BoxRec

Posted: **30 Jul 2016, 09:51**

I would please like to know how good was the former two-time welterweight champion "The Magic Man" Marlon Starling? He had speed and footwork along with good counter punches on YouTube.

Posted: **30 Jul 2016, 10:52**

I think he is a little under-appreciated.

He was very good, but he wasn't box-office.

He also retired when he probably still had more to give.

Then again, it's better than retiring long past the day when you have anything to give.

Posted: **30 Jul 2016, 11:39**

scorpio83 wrote:I would please like to know how good was the former two-time welterweight champion "The Magic Man" Marlon Starling? He had speed and footwork along with good counter punches on YouTube.

He could have been great, for sure. He put in some great performances but was inconsistent overall. He could really box and fight when he had to.

Posted: **30 Jul 2016, 11:52**

I thought he was a first-class fighter. He could do it all in the ring. The way he handled Breland and Honeyghan showed what he was really about. I guess he just lacked a bit of the X factor, great fighter though

Posted: **30 Jul 2016, 12:21**

Ok...here's where I have to admit I'm pretty old....because I followed this guy and believed him to be very talented, and likely to dominate his weight class.

I also remember (hazily) a fight where I thought he was injured in a way that he might begin to lose his performance edge...and he did. (At least in my estimation)

But I can't remember the details.....so....I'm going to go back over his record, and see if I can't put the pieces of my backyard theory together again.

One thing that can explain a lot of meteoric rises that surprisingly end, without apparent explanation, is a somewhat undiagnosed injury by a boxer.

It can happen by way of a long drawn out relatively one sided beating, based on style discrepancy.....or a particularly troublesome KO.

Please know I'm on record here, and I believe that a fighter can be KO'd without any neural deficit, and I stand by that. Not all KO's are damaging.

Not that I'm suggesting that you go out and KO yourself to experience it. Because another truth is that all head injuries are different. Some are completely capable of 100% recovery.

And others take their toll in surprising ways, that don't jive with the apparent trauma (or lack thereof).

Posted: **30 Jul 2016, 12:32**

Ok I remember....lol. It was actually his WIN against Breland,,,...where if you asked yourself "who would you rather be" at the end of the fight. My answer is Mark Breland even though Starling won the fight by KO. Starling was never quite the same after he became champion.....and if memory serves...his first serious challenger was Nunn who took him apart. I know he fought a few others and held the championship for a while...but I'm thinking none of those challenger were serious contenders. If I'm wrong someone set me straight. But I saw a changed fighter after that. I think Breland lost the fight but won the war.

Had starling not been hurt the way I believe he may have been in the Breland fight, I personally believe his reign would have been extended.

I guess my next question is who do YOU think won the rematch? I'm not going to opine. but I have my thoughts.

Posted: **30 Jul 2016, 14:35**

He moved up to fight Nunn at MW and lost handily. I remember him mainly for the Honeyghan fight, great performance from Starling that night

Posted: **30 Jul 2016, 15:53**

BoxBuzz wrote:Ok I remember....lol. It was actually his WIN against Breland,,,...where if you asked yourself "who would you rather be" at the end of the fight. My answer is Mark Breland even though Starling won the fight by KO. Starling was never quite the same after he became champion.....and if memory serves...his first serious challenger was Nunn who took him apart. I know he fought a few others and held the championship for a while...but I'm thinking none of those challenger were serious contenders. If I'm wrong someone set me straight. But I saw a changed fighter after that. I think Breland lost the fight but won the war.

Had starling not been hurt the way I believe he may have been in the Breland fight, I personally believe his reign would have been extended.

I guess my next question is who do YOU think won the rematch? I'm not going to opine. but I have my thoughts.

You need to check the records re Nunn, buzz, that was up at middleweight and starling was challenging him in one of his last couple of fights I think. And it went the distance didn't it, so I wouldnt say he was taken apart at all.

Posted: **30 Jul 2016, 16:26**

He was very good. I thought for sure buzz was talking about the molinares ko after the bell.

Posted: **30 Jul 2016, 16:30**

Starling reminds me of Toney a little, in the sense he was very relaxed in the ring and had some virtuoso skills, schooling Simon brown and hanfing with curry shows he belonged at the highest level, but sometimes seemed a little underinspired against lesser opponents

Posted: **30 Jul 2016, 16:42**

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:He was very good. I thought for sure buzz was talking about the molinares ko after the bell.

Well, that did him no good, and was some time later. I just think Starling was one of the "one of a kind" fighters up until the first Breland fight. And I thought/imagined that something shifted for hime at that time. It was subtle I admit....and perhaps imagined on my part. But his timing shifted ever so differently in the fights following.

Hey, I just went back to the record....I thought Molinares won the fight......when did it get ruled a no contest? I did believe the punch was at a "non stoppable" moment in time when the bell rang.

It landed after the bell rang....but neither man had time to react to the bell....at least from what I remember....I'll have to make that my next rewatch fight.

A mind is a terrible thing to age.

Posted: **30 Jul 2016, 16:51**

It was well after the bell and there wasn't a lot of time or fights between breland & molinares. He also had one of his career best performances against Lloyd. I think that was after both of them.

Posted: **30 Jul 2016, 18:04**

Starling v Nunn fight was pretty close. I had Nunn by 2 and I think one of the commentators as well as a judge called it a draw. He also deserved the decision in his second bout with Breland. Excellent fighter who'd give a good account of himself against anyone.

Posted: **30 Jul 2016, 18:07**

Seamus wrote:Starling v Nunn fight was pretty close. I had Nunn by 2 and I think one of the commentators as well as a judge called it a draw. He also deserved the decision in his second bout with Breland. Excellent fighter who'd give a good account of himself against anyone.

For some reason my minds eye just pictured Starling -Napoles. I think you're right he'd give a decent account against many greats

Posted: **30 Jul 2016, 18:23**

Seamus wrote:Starling v Nunn fight was pretty close. I had Nunn by 2 and I think one of the commentators as well as a judge called it a draw. He also deserved the decision in his second bout with Breland. Excellent fighter who'd give a good account of himself against anyone.

I thought so as well, that's my point...if my imagined scenario is right,he would be considered among the very top echelon. Which this thread seems to confirm he was very nearly at that level even with what may have been an injury that effected him in the first Breland fight. His march to the belt was Sterling. And his reign as champion was not bad at all. And if there are those who thought he fought Nunn to a draw...that's a stand out career period.

Posted: **31 Jul 2016, 20:04**

He was called the Magic man that will tell you he was thought of highly

Posted: **31 Jul 2016, 20:13**

He was amazing!

Posted: **01 Aug 2016, 05:04**

Cutman Scabbers wrote:He was amazing!

Yes he was amazing and it ashamed that Starling do not get the recognition that he deserve like not getting inducted into the International Boxing Hall of Fame along with his famous opponents like Donald Curry, Lloyd Honeyghan and Michael Nunn.

Posted: **01 Aug 2016, 05:18**

scorpio83 wrote:
Cutman Scabbers wrote:He was amazing!
Yes he was amazing and it ashamed that Starling do not get the recognition that he deserve like not getting inducted into the International Boxing Hall of Fame along with his famous opponents like Donald Curry, Lloyd Honeyghan and Michael Nunn.

Is he not in the HOF?

I didn't even realise that.

That seems a tad unfair as guys who've achieved less than him are in.

Posted: **01 Aug 2016, 10:29**

He beat Floyd Mayweather. Twice!

Posted: **04 Aug 2016, 09:27**

Starling became more consistent and serious after winning the title. He was probably a better fighter in the Curry fights. I think he lost his way after losing those 2 fights but still even in that phase he was beating simon brown and other up and comers

The Breland win and than the Futch guidance made him more complete .Still he was inconsistent and even lazy against lesser foes .He destroyed the myth of Breland as the next SRL. He ruined a Honeyghan who had been lapse in training and focus for years. I think a peak 1986 Honeyghan would have taken Marlon and that fight was slated for 1986 origionally

I think Starling retired early although he was off par against Blockerr

He did very well against Nunn and I actually scored that fight very close perhaps a draw

Posted: **04 Aug 2016, 11:11**

Judah Ben Fur wrote:S. I think a peak 1986 Honeyghan would have taken Marlon and that fight was slated for 1986 origionally

i agree it would make a fascinating fight, peak honeygan with better head-and-foot-movement, and training properly, I would always give a good shot at outworking Starling.

Posted: **04 Aug 2016, 11:32**

Lloyd had many problems going into that fight. His hands were brittle by this point and he didn't think he could last the distance without them breaking. So he went for broke.

Starling could be outworked...but KO'd? Highly unlikely. So Lloyd's tactics played right into Marlon's hands.

If Honey goes in fully aware and accepting the fact he's in for 15 rounds then he could win.

Starling was quality though. He'd give anyone at that weight a tough night.

Posted: **04 Aug 2016, 11:58**

guys

Honeyghan was some puncher.

He kayoed the very durable Gianfranco rosi with 1 punch. Totally split his senses. Vaca went with 1 shot too. Bumphus and Hatcher were murdered.

Even a drug taking, womanising, hands finished, heartbroken honeyghan neglecting his skills managed to wobble Marlon at the end of the third.

The slick boxer, the English benitez as a I called him circa 85-86 who was , as u say, there to go 15 rounds if necessary would have outboxed starling on his best or worst day imo.

Posted: **04 Aug 2016, 11:59**

Judah Ben Fur wrote: guys

Honeyghan was some puncher.

He kayoed the very durable Gianfranco rosi with 1 punch. Totally split his senses. Vaca went with 1 shot too. Bumphus and Hatcher were murdered.

Even a drug taking, womanising, hands finished, heartbroken honeyghan neglecting his skills managed to wobble Marlon at the end of the third.

The slick boxer, the English benitez as a I called him circa 85-86 who was , as u say, there to go 15 rounds if necessary would have outboxed starling on his best or worst day imo.

That said Starling is absolute top class. Its a disgrace if he isn't in the hall of fame yet when mcguigan is.

BoxRec

How good was Marlon Starling?

How good was Marlon Starling?

Re: How good was Marlon Starling?

Re: How good was Marlon Starling?

Re: How good was Marlon Starling?

Re: How good was Marlon Starling?

Re: How good was Marlon Starling?

Re: How good was Marlon Starling?

Re: How good was Marlon Starling?

Re: How good was Marlon Starling?

Re: How good was Marlon Starling?

Re: How good was Marlon Starling?

Re: How good was Marlon Starling?

Re: How good was Marlon Starling?

Re: How good was Marlon Starling?

Re: How good was Marlon Starling?

Re: How good was Marlon Starling?

Re: How good was Marlon Starling?

Re: How good was Marlon Starling?

Re: How good was Marlon Starling?

Re: How good was Marlon Starling?

Re: How good was Marlon Starling?

Re: How good was Marlon Starling?

Re: How good was Marlon Starling?

Re: How good was Marlon Starling?

Re: How good was Marlon Starling?