No, we're not, but the level at which Leonard fought and won was higher than that of Curry. We need only consider the fights themselves to see Leonard's demonstration of class. Of course, anything can happen but, going on form, Leonard is just a better Welterweight. So, if forced to make a bet, it becomes a binary decision and a wise selection is going to be a bet on Leonard.
Starling was not any greener than Curry. Starling turned pro in 79, Curry in 80. When they fought in 84 for Dons WBA title they were both entering their prime.
No, it doesn't put his early merit into question. He was having severe problems making 147 by the Honeyghan fight and never fought at 147 again.
Nobody that was really knowledgeable thought Curry was as good as Leonard and McCrory was as good as Hearns. But they were similar stylistically - Curry to Leonard and McCrory to Hearns. And they were clearly the best two Welterweight at the time they had their unification match. And, just as the multifaceted Leonard found a way to get inside and punish the freakishly tall Hearns in their unification match, Curry did the same to the stick like McCrory. It wasn't just that Cury beat McCrory, it was the way he totally anniliated him, that was so impressive. If anything, McCrory and Curry have been underrated in the classic forum. Yes, they weren't as good as Leonard and Hearns, but those two were rarfied talents that only come around once every 20 years, if that.
I didn't claim it places his merit into " This content is protected ". I suggested that it, "puts his early merits into perspective, when pitted against Greats like Leonard, Benitez, Hearns and Duran." Somewhat of a different meaning, wouldn't you say?
A little more than a tad better. the difference between possible top 10 great to not in the top 100 great.
It was the matchup and looks a little. Curry was the Leonard and McCrory was from Kronk and tall. however I think McCrory's reach was only 75 even if I remember correctly and Hearns is 78 1/2.. Leonard has a 74 inch reach and Curry 72. He destroyed McCrory that is for sure. I always thought the McCallum knockout of Curry was so similar to the Curry over Milt. Almost like this is what it feels like.
I don't know. I think Honeyghan has always been underrated. I thought he was a damned good fighter. Quick hands and underrated power.
Yes, some in this thread are obviously not looking at peak for peak form. They are over emphasisizing Curry's decline. I do think Ray would stop Curry late, though.
I would disagree with the highlighted. McCrory wasn't clearly above Starling and I would argue he wasn't above him at all. Starling couyld have an off night but history shows us he was a better fighter than McCrory.
The DC that fought Honeyghan had weight and managerial problems. This fight ruined DC and he never was the brilliant WW again he was at his best. Still DC managed to give the Body Snatcher a competitive before being ko. SRL a competitive fight with SRL winning on pts.
Yes, In retrospect, Starling is better overall but he had lost to Curry twice already, and Vilela, and would lose to Bumphus a few months later. He was nowhere near a title shot unless Curry vacated his titles. McCrory was the undefeated WBC Champ. So, Curry was fighting the best available competition when he fought McCrory
