Wilfred Benitez vs. Donald Curry @ 147

Does anyone pay you to talk about boxing? If not then stfu.

You think you're elite because you have 5,000+ post on a boxing messageboard, so now you're some sort of internet zen poster?

Get off your high horse and fuck off with that.

But you still haven't answered my questions which makes me think you are either ducking the question, or don't have an answer. Boxrec won't help you btw. B)

 

Hold on there. You misquoted me regarding Curry's 147 lb opposition and now you're doing it again. I said Duran was "hot and cold", not just "cold. " My goodness, you are a TERRIBLE poster...your purposely misquoting me smacks of desperation. Duran WAS hot and cold following the loss to Leonard. You only mention the high points of post-Leonard Duran , but try to ignore the rest of his fights. After losing to Leonard, Duran did not impress with wins over Nino Gonzalez and Luigi Minchillo, he then lost to Benitez and then followed that up with a LOSS to Kirkland Laing and another unimpressive win over non-entity Jimmy Batten. So at the time Benitez beat Duran....it wasn't as big of a deal as you're trying to make it sound. Duran then beat washed-up and over his weight Pipino Cuevas and twelve-fight novice "Champ" Davey Moore. Duran did better than expected against an overly tenative Hagler but then was KOed with ease by Hearns.
Duran's post Leonard career was the epitome of a hot and cold fighter. He looked good sometimes and not-so-good sometimes.

Now before I let you get me off track...please respond to what I asked you: When EXACTLY did I call the McCrory, LaRocca, Stafford & Jones GREAT FIGHTERS.

Don't duck this because it will only make you look worse than you already do.

 

Sorry, junior...but you are the epitome of a boxing noob who spends more time arguing and trying to be "right" than actually learning about the sport. You are unable to properly dispute any of what I said without misquoting me, lamely trying to hide BoxRec or getting nasty and insulting. All, of course, are the signs of a poster who doesn't have the facts to back up what he is posting.

 

Okay, you didn't say "great" fighters, so according to your own words, Curry never fought any "great" fighters, just some good fighters, and a "near-great". I don't exactly see how that helps your argument. :nixweiss:

I like how you call Davey Moore a "novice" like he was straight out of the amateurs, yet fail to mention that Moore beat the shit out of Ayub Kalule who himself was a multi-time champion and had something like half a dozen defenses of the Jr. Middleweight title before Leonard stopped him.

But I guess when you're trying to twist an argument, you tend to leave out pertinent facts like that. :jester:

Also Hagler was tentative that fight? He couldn't land any shots because Duran, knowing he couldn't swap power for power, came out behind a very tight guard and was frustrating Hagler. Did you even watch the fight?

Also, you still haven't answered who Marlon Starling fought before the Curry fight for you to call him a near-great. Who did he fight that 'such a knowledgeble internet poster' would call him a "near-great"?:nixweiss:

Are you ever going to answer that question? I've asked it 3-4 times and you haven't even once addressed it. I guess that's what happens to a boxrec ranger when he doesn't know the answer, he just avoids it like it never was asked. :neener:

Oh what? No reply? That's what I thought.

"Knows his boxing" my ass. B)

 

Great, a 40 year old loser who sits on his computer typing out 5000+ post using the word "noob", you're officially using the terminology of 14 year olds when they play Xbox Live.

We've got a winner ladies and gents. :2:

 

First of all...I am not the one purposely misquoting folks, getting insulting and leaning on smilies. That's you. It is nice to see you admit you purposely misquoted me. Putting words in people's mouths never makes an arguement work better. It's almost as weak as making a statement and then going back and editing the post and trying to act as if that's not what you really meant. Good thing you didn't do that...oh, wait...you DID. Or at least you didn't stoop making fake quotes from other posters...oh wait...you DID. As far as i am concerned...everything you say is questionable at the very least.

And if you look at Starling's career in it's entirety (and he fought all but a few fights at 147 so his career can be judged at 147) it's obvious to see the quality of fighter he was. Curry and Starling fought relatively early in their careers and you know this so your trying to stack this question to your side. Starling was a two-time world champion who also beat other world champions like Simon Brown, Honeyghan, Lupe Aquino & Mark Breland...which ALSO is more than Benitez did at 147. And if you have actually SEEN Starling fight...his defensive prowess is up there with anyone who ever fought in that division. Starling had the skills of a great fighter, but his two losses to Curry make me tend to think of him as a very good or near great than a great fighter. This isn't rocket science...Starling was a very talented fighter who fought nearly all of the best fighters in the division at his time and beat almost all of them. I have no problem calling Starling a near-great. And he is certainly a better fighter than anyone that Benitez beat at 147.

And what about Benitez's draw with Harold Weston and 3 knockdown "win" over Bruce Curry...both of which happened at Welterweight. I know you really don't want to discuss those fights because they actually took place in the divison in which the topic is based. And before you go all BoxRec on me...I do know that Benitez did better in the rematches...but that still doesn't erase what happened in the first fights.

As for Duran and Hagler and Moore...they are not really part of the discussion of Benitez & Curry at 147. But my labeling of Duran as hot and cold is definately on target. He looked good sometimes and not so good other times. And Duran's losing to Kirkland Laing in his very next fight after the Benitez fight definately makes Benitez's win over Duran look less impressive.

No matter how hard you try..you are not going to drag me into a discussion of fighters other than the Welterweight verisons of Curry and Benitez and the fighters they faced while at Welterweight. You can keep trying to steer the conversation away from the actual topic and call me names and use whatever other diversionary tactics you may have up your sleeve..but the bottom line is that you KNOW there isn't enough evidence to claim Benitez was better than Curry at 147/

You keep trying to focus on the higher weights because you know there's no way to justify Benitez being better than Curry at 147. Now if you want to discuss who was the greater all-time regardless of division (which is what you are actually trying to do here in the guise of discussing both fighters as Welterweights), then that's a different story. And I can't say that I would disagree with Benitez having the advantage in THAT discussion.

So if you want to keep getting off the actual topic because you don't have a leg to stand on, then that's up to you. But until you actually focus on both fighter and their careers at 147...which is the TOPIC....then you are just using other fighters and fights as a smoke screen.

 

Thanks, Baron.

 

Thanks for proving my point. At least I'm not the one who went back and changed his posts earlier in the discussion after getting called out over claiming Benitez was the youngest Welter champ ever and then tried to pretend that's not what he meant all along.

 

Well, that's just a stupid question. It wasn't who Starling fought before facing Curry that created the buzz around him, but the way he fought. He later proved he was a near-great by beating Simon Brown, Floyd Mayweather, Mark Breland, Lloyd Honeyghan and Kevin Howard.

 

That you can act like a 14 year old by calling people "n00bs" online?

Can you imagine a 40+ year old man typing furiously about boxing then ending with the word "n00b"? :jester: Act your fucking age "pops".

The insecurity is just dripping off of you, I feel almost sorry for you. You seek comfort from people online, "Oh thanks for the kudos whiskey" and it's almost as if it makes your life that much more livable. It really comes off as pathetic and needy. I can understand those who are inclined to be verbose (usually old people) but it takes 3-4 post before you actually address a single point of another poster.

The fact is Benitez beat the better competition, and Donald Curry never in his career beat a great fighter (though he was knocked out by a few). You might think 4-5 pounds make a big difference, but level of competition is a bigger factor in this equation and Curry just didn't have it. If you think beating Marlon Starling makes one great, then Kudos to you! B)

I notice btw that you ignored how I called you on Davey Moore, but hey I guess I'd ignore that topic too if I called Moore a "novice". :jester:
This thread is beginning to smell like boxrec and wet shit again. B)

 

Exactly because Starling didn't beat shit before Curry, which is the whole Crux of your boyfriends argument. He could've beaten all those bums while tap dancing, it doesn't make him great.

 

:dancingguy:

 

That's stupid. Just because he hadn't proven his worth yet doesn't mean that he wasn't worthy. You're confusing perceptions of how good Starling was with how good he actually was. Are you arguing this way because you're too stupid to know better, or are you simply obfuscating your lack of knowledge?

 

Umm, fighters get better with experience and Starling at that time had not fought anyone who would test him and improve him. Was Azumah Nelson the same fighter when he fought Salvador as he was when he fought Whitaker or Leija? Starling was fighting bums before Curry, obviously he improved through fighting tougher competition later, what about this don't you understand? Is your chest wound leaking into your brain? :jester:

Again, even after the curry fight, who did starling beat besides 3 year pro raw Simon Brown, glass jawed old Floyd Mayweather, weight-drained Honeyghan, and overrated Breland? :nixweiss:

Anyway the debate is about Curry like your boyfriend said, and it's obvious Curry didn't fight anyone great and Benitez did. Even your boyfriend didn't call Starling a "great" fighter, he called him "near-great" whatever the fuck that means. Curry is overrated and Benitez would've destroyed him.

 

Oh my God, talking about misquoting and taking things that were said out of context. What I actually said was:

How pathetic is that? Yet another misquote. You really are the second coming of Kid Dynamite. You take a point of view with nothing to seriously support it and then attempt to "win" the discussion by going way off topic, recreate fighters in ways that work for your point of view, misquote folks, get insulting, way overuse the smilies (which I can only guess you hope will disguise the lack of substance in your posts) and will not stop until you get the last word.

 

Benitez couldn't even "destroy" Bruce Curry (the much less talented Curry brother), so the chances of him "destroying" Donald Curry are slim to none. Unless "destroying" someone means getting yourself knocked down three times. Who did Benitez "destroy" at 147 that leads you to this conclusion? Geez...who did Benitez ever "destroy" at any weight? Benitez was a slick defensive fighter who frustrated opponents on the way to his wins. I honestly can't recall watching a Benitez fight and thinking "Wow. Benitez destroyed that guy." But I can think of quite a few times while watching Curry...against good opposition like McCrory, Stafford, Jones, LaRocca...when I would say he "destroyed" his opponent.

 

Joe

You're wasting your time brother. Like you, I am old enough to have watched Benitez and Curry back then. Alabama Man lost credibility in my eyes when he said he thought Benitez deserved a draw with Hearns...

In my opinion only someone who viewed the results on BoxRec could draw that conclusion. For those of us that watched the fight live, it was clearly a fairly dominate effort by Hearns who completely out-boxed Benitez.

I think I gave Benitez 3 rounds (out of 15). I have the fight on tape and re-watched it after reading this thread. I still have the same view.

I'm curious if anyone other than BoxRec guru Alabama Man actually thinks Benitez deserved a draw with Hearns.

But again, I agree with Broadway Joe in that only fights at 147 pounds are relevant to this discussion. In that light, Benitez narrowly nipped Palomino and got stopped by SR Leonard.

On the other hand, Donald Curry unified the titles and won 10 Championship fights at welter. Their resumes at 147 aren't even close.

 

I think Benitez did good job stealing rounds from Hearns. When Benitez saw he couldn't match with Hearns, he kept rounds quiet and sneaked some of them by doing just a little bit more. Even so, I can't see how he could have won more than six rounds

 

I'm the second coming of Kid Dynamite? Mike Tyson? Who is this magical person that has earned your scorn? Unlike you I don't invest my entire life into internet boxing forums so I'm going to have a bit of trouble identifying random internet personalities.

As for this debate I have no problem admitting I'm wrong if someone can put forth a sound argument, that I can completely back up myself and agree with. So far in this thread, you haven't been the one to do it. I don't have any personal stake in this, I'm just discussing this because I find it interesting. So far you're the only person to bring up "winning and losing" in an internet messageboard which I find exceedingly hilarious. It shows how much you have vested in the internet which is kind of sad to be completely honest.

The fact that you must try to "stab at me" in every post, and make it personal over a simple discussion about a mythical matchup which will never happen shows that you are a childish 40 year old loser, who happens to use 14 year old lingo when you get angry (noob :jester: ). Substance my ass.

But hey, I noticed that you never answered my question or discussed the fact that Curry never fought anyone great and in your own words he fought "good" and one "near-great" fighter.

Benitez beat great fighters period, Curry didn't. B)

 

First off I've noticed you've tried to turn this debate into a "Benitez's resume and Curry's resume" as a welter. That's not what I care about at all. Benitez stayed at Welter for a short time and then chased the big money fights one class up. I'm talking about if both fighters were in their prime, and fought at 147 which is what I thought this thread was about. The fact that Benitez didn't stick around at 147 for long is moot, he could've but he chose to fight bigger names one class up.

That's like saying Ricardo Lopez couldn't beat Michael Carbajal because he fought the majority of his career at minimumweight, and Carbajal accomplished more at light flyweight. Obviously that's a stupid way to look at things, but that's exactly what kind of dynamic you're trying to apply which is idiotic.

In fact I have a thread in this very forum that covers a Carbajal and Lopez fight at 108, guess who's winning in that one by popular opinion? Oh wow, the lighter Lopez, what a surprise. But according to your logic (and trplsec), Lopez didn't accomplish as much at 108 so he would get his ass kicked by Carbajal automatically. :loveballs:

If you want to discuss resumes, start another thread and have a ball kiddo. That's not the debate here.

Exactly, "Good" opposition, not great. Benitez fought great fighters period.

Competition is a much more important indicator of who would win and by your own admission Curry didn't fight anyone great.

Curry might have beaten more people as a Welter, but I think Benitez fought tougher people on the whole in his career.

Based on competition levels, Benitez would skunk the shit out of Curry.

As for Bruce Curry, he was an undefeated prospect at the time and by Benitez's own words he took him lightly. Even with 3 knockdowns, one of which was questionable, Benitez schooled the shit out of Bruce and won the fight. Plus Bruce Curry fought about as stiff competition as his brother, that says a lot. :jester:

 

Exactly my point, I think trplsec must be a benitez hater or a guy who just loves Hearns because this fight is a hotly debated fight on most messageboards. Hearns didn't do enough in the middle rounds in my opinion to deserve the win, I gave him 8 rounds max. I wouldn't have been disappointed by a draw at all.

Finally someone who doesn't smell like boxrec and wet shit mixed into one. B)

 

No. Some fighters get better with experience, and some fighters don't. Fighters who get by on their brains like Lennox Lewis and Wilfred Benitez get better with experience, but many fighters who rely on their bog-given talents like Starling and Roy Jones really don't.

No, he was better against Salvador. Anyone who's seen those fights would tell you that. You're just using a blanket statement to hide the fact that all you really know about Benitez and Curry comes from Boxrec and maybe the Cyber Boxing Zone.

 

And you know this how? Didn't Starling get all his best wins after Curry? How would that indicate that he didn't get better after Curry? You don't have any way of knowing that except your opinion which has produced such gems as,

- Mistaking Bert Cooper for Henry Cooper
- Claiming Nazi's didn't kill any Slavs or Catholics
- Ring magazine crowning Vitali champion against their own rules (even though Vitali beat Sanders for the eliminator).
I seriously think your bad kidney might be affecting your bad brain. :jester:

Really anyone would tell me Nelson was the best in his career 13 fights into it? Or would people just call you stupid for totally disregarding his championship run which happened some years after the Sanchez fight?

Nelson had most of his biggest wins after Salvador and he in his own words called the Salvador fight one of the best learning experiences he's ever had. He didn't even start his championship reign until well after Salvador Sanchez died.

So stfu with your "he was at his best barely 13 fights into his career" bullshit. I seriously think your chest wound is leaking into your brain. B)

 

Good thing you're among friends here, Bama? What a tool.

 

Says the guy who was just banned here a few weeks ago but still crawls his way back, right Mr. Cum-baya? :jester:

Let's see, a near 200 post thread welcoming me back (after 5 years), friends inviting me to their fancy restaurants in the city, and people sending me boxing tapes for free after only 3 weeks back, yeah I'd say I'm back amongst friends. Let's see if someday the memory of "Tam Tam" endears so long, I'm not holding my breath. B)

As for your likeability here:

The fact is you're still bitter over me exposing you for the prick you were at "that other" forum and a few posters disagree with me on a mythical boxing match that will never happen.
oh noes! :loveballs:

But you still follow me from thread to thread stalking me, you still complained about paying a measly $50 for PPV matches, and you still ran a boxing forum that could've had thousands of posters potentially into the fucking ground. Talk about utter failure. It's okay, keep following me from thread to thread and sucking my cock sweety, I'm sure King Kabuki will be there to caress your bitter head when you choke on my sugar. :jester:

Plus, weren't you banned from here Mr. 10+ accounts and 35,000+ post?

What a joke, dismissed sweet tart.

p.s - If you want to talk purely smack, go make a post about me in the correct forum and get that shit out of here if you don't care about the Benitez-Curry debate. Tool indeed. B)

 

From watching fights. You should try it sometime.

Sure. That doesn't mean he was better. Muhammad Ali got his best wins in the 1970s, but he was considerably better before the exile.

Again, watch the fights, and stop being a tool.

You know nothing about boxing that you didn't read off of Boxrec.

 

So basically you don't know shit. Thanks for that affirmation. :2:

 

Um, no. I was a fight fan before you were born (which was probably 13 years ago), and I actually watched these fighters you know nothing about.

 

So you're basically an old fat ass who thinks he knows boxing because he's 40+ years old and has a gaping chest wound? :nixweiss:

 

I'm 33, and I don't see what business you have talking about fighters you've never seen.