I all ways wonder how marlon would do against the great fighters at welterweight and above .Any.thoughts
He loses to the greats at 147 but gives a decent account of himself. He's pretty badly beaten by the best 154s and destroyed at 160.
The greats as in Robinson, Leonard, Hearns, Gavillan, Napoles, Rodriguez, Griffith, Benitez, ect? He loses to them all.... in pretty wide fashion. Starling was underrated at one point by hardcores, but he's overrated at this point. I think he was more/less on the same tier as Ike Quartey. Actually, I think Starling was clearly better than Quartey, but he was certainly closer to that level than he was the level of any of the guys I mentioned above.
I would say the only "great" he might have a case of winning against at 154 would be Norris. That's a close call, actually. McCallum would dismantle him just like he did Watson.
again the speed makes the difference. If you look at the cream of the crop speed is the difference in most greats and then guys like Marlon who are very good and maybe HOF, but not for sure. A fast guy finds the openings when he throws. But if a guy is not fast Marlon would just take them apart by walking them down putting his hands up and punching.
Starling should be in the HOF though, I'll say that. Somehow McGirt got in, and Starling was a level above McGirt.
Why? To see Starling get his ass kicked? Starling has zero chance a prime Leonard. Absolutely no chance.
you are right. The speed of Leonard or Hearns or Benitez would be too much for Starling. Who would take it, but be hit and not hit much.
Starling was a spoiler. In the recent era's in the sport, tv just does not like that style. And if tv does not like someone, not many avenue's available for a boxer
There was a contingent here for a while (whom I respect greatly) that I felt overrated Starling a bit. Great fighters do not lose in their prime years to people named Pedro Villela or the remains of what had once been Johnny Bumphus (as if he was all that good in his prime). Just by virtue of that, he is eliminated from any serious consideration of that to me. He loses to all "ATG" entrants at welterweight. Good fighter, stylistically difficult and very durable, but nothing remotely resembling great.
Starling was a very good fighter with a very disciplined style. Sometimes it seemed like he couldnt make adjustments when he needed too. I dont see him beating any of the greats or near greats @147
Starling was a very good welter below the tier of great. The problem for him against great fighters is that he was quite good at everything but great at not much. Good power, decent speed, extremely good defense etc. His style and qualities don't aren't those that lean toward an upset. He could also be inconsistent, as even quite a few great fighters could be at times. Starling probably didn't excel enough nor have the fan base to get excused at all tho. There are some great fighters with losses not much better than Starlings.
Understand, but based on that sparring session he had with Tommy, I think he has a strong shot of dealing with Hearns. Depending on how focused Milton was, that is 50/50.