Red, did someone hijack your account and put this thread up without you realizing it or do you just hate Starling more than Leonard?
Starling defensively was tight, and Ray often had bad nights during his career.Best case scenario, Marlon frustrates the hell out of Leonard, but loses a clear cut decision.
Starling had no offense I remember the time he fought Curry in 1982 and Curry had the flu, he literally did NOTHING. Starling was as incompetent as they come. I mean this guy SUCKED! he couldve at least done more on offense and pile up a few more points as Hopkins did with Roy Jones. Hopkins didnt win the fight but at least you could see him trying to win
if anyone could stop Starling then Ray could.. Hearns punched harder than Ray, but with Starling I think Ray had a better chance to stop him, but Hearns would easily win a decision with his jab. But I don't think he can stop Starling. Interesting is that when Honeyghan fought Starling it is seen as a onesided fight for Starling, but Honeyghan in one round landed a looping right hand on the top of Starlings head and Marlon wobbled. I don't know why Honeyghan did not keep trying that punch.
Remind me how many people Hopkins had killed? Ask Baret, Breland and Honeyghan whether Starling had 'no offence'. You are a ****ing spastic.
Starling was never drained enough @ 147 :yep . But then again , Molinares did it , not det it iz certain that Leonard could do everything that Molinares could . IDK anymore , but there should b very gud odds on de under 2 make it worth a small This content is protected . Better questions could b : how would Molinares & Starling do vs de drained versions of Hearns , Duran , Benitez @ 147 ? Also Molinares and Starling were somewhat smaller than Leonard . Not by much , but there r times when that not much makes a critical difference .