Donald Curry The Myth

Actually this thread should be in GD but since the guy is an often-seen fighter in MMs, I put it here.

I was watching plenty of Curry fights yesterday and today. His prime was before I was an active fan and back then you couldn't even see boxing here. Thus I only got familiar with him pretty late and I haven't participated in many MMs including him.

I must say, the guy is overrated.

First of all, he isn't nearly as quick as described. He sounds like a second coming of Sugar Ray Leonard, but in fact he was not faster than Oscar De La Hoya. He isn't slow, but nothing exceptional either.

He has a reputation of being a huge puncher, and a couple of his KOs are scary-looking indeed. His prime weapon is the somewhat unique hook that seems to be difficult to block. However, his reputation is mainly based on the McCrory KO in a bout where McCrory seemed to be sleep-walking. Otherwise his record of KO victims does not impress, and yes, I boxrecced it to be sure.

The main thing is, he is a highlight reel fighter. He has some spectacular moves, which leads many to erroneously think that if he just prepares and concentrates, he can fight like that all night. Not true. It is much easier to do a couple of Sugar Ray moves or fight a round that way than to actually keep it up. Even when at his best, Curry got hit straight into face while having an upright stance. His losses were not because of bad preparing or lapses in concentration, he lost because that is what he was as a fighter.

Suitable MM opponents for Curry are the likes of Cotto and Mosley, not the Leonards and Hearnses. He would have his hands full with Ike Quartey.

Bring it on

 

1. Not ONE person has EVER said that Curry's speed was on par with Leonard's. NEVER. As for Oscar, DLH had better raw handspeed when he opened up, but Curry IMO was quicker to pull the trigger was a much more precise/accurate puncher than Oscar.

2. No one ever called him a "huge puncher". A good puncher he was.

3. I don't even consider the McCrory fight to be his best performance. I think he was better against Nino Larocca, who was a good technician.

4. I think Mosley, DLH, and Ike are good Mythical Matchups to place Curry in, although I'd favor him over all three.

He was point blank period a better fighter than Cotto.

Hearns, and Leonard would have both stopped him. I think the Montreal version of Duran stops him also. And I think Benitez outpoints him.

 

Yeah your underselling Curry here.

I wouldn't pick him over the best of the best at 147, but he beats a lot of guys.

His prime was short. And who knows why, doesn't matter. But he was an excellent fighter with great technique, fast hands, good power, and ring IQ.

 

Donald Curry was once overrated on this forum. But lately, it's become so fashionable to call him overrated, that he's now become underrated.

If he was in his prime today, I'd confidently pick him over Thurman, Garcia, and Brook.

Dunno about Spence, as EJ is potentially special and looks to have some intangibles that Curry lacked.

 

I would pick Curry to beat Quartey, Mosley, Forrest, and probably Oscar. I think he loses to Tito but he'd likely be ahead before the come from behind stoppage. I think all of Leonard, Robinson, Hearns, Duran, Gavilan, and Benitez beat him.

He'd definitely whip Cotto, Thurman, Brook, and Garcia. I think I'd pick Spence over Curry, though., Not 12o percent sure, but if you put a gun to my head, I'd lean towards EJ.

 

I agree with ugo, naturally. Even the responses from X and PR prove the point that he is overrated. The fact that Errol spence beating him is even a question shows how overrated he still is.

De la Hoya would have knocked him out every day of the week and twice on Sunday and curry's reputation is built primarily on the McCrory KO highlight reel.

 

I won't argue if you think Oscar would beat Curry, even a pre-Honeyghan version. But I'm not so sure Oscar KO's him because even if Curry was somewhat fragile, Oscar wasn't a big time KO puncher at 147. All of Trinidad, Quartey, Mosley, Whitaker, and Camacho went the distance. Carr and Rivera extended him, and even an old Chavez extended him at 147.

Yes, I think Spence beats Curry, but Curry would have destroyed Cotto, Thurman, Brook, and Garcia. I'd also take him to whoop Forrest and Margarito. I don't think that's overrating him.

 

Trinidad, quartey, Mosley, Whitaker and Camacho were all durable fighters. So oscar not stopping them doesn't mean he couldn't punch at 147. Oscar knocked out Vargas at 154 and proved his power at those weights...besides he dropped quartey twice. I don't see curry taking oscar's left hook for very long.

I don't rate Garcia at all and Cotto was pretty fragile himself and so I don't necessarily disagree with you for picking curry over those guys. Brook is hard to tell and Thurman I feel is better than he looks.

 

Curry would have kicked Oscar's ass. DLH is, to this day, one of the most overrated fighters ever.

 

Oscar doesn't hold a decisive victory over any welterweight as good as Curry. Controversy surrounds three of his top four welterweight opponents - Whitaker, Ike, and Tito. The debate will never end on who won those matchups, but Oscar definitely didn't do anything to prove he was clearly superior to them. NO controversy surrounding the first Mosley fight though. Shane won clear as day.

You and Ugo sound like casuals saying Curry's only impressive win was over McCrory. Did yall forget that he TWICE beat Starling? The second time, in dominant fashion. He also destroyed the then highly touted Nina Loracca, and sliced dangerous Colin Jones to ribbons.

Oscar doesn't have the tools, nor the style for me to favor him over Curry. This is the same Oscar who was given Hell by Oba Carr, and Carr really wasn't any better than Loracca.

Stylewise, there's a greater chance of Tito stopping Curry than Oscar.

 

Kell doesn't do much of anything better than Curry. Curry was the better techncian, quicker, and generally a better operator from the both the inside and outside. Plus, I don't think Kell's eye would hold up under Curry's accuracy.

And Curry stops Thurman. Keith lacks defense and durability and once Curry found the range, he'd put a hurting on Run Time.

With Spence, I'm still reserving judgement. Spence is my boy, but he's there to be hit, and Curry had a lot of offense to dish out.

But my gut tells me that Spence wears Curry down.

 

Agreed that Curry is overrated. The guy was good but very flawed, and some people act like that he was only as good as his best performances (which were terrifics) and dismiss all of his loses

 

Curry's flaw was more mental than physical.

He had the physical talent and skills of all time great. But not the mental toughness of an all time great.

Still, I don't find him overrated cause he's not even in the fuckin HOF! That makes him UNDERRATED, cause he accomplished more than a number of scrubs in the hall.

 

Don't worry, I'm sure he's in the PRIDE hall of fame.

 

We know damn well that's a huge reason why you don't like Curry, cause he's gay.

Fag or no fag, he would have defeated the Grand Rapids tax evader at 147.

 

Curry beats both Mayweather and Pac at 147 because he was a better welterweight than either guy. Neither May nor Pac were great welterweights and neither would have dominated anything in the 90s or 80s golden age of welterweights and junior middleweights.

Pound 4 pound, different story. Both are greater overall fighters than Curry. But that doesn't mean they'd beat him at 147.

 

I have to say...you keep saying this shit. You are penalizing both may and pac because they happened to have started out at lower weights. Just because they started out way lower than Welter doesn't mean that they weren't competent at Welter. Mayweather was a better Welterweight than Curry as well as being a better p4P fighter. Pacquiao would have stopped Curry.

 

Curry would have defeated Floyd Mayweather sure....Floyd Senior. No way he beats Jnr.

 

I just don't think either was all that impressive at 147. Their resumes are littered with guys who were either not natural welterweights or old. I understand not liking this point being brought up but it's true. Both Mayweather and Pacquiao were much better fighters at 130-135 than they were at 147 and above.

 

Put Mayweather's welterweight (and above) opponents in aggregation against Curry's beaten opponents and try to tell me that Curry beat better fighters.

You wont be able to and keep a straight (e-)face

 

One time hits pretty hard and is aggressive. Curry is more polished obviously but if One time hits Curry too many times (which he will) you'll see the bitch come out of Curry.

 

I remember first time I went back and watched some old Curry fights after hearing people on this board gush over him. In light of the praise he was getting here, I was really surprised at how unimpressive he was.

 

AgREED.

MTF

 

If you watched him beat the shit out of LaRocca, Jones and McCrory, I cannot see how he was 'unimpressive'.

MTF

 

Curry was pretty overrated when he was fighting. I'm sure there were some who had him P4P no.1 prior to his Honeyghan loss. He was never as good as that implied, as his later losses showed. But to say he would struggle with the likes of Brook and whatnot is madness. He'd have laid Smell out no bother at all.

MTF

 

The one who would be getting hit more is the one with the much lesser defense, which would be Thurman.

Curry already owns two wins over a MUCH better fighter than Thurman, in Starling.

I'm not even positive I'd pick Thurman over McCrory, and Colin Jones.

Whereas, scrubs Porter, and Garcia couldn't dream of having Curry's skill level.

 

After Curry destroyed McCrory, yes, he was considered by SOME as the P4P #1. It wasn't consensus though... cause a lot of people still had Hagler P4P #1.

In reality, the people who had Hagler #1 were correct. Marvin was the best fighter in the world circa 83-85. But Curry was RIGHTFULLY high up there.

 

And for Sly, the only tall, skilled fighter with a good jab who Floyd faced at 147-154 was a faded DLH, and we saw how "dominant" the little tax evader was in that fight.

Prime Curry would be a nightmare matchup for Floyd. He had the physical tools to render Floyd's style ineffective, and he was the naturally bigger/taller/stronger man.

 

Oscar was better than Curry. Period. Besides I think Mayweather had an off night. He was a little intimidated by oscar, in part because his father didn't want him to go anywhere near De La Hoya for fear of him being knocked out. It was also Floyd's first grand stage. So he fought a little nervously. But even with that he won 8 rounds.

Floyd was better than curry is every single aspect of the fight game except power.

 

The only controversy over Oscar-Tito was De La Hoya not getting the decision, yes he ran like a bitch in the last three rounds and should rightly get criticised for it but he won the fight clearly.