Mosley is a bit faster, Curry had more power. I guess we can say Shane is the tougher of the two, having proven he can fight through adversity whereas Curry was somewhat of a question mark in that area. Would that come to play in this fight?
Well since I've never seen Curry lose a MM on this board, at least not by majority, I'd have to go with Curry. "He was that good." He'd beat ODH, Mosley, and just about any other welter-weight you can name from the 90's. "He was that good." How could you argue the point? He beat Marling Starling and McCrory. "He was that good." I don't think Curry was 75% as good as most of the people on this board make him out to be. And I'd probably pick Mosley to beat him with his stinky style either by decision or late round TKO.
You should watch Curry's fights against Starling, McCrory, Colin Jones, and Nino LaRocca. Anything pre-Honeyghan He was a special talent. Great technique, fast hands, good footwork, precise punches, very good power, and could throw some mean combinations to the head and body. He had a nasty left hook and he could throw it from anywhere seemingly. He just didnt' have the heart to to really reign as a long term champion which is why he had a short prime. But he was a great talent.
This makes me believe you really haven't seen too many of his fights prior to moving up from 147. And why should you when you can just generalize and assume he is overrated??
Personally....I believe if Curry could have made 147 without killing himself he would have been Welterweight champ for a much longer time.
Dude, I've seen three of those fights. I get it. He was good. But he's only about 75% as good as most of the people paint him as being on this board.
Well, then you'd be wrong. I mean geeze. The best guy he beat was Marlon Starling. That's not exactly the resume of a super-star. The whole reason for his legendary status as a welter-weight was that he knocked McCrory out in the second round of what was supposed to be an epic unification bout that many were picking him to lose. Big deal. He caught McCrory with a nice hook and it happened to be early. Does that make him great? McCallum's win over McCrory isn't even notable in discussions of his resume. And he managed to knock McCrory out despite putting on one of his less than stellar performances. Curry was good. All I'm saying is he's over-rated when it comes to the MM section of this board.
You can say what you want, but your comments have the sound of someone who knows Curry mostly from Boxrec.com. And Curry defeated an undefeated co-champion who was expected to at least extend him, if not beat him, in the second round. Sorry...that is impressive by any OBJECTIVE standard. Curry-McCrory WAS a big deal when it happened...sorry if that wasn't explained in detail on BoxRec. And McCrory DOES get mentioned when discussing McCallum...at least by knowlegable folks. McCrory was a good fighter, rather than a great one, but much better than the stiff you are trying to make him out to be. And while we are on the subject of McCrory...he gave McCallum a much more demanding fight than he did Curry. And Marlon Starling was a heckuva fighter. I would make Starling even money against Mosley or any of his 147 lb peers...Tito, DLH and/ or Quartey. And as for Mosley...at 147 outside of upsetting DLH, what else did he do except lose twice (once in one-sided fashion) to Vernon Forrest? It's not like Mosley was a great and dominating fighter at 147. He got past DLH, made a few title defenses against no-hope opponents and then got his butt kicked and chased out of the division by Forrest. And then Forrest followed up the Mosley wins with a pair of losses (one by KO) to the limited Mayorga.
The jury is still out on how good Margarito actually is. I've never been sold on him.To me he's a defensively inept & limited brawler who may have loaded his gloves.
Double, If you can't acknowledge that Donald Curry was a special fighter in his brief prime then you don't what the fuck you are watching... the guy was nearly perfect in everything he did in there... superb footwork, always on-balance, a stocked arsenal of dynamic punches at short and long range, remarkable defensive acuity, stamina, discipline... It's funny you try to make his KO over McCrory sound "lucky" as if he just "caught him"... its so ridiculous, it was a perfectly timed counter left hook that was so damn fast that even on the replay it was tough to see and he finished him in brutal fashion with a right hand from hell... it was complete skilled destruction... the reason this is ironic is because Curry was handing McCallum his ass (BADLY hurting him in the early going with a beautiful right hand) and completely outboxing him when McCallum brought up a desperation left hook and caught him for one of the most memorable KOs ever... McCallum (the guy you think Leonard ducked and that would have beaten Hagler) certainly could be seen as having "caught" Curry far more than Curry could have been seen having "caught" McCrory (when in reality it was a super skilled annihlation) Curry's weight problems and attitude exacerbated his decline and led to his losing to Honeyghan as much as anything Lloyd did... in his brief prime, you couldn't name me 5 or 6 fighters who had a more complete skillset and talent than Donald Curry did (well maybe YOU could, but someone with a functioning brain and an understaning of the game couldn't)
What's funny is that (in his unending attempts to go against the grain no matter what the cost) is that in THIS topic, Curry was nothing more than a good fighter. But in another topic being discussed at the same time, Ray Leonard retired to duck Curry. Plus it is weak of Double to try to downplay Curry's KO of McCrory as if it were a lucky shot.
Indeed, if there has ever been a skillfully manipulated KO, it was that one... its like a video game knockout
First. McCallum systematically dismantled McCrory. There was nothing lucky about his defeat over him. Second. You called McCrory yourself a scrawny ass. So what's the big deal that Curry beat him? In hind-sight? I know. I know. Context. Well going into that fight we were a lot more ignorant than we are now when it comes to McCrory. We'd be stupid to pile on praise to Curry for beating him, and then make a comment like, "it took McCallum 11 rounds to be McCrory's scrawny ass." Hind-sight is when the truth is revealed and misconceptions are clarified. Third. Curry did not do everything perfect. He fought with his chin in the air in a mysterious fashion. It's no wonder he was knocked out so many times.
First. McCallum systematically dismantled McCrory. There was nothing lucky about his defeat over him. Where did I say it was lucky? Learn to read, I was referring to McCallum/CURRY and the fact that you tried to insinuate that Curry/McCrory was somehow a happenstance lucky KO when in fact McCallum/Curry was a far more accurate example of a somewhat "lucky" KO Second. You called McCrory yourself a scrawny ass. So what's the big deal that Curry beat him? In hind-sight? I know. I know. Context. Well going into that fight we were a lot more ignorant than we are now when it comes to McCrory. We'd be stupid to pile on praise to Curry for beating him, and then make a comment like, "it took McCallum 11 rounds to be McCrory's scrawny ass." Hind-sight is when the truth is revealed and misconceptions are clarified McCrory was a former Welterweight who had already been BRUTALLY DESTROYED by a fellow Welterweight before McCallum ever fought him. As Junior Middleweights go, he was scrawny (not to mention he didnt accomplish anything of note at that weight) and had already been nearly killed by a Welterweight when a big junior middleweight (McCallum) needed 11 COMPETETIVE and HARD FOUGHT rounds to dispose of him (again, post-KO loss to Curry) and this is the same Junior Middleweight you confidently pick to beat and earn the respect of a guy with an anvil for a skull despite his having maybe 1/3 of the foot and handspeed and chutzpah of the man who eventually barely did it Third. Curry did not do everything perfect. He fought with his chin in the air in a mysterious fashion. It's no wonder he was knocked out so many times LOL, more made up Double L "facts". Care to give some specific examples of this "mysterious" phenomenon when Curry was in his prime? Guess what, NO fighter does everything perfect. Curry was a certifiable bad ass, he was a guy that fighters would have been smart to imitate in his prime. How a guy could refer to Antonio Margarito as having a "subtle" defense while actually attempting to disparage the skillset of a cat like Donald Curry is the real "mystery" here
Nobody here is disparaging the skills of Curry. You're looking for a debate where there is none. All I said was he wasn't as good as many on this board claim he was. What in the hell would possess you to bring up Margarito? Here's my point: Curry is over-rated when it comes to the mythical match-up forum. He did fight with his chin up and it did look strange. I think he did it in order to get the best out of his eyes but usually it just got him knocked out. Also, did it ever occur to you that at 154, McCrory could've been more durable than he was at 147, where he was surely weight-drained? It happens all of the time. Cotto for example hasn't been seriously hurt (with the exception of the Margarito fight) since moving up from 140. But at 140 he was on queer street more than a couple of times. Again. Nobdoy is disparaging Curry. You've lost complete track of the thread here. All I'm saying is he's over-rated when it comes to hypothetical match-ups in which he's involved. As far as your comparison of McCallum to SRL, and their respective chances against the Hagler in decline that SRL managed to "beat," so what !!! So what if McCallum didn't have the foot or hand speed that SRL did. SRL beat Hagler by holding him every time he got close and the referee never said a word. McCallum would've won much cleaner and more convincingly. A prime Hagler destroys either one.
Hey! You don't have to tear down Mosley to make your point A-hole. :flip: Man I swear the Molsey haters put up a Mosley vs Curry MM every quarter of the year.
What are you...12 years old? "Waahhh!!! Someone isn't kissing my favorite fighters ass!!!" What did I say about Mosley that wasn't true? Absolutely nothing. The facts are the facts and your whining about it and name calling doesn't change them. There is a difference between stating the facts and "tearing someone down". And if stating the facts appear to be "tearing down" Mosley's first title reign at 147...then there couldn't have been much substance to that title reign to begin with.
i wish some of the trolls here had the balls to post their pictures...cause right now i use the villian from South Park's Make Love not Wacraft episode for almost every person on here who talks shit.::
I really have only seen 5 of Curry's fights. All I know is if he has a jab and his game plan is to throw the jab at Mosely's face Curry wins a ud because Shame loves a nice jab to the face. He never saw a jab he didn't love.
I do think Curry gets alot of love on this board, and sometimes his talent and skill and "MM performannce potential" gets alot of leniency. I've seen many of Curry's fights and at his peak he was a great fighting machine....but he did have flaws (overbalancing off the right, inconsistent workrate at times, neglecting head movement, squaring up, etc.) - and most importantly a bit of mental inconsistency - that help Mosley in this match-up. I'd pick Curry because of his height, reach and stiff jab - all of which are very difficult things for Shane to handle & adapt against. Also, Curry has the speed to trouble Shane - and more importantly, the timing. And the left hook which would land against Shane. However, Mosley's overhand right would be a doozy against Curry and Mosley's late-rounds surge would be a big help. Curry wins IMHO, but in a very good fight. Peace.
Curry would have won by clear UD. Shane has the edge in handspeed, but that means little considering Curry is the far straighter, more accurate puncher. Plus, Shane's handspeed edge isn't that much, as it was against Vargas and bum ass Phony. And Curry hit more than hard enough to hurt Shane, and make him gun shy. Curry was also MUCH better defensively than Shane, and was a much better in-fighter. Mosley has his moments, but Curry was just a far more intelligent and better technician than Shane, and it would show. Curry would have beaten DLH, and Quartey as well.
