Are there any pure boxers you'd take over a peak Donald Curry at Welterweight?

[Sweet Pea]

Any defensive specialists or lighter hitters who relied primarily on pure boxing technique, speed, reflexes, ring generalship, etc?

The only thing that seemed to have been an issue for a prime Curry was maybe durability (excluding out of the ring issues as we're dealing with a prime, clean version), which we found out later on. Against pure technicians who wouldn't have been able to really exploit this flaw, are there are any that would be able to out-box him over 12 or 15 rounds to take a Decision? Not only was he a near flawless technician, but he was also a very good puncher, which would give him the edge in that regard over pretty much all of the pure boxing types.

So what say you? Whitaker? Benitez? Graham?

How about guys like Griffith and Rodriguez, who weren't really known as defensive specialists so much as highly skilled all around performers, and did hit harder than those mentioned above, but were never power punchers?

I realize Curry will likely be underrated in comparison to those guys because of his shorter reign and sudden fall from grace, but try to look at it objectively, based on their skills prime for prime, styles matchups, etc.

[Robbi]

First of all, here is a post from 7-19-2008 I posted.

Curry was one of the best 'pound for pound' fighters during the mid-80's. He was welterweight champion between 83-86. Technically he was among the finest fighters of the last 30 years, so fine that many had him marked down as the next Leonard. However, problems making the weight eventually caught up with him when he ran into Honeyghan. He wasn't quite the same fighter after that.

He put together a couple of wins at 154lbs then challenged McCallum for the WBA title. IMO he was getting the better of McCallum for as long as the fight lasted, before pulling out of an exchange with his hands down which left his jaw exposed to a sweeping left hook from McCallum. That really was the final nail in his coffin.

Curry never accomplished what his talent deserved. He was as good a 'punch picker' as you'll ever witness. He wasn't the type of boxer who would be on his bicyle behind then jab. He tended to stand within range behind a high guard, slam home jabs at long distance, work his way inside, pound the body with both hands, and keep his elbows tucked into his ribs. He was equally good inside as he was at long range. Didn't matter to him if it was long range stuff or fighting in a telephone box. His workrate was steady and his punches accurate.

[the cobra]

Perhaps Gavilan for a lighter hitter, I'm not sure though.

As a technician he was about as good as it gets at his best from what I've seen, I don't really think I would outright favor anyone to simply "outskill" him on his best night.

[MRBILL]

Donny Curry did some great things between 1983 thru 1986, but then he went to hell against Lloyd Honeyghan.... The strain of making 147 for too long did Curry in.... I believe Don Curry ruined his speed and reflexes by starving and straining to stay down at 147 pounds.... In truth, Curry should've moved to 154 immediately following his park job of Milton McCrory in late 1985.... However, in a time machine, I say Kid Gavilan was a better 147 pounder than Curry was, but Curry had better power at 147 pounds... Cheers.....

MR.BILL

[Robbi]

Any defensive specialists or lighter hitters who relied primarily on pure boxing technique, speed, reflexes, ring generalship, etc?

The only thing that seemed to have been an issue for a prime Curry was maybe durability (excluding out of the ring issues as we're dealing with a prime, clean version), which we found out later on. Against pure technicians who wouldn't have been able to really exploit this flaw, are there are any that would be able to out-box him over 12 or 15 rounds to take a Decision? Not only was he a near flawless technician, but he was also a very good puncher, which would give him the edge in that regard over pretty much all of the pure boxing types.

So what say you? Whitaker? Benitez? Graham?

How about guys like Griffith and Rodriguez, who weren't really known as defensive specialists so much as highly skilled all around performers, and did hit harder than those mentioned above, but were never power punchers?

I realize Curry will likely be underrated in comparison to those guys because of his shorter reign and sudden fall from grace, but try to look at it objectively, based on their skills prime for prime, styles matchups, etc.

Well, we need a fighter who's quicker than Curry. Who has an excellent defense, and can match him or better him inside. I can see Curry having problems with an opponent who was very quick on his feet. Because Curry fought out of a very wide stance, usually within range, and wasn't particularly quick at cutting down the ring. That probably complimented his controlled and precise style though.

If we are matching Curry with a superb all-round boxer with nothing serious when it comes to power, then I pick Whitaker or Napoles. Although it's a tall order if they would beat him. Napoles was a decent hitter and Whitaker wasn't exactly as quick around the ring at WW as he was at LW.

[MRBILL]

Even though Curry cameback after his losses to "Honey & McCallum" in '86 and 1987, I thought Donald Curry looked faded and beatable in his title win over Giafranco Rosi in 1988.... The '89 loss to Rene Jaquot on CBS Television was a clear-cut tale of a fighter becoming shot-to-hell..... Curry went straight to hell in boxing after 1989..... Peace...

MR.BILL

[Sweet Pea]

Napoles was a very powerful puncher.

Whitaker with his ability to fight off the backfoot and his excellent inside game would be a close call for sure though.

[Robbi]

Napoles was a very powerful puncher.

Whitaker with his ability to fight off the backfoot and his excellent inside game would be a close call for sure though.

Yeah, Naploes was. I was more focused on him technically.

[dpw417]

Whitaker might be the pick for me. Curry's combos were tight and fast, with good power. But his style was read then react. A unique stylist like Whitaker could maybe outpoint him while him was waiting for openings that would very few and far between.

[WhataRock]

LMR was not a puncher but he showed some ability to stop a fight abruptly and he was a good body puncher.

I think he was versatile enough to not try and exclusively box a guy like Curry but to mix it up, and take it to the inside.

Very interesting thread though because apart from his durability Curry was very impressive and had some great wins..I could see why people expected more of him.

The fact he could deal with a bloke like Starling shows just how hard he would be to outbox if you didnt have to power to bring out those durability issues.

[Robbi]

Donny Curry did some great things between 1983 thru 1986, but then he went to hell against Lloyd Honeyghan.... The strain of making 147 for too long did Curry in.... I believe Don Curry ruined his speed and reflexes by starving and straining to stay down at 147 pounds.... In truth, Curry should've moved to 154 immediately following his park job of Milton McCrory in late 1985.... However, in a time machine, I say Kid Gavilan was a better 147 pounder than Curry was, but Curry had better power at 147 pounds... Cheers.....

MR.BILL

Yes, and the reason why he stayed at 147lbs was stupid and dumb. Stubborness to give up his titles as he enjoyed being one of only two undisputed champions in boxing at the time, with the other being Hagler. True, and Curry was quoted as saying this when asked why he wasn't moving up as expected. This was before he even fought Honeyghan.

[Sweet Pea]

LMR was not a puncher but he showed some ability to stop a fight abruptly and he was a good body puncher.

I think he was versatile enough to not try and exclusively box a guy like Curry but to mix it up, and take it to the inside.That's the thing though, Curry was a fantastic in-fighter. Without serious power to deter him, I'm not sure who I'd favor.

Guys like Gavilan, Rodriguez, and Griffith would be the best choices because they had the overall skills to match Curry and perhaps edge him in certain areas, as well as the abiliy to innovate and go outside of the textbook (more the case with Gavilan and Rodriguez than Griffith though).

[Robbi]

That's the thing though, Curry was a fantastic in-fighter. Without serious power to deter him, I'm not sure who I'd favor.

Guys like Gavilan, Rodriguez, and Griffith would be the best choices because they had the overall skills to match Curry and perhaps edge him in certain areas, as well as the abiliy to innovate and go outside of the textbook (more the case with Gavilan and Rodriguez than Griffith though).

I can't see Curry having an easy time with Gavilian, who was slightly more unorthdox and flashy. I think Gavilan has the combinations at mid-range to out-score Curry. And lets not forget this, Curry was a sharp-shooter. His punches weren't thrown with bad intentions regularly, as he simply relied on steadyness combined with accuracy. He wasn't a flurrier like Leonard. He went for quality, rather than quantity. Gavilan would definitely have him covering up when getting off with his own flurries. Yes, Curry covered-up well. But Gavilian would be best countering with these shots, rather than lead of with them, thus not giving Curry time to cover-up. And he went into a shell with ease when required. Gavilan would need to exchange with Curry to be successful in scoring.

[dpw417]

I'd pick Griffith, Rodriguez, and Gavilan to all beat Curry. All three were iron men. A fight against Whitaker would be much closer with Curry, but i think I'd take Pernell for the win

[sweet_scientist]

Any defensive specialists or lighter hitters who relied primarily on pure boxing technique, speed, reflexes, ring generalship, etc?

The only thing that seemed to have been an issue for a prime Curry was maybe durability (excluding out of the ring issues as we're dealing with a prime, clean version), which we found out later on. Against pure technicians who wouldn't have been able to really exploit this flaw, are there are any that would be able to out-box him over 12 or 15 rounds to take a Decision? Not only was he a near flawless technician, but he was also a very good puncher, which would give him the edge in that regard over pretty much all of the pure boxing types.

So what say you? Whitaker? Benitez? Graham?

How about guys like Griffith and Rodriguez, who weren't really known as defensive specialists so much as highly skilled all around performers, and did hit harder than those mentioned above, but were never power punchers?

I realize Curry will likely be underrated in comparison to those guys because of his shorter reign and sudden fall from grace, but try to look at it objectively, based on their skills prime for prime, styles matchups, etc.
You picked the guys I'd favour over him, though I would give Don an outside chance of knocking Wilfred Benitez out.

Donald Curry had supreme technical precision with his punches and good punching power to boot. He had good speed with his shots as well and very good balance in his prime.

However, he did have some weaknesses and I think fighters like Marlon Starling and Jun-Suk Hwang exposed them when they fought him.

His three chief weaknesses as I see it are:
1. His defence was a little leaky. Not bad by any means, but he could be hit.
2. He wasn't that physically strong. Again, he wasn't weak, but he could be muscled around a bit.
3. He sometimes refused to fight on the retreat when he needed to. He often stood his ground unnecessarily, allowing himself to be hit.

Curry struggled with the raw as hell Hwang, simply because Hwang was able to bully him with his strength and make him uncomfortable. Marlon Starling basically got in Curry's face and refused to budge. He was probably a tad fortunate to wind up with the decision in both the Starling fights imo (had him ahead, but only just).

I can see fighters like Pernell Whitaker and Billy Graham getting on Curry and using their physical strength to offset Curry and not give him the space to operate comfortably. They both have good body attacks, good defense and good pressuring ability to get to Curry and make it difficult for him to operate. They may not necessarily outmuscle him, but they will make him uncomfortable enough that Curry will need to fight in the reverse at stages in the fight, and he'd probably neglect to and find himself getting hit plenty.

No pure boxer type at welterweight has an easy time with Curry though. If I pick the likes of Graham and Pea I pick them to win close decisions.

With Benitez it would be fascinating. Curry has the better offensive ability generally, but Wilfred has that greater defensive ability and could possibly make Curry miss more than he ever has before and land enough to sneak home a win. I think he does, but I'm less confident in that pick than I am with Pea and Graham.

[Robbi]

His three chief weaknesses as I see it are:
1. His defence was a little leaky. Not bad by any means, but he could be hit.
2. He wasn't that physically strong. Again, he wasn't weak, but he could be muscled around a bit.
3. He sometimes refused to fight on the retreat when he needed to. He often stood his ground unnecessarily, allowing himself to be hit.

Agreed. I've said this before. At times he should have gotten on his bicycle and worked behind the jab while on the move. Especially around the perimeter of the ring. Instead he would stand his ground. I think he was perhaps too confident in his mid-range and inside game. While he did have a brilliant jab, it should have been used on the move more often. It would have broadened his arsenal and options even further. His hands-up defense could only limit oncoming artillery landing, not shut it out entirely. This is where his feet would have came in handy.

[sweet_scientist]

Agreed. I've said this before. At times he should have gotten on his bicycle and worked behind the jab while on the move. Especially around the perimeter of the ring. Instead he would stand his ground. I think he was perhaps too confident in his mid-range and inside game. While he did have a brilliant jab, it should have been used on the move more often. It would have broadened his arsenal and options even further. His hands-up defense could only limit oncoming artillery landing, not shut it out entirely. This is where his feet would have came in handy.

Well said. I can particularly see this being a problem for Don against a fighter like Griffith. Curry has all the tools to outbox Griffith, but I bet Griffith would still find a way to win because Curry will refuse to move more than he should.

[Ezzard]

That's the thing though, Curry was a fantastic in-fighter. Without serious power to deter him, I'm not sure who I'd favor.

Guys like Gavilan, Rodriguez, and Griffith would be the best choices because they had the overall skills to match Curry and perhaps edge him in certain areas, as well as the abiliy to innovate and go outside of the textbook (more the case with Gavilan and Rodriguez than Griffith though).

Pretty much agree. I think these 3 would beat him...

One thing. I was once told by a guy in the boxing media that Curry had an innovative way of making weight. He was instructed by some top kind of scientist type... Anyway, this is why his power actually seemed to increase at Welterweight. He was getting bigger and stronger but still making the weight. The problem for me with the weight draining issue is that (1) I'm a big Honeyghan fan (there, I admit it) and (2) if it was just about weight issues then what happened to the rest of his career...

I always thought Curry's style was perfect for a swarmer who would not stand off him and who could give and take.

[mr. magoo]

My obvious pick would be a prime Ray Leonard at welterweight.

[JohnThomas1]

My obvious pick would be a prime Ray Leonard at welterweight.

I think many see him as a boxer/puncher more so than a "pure" boxer. Regardless he'd beat Curry in a very good competitive fight IMO.

[80s champs]

How would Prime Curry do against Welter Hearns?

[Robbi]

How would Prime Curry do against Welter Hearns?

Curry was better inside than Hearns. And thats the core of the problem for him. He'd get knocked out trying to get there.

[mr. magoo]

I think many see him as a boxer/puncher more so than a "pure" boxer.

True.

[Sweet Pea]

Let's not bring Leonard and Hearns into it, I asked for a specific type. I didn't say "Is there any Welterweight in the history of boxing that could beat a peak Donald Curry?"

There have been some good answers here.

I personally would probably favor all 3 of the more all around stylists like Griffith, Gavilan, and Rodriguez, but among pure boxers I wouldn't favor Benitez, and Whitaker/Graham are close calls. I'd give Curry the edge over Graham, the Whitaker bout being 50/50.

[teeto]

The first who came to my mind was Napoles, but that depends on whether he is excluded form the criteria because of his versatility as a banger. I personally dont think he should be excluded, it was really all skill with him. But it does say lighter hitters, so maybe Hearns? Kiddin! Probably Whitaker, not sure though.

[natonic]

It seems the consensus likes Gavilan, Griffith, Rodriguez. I think I agree. I'm surprised nobody mentioned De La Hoya. I'm not saying he beats Curry, but I think it's a close fight. I think more highly of Curry, but stylistically I think Oscar could give him problems. I just don't think Oscar would be a willing participant in the in-fighting. He'd be boxing and moving the whole fight. I say no knockout either way in this one so it would be a pretty close decision either way. Any thoughts on this one?

[Robbi]

Donald Curry easily makes my top 10 favourite fighters of all-time. Probably at the bottom half. Other fighters had better longevity, durability, and were simply greater. But when it comes to all-round boxing skills at his best, Curry ticks the boxes for me.

[Mantequilla]

I think Curry would beat DLH pretty comfortably.Not a big Oscar fan though.

Tito would give him more problems despite his one-dimensional nature imo.

[Robbi]

I think Curry would beat DLH pretty comfortably.Not a big Oscar fan though.

Tito would give him more problems despite his one-dimensional nature imo.

I think De La Hoya has the ability to lay his gloves on Curry more often than Trinidad. He's got the combinations, jab, and ring generalship. But the crucial factor for me is that Trinidad would really damage Curry inside and at mid-range, although he'd be taking a few himself. De La Hoya got off with more ease than Trinidad, and also had a better jab. He rattled off 3-4 punch flurries.

It's a terrible match-up for Curry when I think about it based on the styles. Trinidad wasn't a free flowing puncher, as he relied on pin-point punches a bit like Curry himself. But the difference is that Trinidad landed heavy artillery with almost everything he threw. Curry on the other hand was sharp-shooter.

De La Hoya's chin would have no problem when it comes to taking Curry's punches. Different matter for Trinidad, who might well visit the canvas during the early rounds.


Trinidad KO5.

De La Hoya, 50/50.

[Sweet Pea]

If we were taking Curry at his best I might favor him over Trinidad. Tito has a lot more trouble getting set with his own shots than Curry did. Everyone's making Curry out to be some kind of fighter who has difficutly getting off if the pace is not exactly as he wants it. I don't buy that at all. He was very precise and calculated, but not limited. I think he'd get off on Tito far more often than not, and his movement was quite efficient at times, enough to hold off Tito (who never had the best footwork) when combined with his offensive arsenal and punch variety.

I do think Tito would be a worse matchup for him than De La Hoya though, given Tito's power and ability to rip off vicious combinations in the instances where the fight would be held in close quarters. Curry would always be at risk there moreso than the outside given Curry's durability issues, even though he was a better technical in-fighter than Tito. Against Oscar the pace would more or less favor his style, and I think he was a more precise puncher than Oscar, a better in-fighter, and at least as powerful, if not moreso.

[Mantequilla]

I think Curry would beat them both as well.Just as you say Tito has a better punchers chance.

Oscar would be competitive for sure, but he'd lose by about five points or so imo.Curry's quick straight shots up the middle and precision counters would tag him repeatedly, when Oscar tries to open up and get something going other than his jab.

[Robbi]

Curry was better inside than Trinidad, all round anyway. His awareness, ability to bend his knees and slip, cover-up, and also counter-punch at close quarters make for a quality tussle inside. But I keep going round and circles and come back to Trinidad's power. Thats exactly where he might well punch the air right out of Curry.

One area where Curry would beat Trinidad is long range. His jab was used as a scoring weapon up the middle. Thats a punch Trinidad was extremely vulnerable to taking on a regular basis. But where Curry is also vulnerable himself is staying there for too long. His defense would need to be 'air tight' to really negate everything coming his way.

[Robbi]

If Trinidad and De La Hoya were virtually even when it comes to power and durabilty, I'd take De La Hoya. He's got quicker hands, a better jab, and brings more of multi-dimensional game. His jab IMO is perhaps the best out of all three fighters in question. And he can box laterally and briefly off the backfoot as well. He has the option to fight a strictly long range fight and maybe get the better of things with Curry.

The big equalizer for Trinidad is his power.

[la-califa]

In a pure boxing exhibition, Mark Breland stands an excellent chance to outbox Curry. Or Floyd Mayweather Jr.

[Sweet Pea]

I think Curry showed the ability to move well when neccessary. Enough to stay out of the grasps of a fighter who can't by any means be considered a ring general in Trinidad, anyway. The moments when the fight is on the inside, Curry would be the tighter, more skilled of the two, and his defense usually was as tight as could be, but Tito's power would come into play if Curry was willing to take his chances there for too long. I don't think he would, though it's possible he gets caught with something big at some point.

Would be a very interesting fight to see how it went down. I'd favor Curry, but I wouldn't have been comfortable betting a fair deal money on it, as I would with Curry against the more pure boxing/defensive types.

[Sweet Pea]

In a pure boxing exhibition, Mark Breland stands an excellent chance to outbox Curry. Or Floyd Mayweather Jr.Breland would get chinned in the early rounds IMO, and the smaller Floyd would be out-done in almost every area at WW. I don't give either much chance.

[Robbi]

I think Trinidad's best punch when both were, chest to chest, would be his uppercut. But it's not a punch Curry was vulverable to taking regularly. But it's better than wide hooks as Curry blocked well inside with both hands and mid-range. He pulled his head back and had the eyes of a hawk up close. Thats actually a punch I can see Trinidad landing though, as offensively he was superb at choosing his moments.

At long range Curry was good at parying jabs, then throwing his own. He pushed his opponents jab downwards.

Trinidad sometimes needed one moment to catch a fighter. And IMO Curry was too stationary too often. Curry wasn't a pure boxer behind the jab who showed lateral movement for sustained periods. He was a controlled, precise, steady, aggressive boxer/puncher.

[Robbi]

If Curry stayed as welterweight champion up until around 89-90, then it's a high possibility that he'd be up there with Napoles and Leonard, etc. Lets assume he beat Honeyghan, Breland, and all the other top welterweights the division had to offer. That would make him champion for around 6 years and being undisputed for 4 of them. A very nice lengthy period of domination. It all depends of who he beat right enough. We all know that wasn't possible of course due to problems with the weight. Just food for thought.

I think skill wise and his well rounded game at his peak put him up there with Leonard and Naploes, excluding his brief prime of course.

[Sweet Pea]

I agree with you Robbi, he's becoming one of my favorites.

[Robbi]

I agree with you Robbi, he's becoming one of my favorites.

Well, he's been one of my favs for quite sometime. He was shown a lot over here in the UK during the 80's. BBC and ITV when boxing was on terrestrial television rather than satellite. I can vaguely mind of him as a kid. I know my father liked watching him.

I watched his fight with Jones a few hours ago.

[Minotauro]

As mentioned before Griffith, Gavilan, and Rodriguez have the best chance I think I would favour Gavilan and Rodriquez while Griffith would be a 50/50.

[Robbi]

I agree with you Robbi, he's becoming one of my favorites.

I'd always like to add this about him. I prefer Curry to McCallum. Certainly for sitting down and viewing footage. And it's a shame he got KO'd by McCallum. I have watched the fight 2-3 times over the last couple of years. While he wasn't totally dominating McCallum, he was winning the fight and beating McCallum to the punch. That was one of the rare instances when he did use lateral movement to good effect behind the jab, in and out, then skipping back out of range to set-up his attacks.

And he almost dropped McCallum. A lovely right hand down the pipe that buckled McCallum's knees badly. If you watch the between round, replay, you'll realise what a hell of a punch it was. And if a punch followed up seconds later, McCallum was on his ass.

[Mantequilla]

That shot was just one of those things.Probably wouldn't have been as decisive and early a win for MCCallum again had they fought another 20 times.

always thought it was ironic that Curry, who was usually so technically sound, got laid out after making one brief mistake, yet Mccallum couldn't put away herol graham who spent nearly the whole fight showboating and taunting McCallum to hit him with his hands by his waist; pulling his head straight back from exchange after exchange in the fashion Curry had done.

[Sweet Pea]

I'd always like to add this about him. I prefer Curry to McCallum. Certainly for sitting down and viewing footage. And it's a shame he got KO'd by McCallum. I have watched the fight 2-3 times over the last couple of years. While he wasn't totally dominating McCallum, he was winning the fight and beating McCallum to the punch. That was one of the rare instances when he did use lateral movement to good effect behind the jab, in and out, then skipping back out of range to set-up his attacks.

And he almost dropped McCallum. A lovely right hand down the pipe that buckled McCallum's knees badly. If you watch the between round, replay, you'll realise what a hell of a punch it was. And if a punch followed up seconds later, McCallum was on his ass.

McCallum is generally thought of as one of the best textbook technicians of the era, and Curry was really proving his superiority in that regard up until being caught. Ultimately, McCallum had what Curry lacked in regards to durability and the mental strength needed to pull through rough career patches. Still, Curry was about as skilled a technician as I've ever seen.

[Robbi]

McCallum is generally thought of as one of the best textbook technicians of the era, and Curry was really proving his superiority in that regard up until being caught. Ultimately, McCallum had what Curry lacked in regards to durability and the mental strength needed to pull through rough career patches. Still, Curry was about as skilled a technician as I've ever seen.

Agreed. He had that Louis, Arguello, Chavez, Lopez, etc, technique about him with a little bit of smoothness added in.

And lets not forget, that was a prime McCallum he was slightly getting the better of up until being caught. I think McCallum views it as one of his best wins. I'm sure I read that quote from him somewhere.

[Robbi]

Pea, since you're high on Curry just now, here are some posts I done on him a while ago.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Curry was a very good long range boxer, with an excellent jab. He was also just as good inside. Accuracy was one of Curry's biggest strengths. The big problem for him against Duran would be movement. He was a decent mover, but not in the same class as Leonard. While boxing behind the jab, Curry was more inclined to stay right in front of opponent. Duran would have the ability to read Curry and slip his jabs, thus getting inside. And as good as Curry was inside, he'd be no match for Duran.

Duran TKO8

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Curry was a complete fighter at his very best. Technically gifted, and had a very tight defense. He picked his opponents punches off with his high guard while stalking them down. But was never the type of boxer who liked to keep things stricly at long range. He was a hunter most of the time really. He just doesn't possess Leonard's tactical brilliance against fighters of like Duran and Hearns. Curry would have been competitive against both those guys, but just not quite enough in the end to defeat them.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Curry was struggling with making 147lbs as far back as 1982. Four years before he lost to Honeyghan.

He balloned up to 168 between his fights with Rodriguez and Honeyghan, and was 158lbs a week before he squared off against Honeyghan.

On Curry changing his training camp to New Orleans. Goram said, "When a guy is trying to make weight he should be working in a dry climate, not a humid one. Humidity saps too much strength. And besides all that, fighters are creatures of habit. Change isn't always good".

--------------------------------------------------------------------

"Based on everything I had seen prior to the fight, I can honestly say the loss wasn't a total surprise" Says Dave Goran, Curry's manager. "But even so I still felt he'd win"

Also two weeks before the Honeyghan fight, Curry stated to his advisor it would be best get a fight at junior middleweight and call the fight with Honeyghan off as he felt he could not make the weight. His adviser stated "Donald, I think you have the professional obligation to go ahead and make the weight and fight".

He was advised by manager Goram, and three other camp associates to move to 154lbs after his fight with Rodriquez, and he stubbornly refused stating "I liked being one of only two undisputed champions" he said "I don't want to give up my title after winning it".

Curry also felt six months without a scheduled fight and six months out of the gym hurt him. "I think the long lay off hurt me" Curry admitted "Its the reason I went up to 168. I should have stayed busy".

Gorman was not with Curry until three days before the fight, as Curry asked him not to come to training camp because they had an on going contract problem together.

Goram also stated "Everything done in training camp was different" and the manager adds "I didn't think he had enough carbohydrates in his diet. And I know he didn't take any potassium tablets. Those are simple things I never overlooked.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Vargas was ruined from the demolition at the hands of Trinidad. Taylor and Vargas were destroyed mentally and physically. They were never the same again due to long hard gruelling fights, weight not being a problem. Many fighters careers went downhill after Chavez and Trinidad got a hold of them.

Curry's case was a slightly different scenario. Two things ultimatley led to his defeat. Weight problems and the class of Honeyghan. Curry almost went down from a right hand, and he was behind on points at the time of the stoppage. But he never took heavy artillery during every round. He was getting outscored, more than destroyed. His corners decision to pull him out of the fight was down to a number of reasons. Bad cut over the eye, behind on points, being outclassed, and they seen he simply "never had it on the night".

[Robbi]

And another post from a while back which echos you're opinion.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Curry easily makes my top 10 favourites. His style was so good on the eye. Not crude, but not particularly flashy either. Extremely controlled, accurate, and techincally among the best of the last 30 years.

[Bill Butcher]

I need to see more of Curry admitedly, he was a very good fighter from what Ive seen, its just unlucky that too many casuals remember the Honegan & McCallum fights more than any other.

The 3 names Ive come up with that would have to try beat him without power are Whitaker, Benitez & Mayweather but I wouldnt bet either way with any of them.

[Mantequilla]

i just found a pretty extensive highlight compilation of McCallum on youtube.

Got some good stuff from the curry bout in part 2.The fight with a very weight drained Kalule just pisses me off.That had the potential to be a great technical fight had they met both at their best.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[natonic]

I remember 2 fights that showed Curry's greatness and his shortcomings. His first fight after Honeyghan was against Tony Montgomery. Curry put on an absolute in-fighting clinic. Montgomery wanted out of the fight and got DQ'd because of repeated headbutts. Curry was just too stubborn to get out of harms way from an inferior, fouling opponent. I haven't watched the Santos fight recently, but butting ended that one too.
As mentioned, Curry was clearly ahead in the McCallum fight. But despite that, Curry's eye was closing rapidly. Curry hit McCallum with a right hand in the 2nd round which I thought was as good as the left hook that knocked Curry out, McCallum just took it better. It seemed to me that McCallum landed a couple good body shots late in the 4th round and Curry began lowering his guard.
Bottom line, Curry was a great fighter, and masterful technician, but durability was a weakness. Good topic.

[Robbi]

If Donald Curry doesn't make Canastota, it's the biggest scandal since Watergate. Mainly considering the fighters who have got in ahead of him already. McGuigan, Zaragoza, Buchanan, etc.

Donald Curry has HOF credentials, no question. He was welterweight champion for over 3 years. He fought the best the division had to offer at the time. Starling, Jones, McCrory, etc. And he became undisputed champion at the weight. And picking up the WBC jr middleweight title against Rossi in Italy enhances his standing further.

*The Ring magazine fighter of the year, 1985. Shared with Hagler.

*The best pound for pound fighter in the world. Perhaps shared with Hagler.

And yes, he did lose to Honeyghan which was seen as an easy defense considering Curry's high reputation at the time. But that shouldn't prevent him being inducted. Hey, McGuian lost to Cruz who was pretty much on the same level as Honeyghan. And Buchanan proved next to nothing after getting beaten by Duran.

[Mantequilla]

Buchanan only got in because of his association with Duran.

[sweet_scientist]

Buchanan only got in because of his association with Duran.

Exactly. I always wondered why Lou Bizarro never got in my self. I mean, he got beat up by Duran as well, what more does a man have to do to prove his worth?

Perhaps it's that he also got Ko'ed by a mediocre fighter..... If he had been Ko'ed by two mediocre fighters perhaps he would have been fine as far as induction goes ;)

[Xplosive]

In a pure boxing exhibition, Mark Breland stands an excellent chance to outbox Curry. Or Floyd Mayweather Jr.

Curry would have WASTED Breland. That woulda been a mismatch.

And Floyd aint beating a prime Curry at 147. He wouldnt have fought him anyway.:rofl

[GPater11093]

Yeah, Naploes was. I was more focused on him technically.

Napoles and Curry would be a good fight but they are quite similar in some of the things they do and in a similar fight normally the faster man wins. Not saying Curry would win but it would be close

I think Curry would beat DLH pretty comfortably.Not a big Oscar fan though.

Tito would give him more problems despite his one-dimensional nature imo.

Do you not think Oscar has a habit of not commiting in his bigger fights and was often overcautious and thought too much and Curry could pick him apart

In a pure boxing exhibition, Mark Breland stands an excellent chance to outbox Curry. Or Floyd Mayweather Jr.

Mayweather if he ofugth like he did at SFW at WW would have a chance but not by the way he fights at WW he would be picked apart.

Exactly. I always wondered why Lou Bizarro never got in my self. I mean, he got beat up by Duran as well, what more does a man have to do to prove his worth?

Perhaps it's that he also got Ko'ed by a mediocre fighter..... If he had been Ko'ed by two mediocre fighters perhaps he would have been fine as far as induction goes ;)

Maybe that is the case but Buchanan was a great fighter he beat Laguna twice.

maybe his resume isnt that great but i feel he is a top 20 LW at least

my pick would be Pernell Whittaker who was in his elemant against pure boxers but i havent saw as much Curry as i would like so i might study some tapes and report back

[Longhhorn71]

A perfect left hook by Curry would be his best shot against Whitaker...otherwise he gets outpointed.

Napoles is just too good....fight would probably be like the Cokes fight...with Curry being TKO'ed late.

[sweet_scientist]

Maybe that is the case but Buchanan was a great fighter he beat Laguna twice.

maybe his resume isnt that great but i feel he is a top 20 LW at least

my pick would be Pernell Whittaker who was in his elemant against pure boxers but i havent saw as much Curry as i would like so i might study some tapes and report back

Cool mate. My tongue was firmly planted in my cheek when I said that.

Buchanan is the best British fighter in the last 50 years for me.

[Flea Man]

Possibly Benitez, though I think Don Curry could beat him too.

Kid Gavilan as well......but again I don't think he was feather fisted, fights were allowed to go on for longer back then, and I think he would earn a lot more stoppages in the last 20 years of boxing. He was a hurtful if not one-punch hitter.

[GPater11093]

A perfect left hook by Curry would be his best shot against Whitaker...otherwise he gets outpointed.

Napoles is just too good....fight would probably be like the Cokes fight...with Curry being TKO'ed late.

really i felt Whittaker was more vunerable to a straight right than a left hook.

Cool mate. My tongue was firmly planted in my cheek when I said that.

Buchanan is the best British fighter in the last 50 years for me.

ok sorry thought you was being proper can never tell without hearing somebody.

[Bill Butcher]

Whitaker-Curry would be interesting, dont know who`d win tho.

[ThinBlack]

Only Wilfred Benitez, and even that's not a given.