Honestly, I will preface my remarks by saying I was never the greatest believer in Curry --- he essentially was out-gunned (one way or another) by all his best opponents right throughout his career, excepting the lone victory over Starling. While I won't deny that was an impressive turn, how do you compare it against a man who beat the great fighters Napoles did? I'm not one who places a positively huge emphasis on achievements when looking at head-to-head to be honest, but it's pretty stark here. Curry wouldn't have gotten a sniff at some of the men Napoles found a way around. To the actual fight, Napoles has it all --- greater variety, better defense, the greater Boxing brain, the ring generalship. He's just going to flat out-class him for mine.
Curry beat Starling twice. And he knocked out an undefeated McCrory. Not saying his resume isn't lacking, but he does deserve credit for all three of those wins.
My apologies, he did best Starling twice. McCrory was definitely quite a solid victory & I won't downplay that, but Napoles beating Cokes twice single-handedly eclipses that --- to say nothing of his other, far more impressive victories.
this would be a great fight I think Napoles tends to be a bit overrated himself... he was a small welterweight who cut easily and could be pushed around by sturdier men... Curry was quite strong and a precise, fast puncher with real power... Curry at his best is a better welterweight than Curtis Cokes, who was a fine counterpuncher, but one-dimensional in the sense that he HAD to counter in order to be successful... Napoles' defensive abilities made that impossible for him, and I believe Curry would have done the same thing against Cokes with his own tight defense and varied attack to me, this is a pick-em fight... both of these men had considerable difficulties with far lesser men than each other
