Taylor = Curry??

To me Taylor seems to have mental meltdowns in his fights. He has pretty much dont the same thing in every fight. Get out to big leads on the cards then fall apart. Like Wlad I dont think that its a stamina issue, its much deeper. Not to take anything away from Froch, but Taylor gave him that fight, it was almost as if Taylor was waiting around to get knocked out.

As far as comparing him with Curry??? I dont think so, Curry was a much more talented fighter that seemed to have a fairly weak chin, taylor on the other hand seems to have a mental issue.

 

Taylor was almost on par with as far as talent go's. People actually forget how talented Taylor is. The difference is that Curry's offense was much more consistant. He was nastier, and was a much better finisher. He didn't allow himself to get bullied. Taylor allows himself to get bullied by far less talented fighters than himself.
There were times when Taylor looks like an all-time great, but those moments don't last long with him. Maybe for a round or two.
There were times when I thought he would knock out Winky Wright, but he let off the gas and let Winky back in the fight. This was the same with Ouma.
Before Curry let drugs into his life, he was always a no-nonsense fighter. If he had you hurt, he would finish you. You had to fight to survive with him. He was never lazy, like Taylor.

 

I am not making up excuses. Taylor was getting hit often enough for him to wilt the way he did.

 

that was my point. Curry showed great skills but he did not beat anyone really great. Who did he beat great? Giafranco Rosi? Milton McCrory?

 

Donald Curry gettin' beat by Rene Jacqout on national TV back in 1989 was terrible.... Curry showed just how far he had slipped by then..... I recorded that fight and I still have a fresh copy of it, too....... Christ, D.C. was only 27 at the time and shot to hell..... Peace...

MR.BILL

 

Curry had far and away more talent than Taylor ever did. Stupid comparison.

 

accomplishments are what makes a fighter great. Curry had more talent maybe but Taylor fought them all and beat Hopkins. Just by beating Hopkins that put him ahead of Curry.

 

Taylor to Donald Curry??

**** no... that's ****in disrespectable to Curry..

Taylor isn't half the fighter that Curry was..

 

Stupid ass comparison..

 

Prove it.

Just saying "Curry just looks better" doesn't somehow invalidate the comparison.

 

That is a small part in judging fighters...talking about the comp of fighters beating other fighters comp(Starling beating Honeyghan. Curry didn't beat Honeyghan, Starling did. Starling was an elite fighter at ww at one time. Starling beat Breland also, but he also got starched in 5 rounds by Tomas Molinares where Starling couldn't even remember that he was knocked out when interviewed by Merchant.

We are talking about who Curry beat, and who he lost to, and who he beat doesn't come close to who Taylor beat. Curry had a better style and way more skills than Taylor, but what did he do that makes him better than Taylor? I pick Curry anyway, but this is a very close comparison of the two.

 

I don't hold the loss to Molinares against him. It was CLEARLY after the bell, and changed to a no-contest.

I agree that Hopkins is better than anyone Curry beat. But lots of fighters whom I rate highly (much more highly than Curry) don't have wins over a long-reigning ATG on their ledger.

But what about the rest of his resume? I thought he lost to Wright, although I thought he fought reasonably well. Joppy, despite his high ranking, was badly faded by then. Lacy was faded/shot as well. Taylor beat Spinks, but that was a close terrible fight, and Spinks is a smaller guy anyway. Same with Ouma. Bunema was a decent win.

But Curry has a good number of wins over top-ranked WWs at the time. Starling (2x), McCory, Jones, Stafford, Finch, LaRocca...were all ranked contenders (or champs) when Curry beat them. And with the exception of Starling the first time, Curry beat them all in convincing fashion.

It's not just about beating greats (it's not like there are a ton of true greats floating around all the time anyway). Sometimes it's about showing consistency by numerous good fighters, which Curry did, by beating several top welterweights.

Julio Cesar Chavez didn't beat any true greats, but he beat numerous good fighters, and I'll rate him higher than other guys who beat greats but whose resumes are otherwise thin and don't have the abilities that Chavez had. Guys like Hatton, Douglas, McGuigan, etc...Obviously those are more extreme examples than Curry/Taylor, but I'm just saying, beating good fighters in impressive fashion can mean more than a single win over a great (or two razor thin ones).

 

I'd say taylor is more comparable to someone like Frank Tate than Curry in terms of talent.

IMO the starling curry beat was clearly superior to the Hopkins taylor beat.Hopkins was obviously struggling at middle by that point, barely throwing any punches for long stretches in order to conserve stamina.Moving up gave him a new lease of life for a few fights.

 

Taylor is nowhere near as good as Curry, and Honeyghan's beating of Curry was in a totally different fashion to Froch.

Curry is more of a Tyson. Fantastic for a very short period of time.

Taylor was never fantastic, and has never blown anyone away. He was close twice against Hopkins, and lost twice to Pavlik.

Good, but not Curry.

 

Starling himself was better than Taylor.