Curry would've 'certainly' been an Olympic Medalist? Curry made the U.S. Olympic team just like James Broad did. Would Broad have 'certainly' been an Olympic medalist, too? You know, the Olympic Trials finals were televised live in 1980 on national television. The only fight they didn't show was Donald Curry's ... because he wasn't considered a lock to win anything. He didn't have much international experience at all. Saying he would've "certainly" been an Olympic medalist just goes to show your total bias.
I followed his entire career as it happened. And it was just an average welterweight class. Any welterweight division were Milton McCrory is the second best welterweight is average. You keep citing all these "world-class" welters. Who did McCrory beat that made him world class? Who the hell did Colin Jones beat that made him world-class? Who did freaking Gianfranco Rosi beat that made him world-class for God's sake? Darrin Van Horn? Rosi was a clown. Actually, comparing him to John Ruiz was an insult to John Ruiz. Enough. Curry's division wasn't any better than todays. Keith Thurman beat Danny Garcia, Shawn Porter, Diego Chaves, and Carlos Quintana ... and those guys were just as good or better than all the McCrorys and Colin Joneses you want to tout. And Curry wasn't any better than someone like Vernon Forrest, who beat freaking Shane Mosley twice. Curry never beat anyone as good as Shane Mosley, and that includes Marlon Starling. People blame Curry's welterweight ttile loss on weight trouble. Then he moved up so he wouldn't have to cut weight and where he could face better comp ... and he was worse. Curry was a solid welterweight in an average era. And he was an "opponent" when he stepped up to fight all-time great junior middleweights like McCalluma and Norris. Curry wasn't an all-time great. Good not great.
A lot of undefeated guys have looked super talented against clubfighters (like Jake Torrence, for instance). Then, when they step in against Hall of Famers ... they often tend to look about 60 percent of what they did against those lesser guys. That's because club fighters aren't as good as Hall of Famers. Donald Curry was undefeated for five years as a pro. He won a vacant WBA belt against a no-name South Korean, he was handed a free IBF belt after they created the title, and he actually beat Milton McCrory for his belt. Then, when he was 25, he got knocked out by Lloyd Honeyghan and went 9-6 the rest of his career. It was also during that stretch when he fought his best opponents and didn't have to worry about cutting so much weight. He was a good welterweight champ. He wasn't a great welterweight champ or a great fighter. Good. Not Great. The wins just aren't there, but the losses are.
It was five years ... not seven. And YOU HAVE TO BE HIGH if you think the 1985 version of Donald Curry was top five in EVERY era based on his wins that year. Why on earth would you think that? Because Curry beat Milton McCrory, Pablo Baez and Colin Jones that year? Jesus Christ. Call me crazy, but I'd take anyone in the Ring's current top five - Keith Thurman, Errol Spence, Kell Brook, Shawn Porter and Danny Garcia ... over Pablo Baez, Colin Jones and Milton McCrory, too. And I don't think that current class is among the best EVER welterweight class AT ALL. Man, you really drank the Kool AId on Curry. Pablo Baez was a club fighter. And Colin Jones and Milton McCrory would have a hard time even cracking the Ring's current top 10 welters right now ... let alone being ranked in the top three. And this class now ISN'T SPECIAL. The division Curry ruled was no better than today's ... and after looking at it more closely, Curry's division at that time was probably worse. And Curry couldn't even move up without getting stopped. Not that it mattered. Things only got worse when he did move up. That's all from me. I don't want to sound like I'm piling on. I think Donald Curry was a very good fighter and a very good champ. He just wasn't a GREAT fighter. And he certainly wasn't among the five best ever in 1985 or anything REMOTELY like that.
I think the James Broad comment and talk of being "high on kool aid" is not going to be favourable in your bringing me to your way of thinking....Broad has nothing to do with it.I"d agree with you on Thurman though....he has put together a lengthy reign and some high calibre wins over Porter and Garcia...that make him a very good champion for sure.A cut above mcgirt and Forrest...thats why i left him out of it . You havnt convinced me at all with the rest of the argument yet.That said you make a very good point ....it is possible to confuse a fighter going up in class and than losing with being "shot", in Currys case though it was totally clear for all to see he wasnt fighting the same...the starting to lead with his face not gloves glitch and the slowed reflexes and speed was apparent to gil clancy on commentary in his two fights with clubfighters prior to the step ups in class starting with mccallum. Since u like comparisons,Its the same with roy jones jnr post ruiz....anyone could see he wasnt the same physically or mentally ....just like donald the sudden gassing in fights that went more than eight rounds... I admit i may be overrating Curry to others but its my view based on what i saw in his technical boxing ability. Id agree with you the WW division this decade has been very strong...thurman,porter,garcia,brook and spence are better in general than Currys best foes bar Marlon Starling....on his best night ...and in his biggest fights marlon always performed....starling beats all those guys imo
Why play the race card? The bottom line is Gorman guided him from the beginning of his pro career and did a great job. Why was he not entitled to 28 percent ? Apparently Akbar Muhammad used the race card to drive a wedge and take over. And it worked - to the detriment of Donald's career. The same thing happened with Don King when he elbowed out Bill Cayton. in the long run, both guys suffered. it is ludicrous to blame Gorman and the boxing writers, and place no blame on Curry and Akbar Muhammad.
I do think Akbar Muhammad hurt Donald's career. He confused Donald and the cohesiveness Donald had with Gorman was gone. Ray when he left Angelo was better off because at that point he had the biggest things of his career, so he could handle the rest. Like Hearns fighting Hill without Steward. He could do it since he had a full career before that. Donald had the most coming up and needed to have the best trainer he could with the best bond.
Nice post it wasn't just that Curry reigned for almost 4 yrs, but he was hardly tested. McCrory was very good, and Curry absolutely destroyed him. LaRocca was thought to be able to at least provide a stern test, and was not at all competitive. Starling/Curry was a chess match between highly skilled fighters and showed both were championship caliber. Curry unified the title and cleaned out the division in the 1983-late 1986 time period. He unified a division when hardly any divisions were unified at the time. I am not saying he is an All time great, he didn't get the super fight when he was at his peak with anyone who would allow him to achieve such a status but he certainly did enough to show he is at least worthy of IBHOF status. No we shouldn't overrate him, but some on here are clearly underrating him.
You realize Pablo Baez was a non-title fight at 154 lbs? Just for Curry to get his feet wet in that division. He also beat James "Hard Rock" Green in another non-title fight, and Green was better than Baez. It was quite impressive for Curry to then drop immediately back down to 147 lbs and absolutely destroy the other 147 lb champion. By the end of '85 Curry was at his zenith. He should have moved back up to 154 lbs full time at that point, with nothing left to prove at 147 lbs.
The IBF also gave titles to Larry Holmes, Marvin Hagler and Aaron Pryor. It was in recognition they were the established champions. it legitimized the IBF. Should they have gone the way of the WBO or WBF or the myriad of paper organizations, and staged "title" fights between two no name journeymen instead? It was a testament to Curry's status that they handed him the IBF title, rather than a knock on him. I agree he didn't have the fights to establish himself as an ATG, but for a short time he was "great" and certainly belongs in the IBHOF, a place many fighters with less credentials than he has, currently reside.
Leonard was supposedly "retired" & was acting as Don's advisor. Don was having weight problems & wanted to move up & challenge Hagler. Leonard talked him into waiting saying you have plenty of time. All the time Leonard was secretly negociating the Hagler fight for himself, stabbing Don in the back. Don challenged Leonard but he 'retired" again When Leonard returned against Camacho I heard Don was ringside waiting to go in ring to embarrass Leonard into fighting him. Bue when he saw the pathetic performance Leonard put up Don said " I wouldn't embarrass myself by getting in the ring with him"
"World Class" is a subjective term, granted. But Rossi had beaten Duane Thomas who had beaten John Mugabi. He held a version of the world 154 title. I think he clearly qualified as "world class." He also beat Lupe Aquino, who had beaten Thomas. And a far from peak Curry beat Rossi. His status should be largely based on his peak - after he unified Welterweight Ttile, not beating Rossi. The Rossi win to garner a version of the junior middleweight title is just icing. Jones was world class. He held the European title and then almost beat McCrory. Starling was certainly world class, having narrowly lost to Curry in their first fight Anyway, Curry proved to be far above Jones and McCrory, and above Starling.. I think prime Curry was somewhere between "ATG" and "Good." I think you are thinking too narrowly. There are more than just these two categories in which to rate fighters. I think he was briefly "great."
Let's hope the same situation doesn't happen to Errol Spence Jr who seems like a good kid and has a family cocoon around him. If he fires his trainer/manager and moves to Las Vegas...look out!
