Page 1 of 1
Starling/McCrory.
Posted: 22 May 2013, 00:14
by Rover
Marlon takes this for me by clear decision or late stoppage. Thoughts?
Re: Starling/McCrory.
Posted: 22 May 2013, 08:21
by MEISINGER
i can not argue that.starling was just a better all around boxer.
Re: Starling/McCrory.
Posted: 22 May 2013, 08:25
by Seamus
So long as Starling doesn't get too laid back, he'd take everything McCrory could throw at him, then break him down with counters in route to a late stoppage.
Re: Starling/McCrory.
Posted: 18 Jun 2013, 15:59
by Nile4000
Anytime from 81-82, I would take McCrory by close unanimous verdict.Best Believe that Emanuel would have Milton prepared for this one.Afterwards, Marlon would take from '83 on.
Re: Starling/McCrory.
Posted: 20 Jun 2013, 11:14
by Ezzard
Starling was better...but he was capable of losing to anyone...or rather making it closer than it need be. But he was a difficult man to beat at 147.
Re: Starling/McCrory.
Posted: 20 Jun 2013, 11:59
by SamWise72
I hadn't realised Starling was only 31 when he retired!
Re: Starling/McCrory.
Posted: 20 Jun 2013, 12:19
by giacomino
Late KO or close decision for Starling. The Magic Man could be a frustrating guy to root for because he could get complacent. And while it's easy to focus on the fact McCroy was wiry and got KO'd by Curry and McCallum, he also went 24 rounds with Colin Jones in '83, and Jones was a pretty damn good puncher. I remember watching those fights and thinking Jones was eventually going to take him out, but he never did.
Re: Starling/McCrory.
Posted: 20 Jun 2013, 12:22
by giacomino
SamWise72 wrote:I hadn't realised Starling was only 31 when he retired!
Curry was only 29 when he retired the first time, although he was totally shot, and Starling wasn't
Re: Starling/McCrory.
Posted: 20 Jun 2013, 12:31
by SamWise72
Yeah, that's the thing, Starling didn't seem completely gone; still gave Blocker and Nunn tough fights, and those were some serious champs.
Re: Starling/McCrory.
Posted: 20 Jun 2013, 20:48
by Rover
Ezzard wrote:Starling was better...but he was capable of losing to anyone...or rather making it closer than it need be. But he was a difficult man to beat at 147.
Yeah, I'm surprised he lost to Villella.
Re: Starling/McCrory.
Posted: 20 Jun 2013, 20:49
by Rover
SamWise72 wrote:I hadn't realised Starling was only 31 when he retired!
Well, he never took a bad beating and seems to have his health--at least the last time I saw him on FNF.
Re: Starling/McCrory.
Posted: 20 Jun 2013, 20:51
by Rover
giacomino wrote:SamWise72 wrote:I hadn't realised Starling was only 31 when he retired!
Curry was only 29 when he retired the first time, although he was totally shot, and Starling wasn't
Yeah, Curry should've followed Starling's example. That fight with Emmett was sad.
Re: Starling/McCrory.
Posted: 21 Jun 2013, 21:40
by Ambling Alp II
Starling was better and should have won had they fought. However, he had bad luck a lot.
Re: Starling/McCrory.
Posted: 21 Jun 2013, 21:44
by Rover
Ambling Alp II wrote:Starling was better and should have won had they fought. However, he had bad luck a lot.
And bouts of laziness.