A great 90's welter weight vs a guy who fought in the 80's. I think Curry's big flaw was that he was basically a rangy inside fighter with a habit of lounging around at mid and long range. When he fought guys with a similar build that could throw hard punches from different ranges he seemed to lose his comfort zone as soon as he got hit. Obviously the Honeyghan and McCallum fights stand out, but I think a good glimpse at his flaws is when he won the vacant title from that Korean guy Trinidad would've made a national tragedy of. The guy was short, stubby, slow and sloppy but he dropped Curry, almost stopped him to the body and gave him a rough fight over the distance because he was brave and didn't respect Currys space. He didn't care that he only had a 59 inch reach, if he wanted to hit Curry at any given time he just went for it and Curry was made uneasy. Curry was a little sharper inside and very dangerous with his mid range counters. Tito started slow and the fight might be perilous for him until he starts to touch and discombobulate Curry but i don't think that takes too long. Trinidad had the threat of Honeyghan style long right hands and of course McCallum style left hooks, a powerful jab and punishing body shots. When Curry realizes there's no safety zone he'll get desperate and sloppy and get torn apart. Trinidad TKO 7
I like Trinidad via come from behind KO. Curry is the better boxer and he starts fast. I think he floors Trinidad and outboxes him but gets caught in exchanges and in trying to finish Trinidad, gets dropped and stopped. Trinidad KO 10.
That overrated fag woulda beaten the shit outta Floyd at 147. As for this matchup, I think 84-85 Curry beats Tito. Too much skill, too quick, and although he wasn't as big a puncher as Tito, he DID have big time pop and Trinidad would have to respect his power. Trinidad has a legit chance, but I just feel as if he's a step-behind Curry all night.
Based on what? Beating McCrory? Perhaps Starling? Fact is everyone around here is an 80s legend fanboy. Y'all would picked 80s guys over any contemporary fighter just for teh fact that they were from the 80s. Your picks are devoid of proper analysis. Curry would have been a difficult fight for Floyd, given his size and power (and quickness), but Floyd is smarter, just as fast, more elusive, as much stamina, probably better chin. I see no reason to pick Curry other than hate for Mayweather (which is a cool reason i guess....just not scientific). Tito would get to Curry eventually and stop him. Curry would drop Tito early, maybe twice but down the stretch no way Curry survives.
Yes, actually. Both quality fighters (especially Starling) and in their PRIMES! Forget Starling, and McCrory, Floyd didn't even fight any welters as good as Colin Jones and Nino Larocca. His best win in his "Money May" days was over Cotto, a tough fight for him. Prime Curry was several levels better than eye brow plucking Miggy. Fact is, everybody here is realistic with the exception of you, who believes that boxing begins and ends with your TMT God.
Nah. I'm no more a fan of Floyd than I am of Jones, Ali, Tyson, Holyfield, Trinidad, Nunn, Pacquaio, Hopkins or Calzaghe. He's no god to me. It's just that he's hated so much around here than anyone who picks him in any matchup is relegated to being a Floyd "sack swinger" or whatever is teh latest shit they say around here. As for "Miggy" not being as good as starling....hence Floyd loses to Curry. Before Foreman fought Frazier, he didn't fight anyone even as good as Quarry or Bonavena, let alone Ali. Made no difference. He wiped Frazier out in 2 rounds. When are y'all going to grow up and realize that you don't evaluate matchups solely on that one criteria?
Curry had the style to beat Floyd, and he was better than Floyd at 147. Is Floyd greater? Obviously. Is Floyd P4P better? Yes. But Floyd was never a great welterweight. Curry was, in his brief prime. Trinidad actually has a better chance of beating Curry than would Floyd.
