Was there ever a time Curry could have fought Chavez Sr, and who would have won?

No.

 

Catchweights in my opinion are a cop out, if you want the champions belt you fight him at his respective weight, or do not fight him at all. I think that those conditions sound like Oscar De La Hoya shenanigans, very unnecessary. It would be like asking Joe Frazier to drop a lot of weight to fight Bob Foster. Foster wanted the heavyweight title, so he has to move up. With all due respect, it restricts a champion from fighting to his full potential, I feel like those conditions should be prohibited, and ridiculous practices like this should result in the suspension of the promoters who initiate them. Donald Curry vs Julio Caesar Chavez at 147 would have been a good fight. Curry had really good skill, a pretty good counter puncher as seen against Colin Jones in early 1985, Chavez a very good body puncher. A bloody hard battle, but I see Donald as the victor on points, very close.

 

No offense ro Julio but 140 was the highest weight at which he shined. He was 144 I think for Whitaker then dropped back down to 140. Prime 147 Curry would easily beat a 147 lb JCC in my opinion.

 

Post Honeyghan (1986). Curry fought at 154 and even 160 for Nunn. He retired in 1991. JC Chavez won the 140 lb title in 1989 and then fought many non title fights at between 140 an 147 lbs.

There is no time when they were close to the same weight class save for Curry's brief 1997 comeback. Curry was 154 lbs for his loss to Emmett Linton. I believe Chavez was still fighting at between 140 and 147 even then.

 

Curry was a far better fighter than Taylor...and at WW generally superior and more classy than Whittaker....those 2 of course pushed Chavez at 140-147....the Curry of 84/85 beats Chavez any number of ways....theres nothing Chavez could do...Donald would outbox him over 15 or turn his face to pulp by round 13..

 

Curry stops Chavez at 147.

 

I can’t remember if it was a thread I created or just a post, but I visited the term ‘catchweight’ some years ago.

It has, oddly, come to mean now exactly the opposite of what it used to mean.

A fight in the hold days fought at catchweights meant you come in at whatever you want to weigh and I’ll come in at whatever I want to weigh — Jake LaMotta had a lot of those where he was over 160 against someone who was barely over welterweight.

Now it means agreeing to a weight in between.

Strange.

 

Not really. Curry moved up from welt. after Lloyd beat him in 1986 Sept, and at that time Chavez had not even moved to lightweight. The closest they were was maybe when Curry was at 154 and Chavez in 1991 was where? Welt?

 

I know what you mean, but in modern times they tell a champion he has to be near a challengers weight to accommodate him, that is strange, you want the title, you must meet the champions terms, not your own, I know that they used to use it back in the era of Jake La Motta, but we now have wimpering challengers. Imagine asking Carlos Monzon to meet Jose Mantequilla Napoles weight in 1974, he would have laughed, he was not a broke fighter by any means. And only the broke fighters will bow to these terms for the money.

 

The economics are what’s different. Carlos could have fought someone else for the same or similar money. So can most champs today.

But when you stare at the difference between a payday for, say, Donny Lalonde coming down a few pounds to fight SRL or staying at 175 to fight any contender of that time, it’s life-changing.

 

I know what you are saying, but it is not right, if it was me I would want to have all of my arsenal when I go into battle, not half. i still believe the champion sets his terms. And if you take of your earnings the right way, good investments, live practical, buy what you really need, there is no reason to fall to those type of demands. Just my opinion with all due respect, that is how I was taught, and how I live.

 

Yeah, maybe not you but most people will compromise for money that can put their great-grandkids through college (although most of them blow it on less important things). They weren’t exactly taught investment strategy coming up or they wouldn’t be boxers.

Not saying you do this, but most of the people who whine about those things do so because they want to see some very dominant lighter-weight guy take an arse-whipping and nobody in their division has done it so they figure “now he’s going to fight a bigger guy and I can get my thrills seeing him get beat.”

That’s the truth of most of the objection to it.

I think it can make for a more interesting fight. Monzon at 156 vs. Napoles might be interesting, but as a full-blown middle vs. a puffed-up small welterweight, it wasn’t. And I don’t think it really proved anything: maybe it was a nice scalp at the time but I don’t know many who regard it as much more than a “good big man beats a good smaller man.”

They say what makes a horse race is a difference of opinion. With the weight limits middled or shifted slightly, it sways opinions.

 

You make a lot of sense, my friend, but if you want to reach higher limits, you have to be willing to climb. Napoles did ask for that match by the way, Napoles weighed 153, Monzon weighed 159. But I do respect your opinion, always do.