How good was Mark Breland in the grand scheme of things?

Early on, his manager had him and his entourage try to tour the boxing world as "Marky Mark and the Funky BreLunch' and had it kind of written out in a stylized way, and, well, it just didn't take and I think it really took the steam out of his career and it's why his professional arc wasn't what it could've been. He later played adult film star "Mirk Briggler" in the film "Doogie Heights" which was about a very young medical doctor who lived in a skyscraper, but was also friends with many adult film stars. Acting career didn't go well either.

 

I thought he was good in The Lords of Discipline

 

In fairness to me, no one has ever heard of that movie, meanwhile, nearly everyone has heard of Doogie Heights.

 

You should watch it .Good film

 

One of the best books ever written by Pat Conroy... never heard of Doogie Heights... could be a generation gap thing as I am 59... LOD movie was nowhere near a s good as the book..

 

TBH I was always amazed how he managed to keep making the Welterweight limit at 6'2 with a 77 inch reach.

Even fighters of similar size like Hearns & Williams moved up in weight.

I think he was simply a tad fragile too skinny at 147 and maybe should've moved up in weight ?

The loss to Starling was probably a bit too much of a jump up in class for him at the time.

Breland still did well vs Starling and was ahead on points I believe. But if you look at Breland's opposition prior to that, he didnt really step up in class and was scoring alot of early stoppages without being tested.

Going into the championship rounds which he'd never done before against a real quality fighter like Starling must of been a bit of culture shock for him.

All in all Breland still won 6 world title fights I'd class him as a good Welterweight just not upper echelon or elite.

I still stand by that he didn't quite have the physicality at 147 he's simply too skinny at the weight in my view.

Hearns atleast had broad shoulders despite being skinny I dunno Breland didn't have the same presence as Hearns for me.

 

Great fighter that spent his best days in the amateurs. I liked Breland a lot.

 

Misspelled Howser.

This content is protected

 

A good fighter that had the physical attributes to be a genuine threat to anyone due to his jab, power and height. However he was missing something that held him back from making him a truly great fighter. Breland is a great example of how, despite his dominance at the amateur doesn't reflect on how well he would do as a pro which is a whole different field in comparison. He was being moved carefully with his opposition and by the time he stepped up to face someone like Marlon Starling it exposed his lack of stamina, durability, chin, and experience against top opponents. He got stopped by Starling and arguably should have lost in the rematch as well. His style just seemed better suited for the amateurs as opposed to the pro, much like with Howard Davis Jr.

 

Excellent fighter with a lot of talent and punching power. His biggest problem was his chin.

 

Looked like a beast against Lloyd Honeyghan. Dropped him in the first round with a jab. Then proceeds to drop him 5 more times before the stoppage in round 3. That was perhaps his best performance in his career.

This content is protected

 

I draw a parallel between him and Johnny Bumphus. Tall for their weight class and dried out coming out of the amateurs. Makes you wonder what either could have done with maybe half the amateur fights.

I dunno; just spitballing there.

 

I agree 100% about Breland's physique,

 

It says it all about their respective paths to the title that Starling now rates as too great a step up in class for Breland. Starling was the challenger in that fight. From the ABC coverage of the event, it seemed that the concern was that Starling would make Breland look bad more than that he would actually win. That was a pretty big upset.