Scheduled for 15 rounds for the world welterweight title. Pits the experience, defense and unorthodox genius of Starling against the power and passion of the definitive boxer-puncher Trinidad.
Starling, at his best and focused, all the way in my opinion... I think he would drive Trinidad nuts... his defense was too tight and his counter left hook, so accurate and well-timed, would be a perfect answer to Trinidad's most favored weapon
Gotta go with the original Magic Man. Tito would have a few moments I think and he'd be dangerous till the end, so Starling would have to have good late rounds stamina, but I think he'd be too skillful. Starling via UD.
C Dogg and Puerto Rock - I agree with both of you. Starling by close, but unanimous, decision for me. Tito would get credit for throwing punches at Moochie's gloves and outworking him in some rounds but on one of Starling's real 'on' nights he could stop Tito in a 15 rounder. Starling's defence would do what Winky Wright's defence did to Tito, I don't see Tito dealing with Starling at all. Gibola
Winky was bigger then Starling and had a bit more range then him though. Starling would make Trinidad look bad, but I think he loses a disputed decision when Felix gets credit for a lot of punches that don't actually land.
You are right - I stick with my pick but that is a distinct possibility, especially as Moochie could be frustrating at times and coast through fights just doing enough to win. Great point Nobleart.
The problem is, that even in his absolutely prime, Starling could stink a place out with inactivity. No decision was ever easy with Starling involved. I don't think anyone ever had a career with bigger swings in judges scoring. His first fight with Curry is a perfect example. Like Noble alluded to, one judge might see an absolutely shut out defensive performance while another sees Trinidad landing a ton of shots. I learned after Starling's win against Aquino never to bet on Marlon either way. You just never knew.
Yes, indeed. Good post. There were times it was really hard to be a Starling fan. I thought he lost the first Curry fight, but he might have been able to get the win if he spent less time fucking around and more time fighting.
Starling did put on some one-sided beauties though, too... Look at him against Honeyghan... absolute mastery, he took the man apart like he was taking out the trash
Absolutely. But that's what made him so frustrating to watch. He would turn in an excellent performance and then a stinker.
Yup, that was clinical. Still, maybe Honeyghan was never that good to begin with. Look what Mark Breland did to him!! :jaw:
very, very true but when he was really committed, the man was beautiful to watch... always loved Starling
I think, in fairness (and I HATE Honeyghan, bear in mind) that Honeyghan was on the slide by the time he got in there with Breland... I think when you also throw in that it was a stylistic nightmare for him, the KO loss is a bit more forgivable Honeyghan was such an arrogant loudmouth... He talked so much trash... halfway through that fight with Starling he was practically on his knees begging Marlon to be buddies with him
I always loved Starling too, despite his inconsistency, his eccentric style, defence, speed and countering were awesome at times and I'd like to have a rant about him if I may (I apologise in advance!) my only excuse for the following skewed view is that he's one of my all-time fave fighters and I respect the fact that he fought them all. I argue that nobody fought and beat more good welters in the 80s than Starling - check the records, that includes Curry, Leonard, McCrory, Brown etc. For ten years a contender, part of three eras (Leonard, Curry, Breland) and eventually outlasting them all to become champ. The two losses to a peak Curry were razor close and could have gone either way (I watched them recently and thought the first fight was a draw). I think his fearlessness and quality of opposition makes his losses irrelevant in the way that lots of guys from the 50s in the HOF have a heap of losses but that was simply because they were so busy and fought so many good fighters 'back then' they were bound to pick up losses. Well, Starling did exactly the same thing 'back then' in the 80s - the second golden era. Marlon's career was a throwback to the 50s. Name me a fighter in the last 20 years who beat a string of excellent unbeaten (Brown, Aquino, Ayers) fighters to get back into contention? - it just doesn't happen anymore. Historically (on his good nights) he beats Trinidad, Cotto, Margarito, Mosley, Quartey, Forrest and Mayorga - I give him a decent shot at Oscar and say his style gives Floyd Jr fits (as he did Floyd Sr) though he'd lose the fight. Pacquaio v a peak Starling is no gimme for me. I will admit that on a bad night all of the above could outwork him and sneak a decision - but hell, that was part of the fun with Moochie. A great fighter, a great career - I wish he was still around today! Gibola My next post will be 'Why isn't Dangerous Don Lee in the HOF' - only joking!
Good post. Although I disagree on the second Curry-Starling fight being close enough to go either way. The first fight was close (I had Curry winning) and Starling could have won it if he spent a little more time fighting and less time screwing around. The second fight was clearly Curry's. Starling went the distance and he didn't get "schooled", but I don't see any way to score that fight for Starling. It was a competitive fight, but a clear win for Curry.
