

you made a fking ******ed comment about their resumes and I called you out on it. Curry has at least a few good wins over Starling and McCrory. not to mention looked great against a great like McCallum. Lopez's resume on the other hand is littered with mediocrity and aside from Alvarez I struggle to label any of them as anything other than being awful to average.