Thread: Marlon Starling vs Winky Wright P4P who is better ?

I think both fighters were quite similar with there high guard defense but i give the edge to Winky Wright but i feel at Marlon Starling's best he was a more punishing counter puncher so who is better ?

I think Winky!

Ditto on Winky.Real consistent and strikes me as more grounded

ICB you should have made it a poll or a pole (sic.).

Winky Wright is far better than Starling

this would be a great fight for the purists. i think winky has the edge. southpaw style. starling wouldnt be able to land his potent counter punches.

Winky's jab and steady pressure would be the difference. Winky for sure.

winky lopsided decsion

Is this a joke? Winky had way better credentials, better record better skils, better opponents.

I think Winky is one of the best southpaws ever, in the current age I only put Hagler, Whitaker, and Pacquaio above him.

IMO WInky is one of the best defensive fighters ever, he had speed, great chin, footwork in his prime, timing, one of the best jabs thats ever been. He could do everything, except take an opponent out, but even WHitaker couldn't stand in the pocket and get hit less then Winky.

It's really not even close. Starlings bests win was a late KO of Mark Breland when he was down on the cards, a draw with Breland, and a close split decision to Simon Brown. He was a very good fighter, but not in the same class as Winky.

Wright beat Mosley twice and dominated Felix Trinidad. He drew with Jermaine Taylor. Dominated Ike Quartey. He likely would have added other names to that list if he wasn't so heavily ducked and if he wasn't victimized by several horrible decisions. Wright is arguably the best LMW ever and he is unquestionably in the top 5 in the history of that division.

Originally Posted by Taeth

Is this a joke? Winky had way better credentials, better record better skils, better opponents.

I think Winky is one of the best southpaws ever, in the current age I only put Hagler, Whitaker, and Pacquaio above him.

IMO WInky is one of the best defensive fighters ever, he had speed, great chin, footwork in his prime, timing, one of the best jabs thats ever been. He could do everything, except take an opponent out, but even WHitaker couldn't stand in the pocket and get hit less then Winky.

Why should it be a joke have you seen Marlon Starling at his best ? he would of gave Winky Wright fits P4P he owned Mark Breland the first time with excellent boxing and then got robbed in a rematch..........

He destroyed Lloyd Honeyghan etc Marlon Starling was inconsistent but at his best he would of have Winky Wright all he could handle.

Originally Posted by ICB

Originally Posted by Taeth

Is this a joke? Winky had way better credentials, better record better skils, better opponents.

I think Winky is one of the best southpaws ever, in the current age I only put Hagler, Whitaker, and Pacquaio above him.

IMO WInky is one of the best defensive fighters ever, he had speed, great chin, footwork in his prime, timing, one of the best jabs thats ever been. He could do everything, except take an opponent out, but even WHitaker couldn't stand in the pocket and get hit less then Winky.

Why should it be a joke have you seen Marlon Starling at his best ? he would of gave Winky Wright fits P4P he owned Mark Breland the first time with excellent boxing and then got robbed in a rematch..........

He destroyed Lloyd Honeyghan etc Marlon Starling was inconsistent but at his best he would of have Winky Wright all he could handle.

Do you think Marlon Starling at his best was better than Shane Mosley who lost to Winky twice? Hmm, I guess we could argue that, but even if you say Starling was better it can't be by much, and the two fighters have a lot of similarities. Shane got beaten pretty decisively in the first fight, I'm not sure I see Starling doing much better.

I suspect Shane would have also dismantled Honeyghan. Based on the Forrest fights, Breland would be the tougher matchup for Shane, but I suspect Shane would have gotten to Breland's chin at some point. Breland was a good fighter, but he was chinny. That saved Starling in the first fight, Starling was behind on all cards.

Originally Posted by RozzySean

Originally Posted by ICB

Originally Posted by Taeth

Is this a joke? Winky had way better credentials, better record better skils, better opponents.

I think Winky is one of the best southpaws ever, in the current age I only put Hagler, Whitaker, and Pacquaio above him.

IMO WInky is one of the best defensive fighters ever, he had speed, great chin, footwork in his prime, timing, one of the best jabs thats ever been. He could do everything, except take an opponent out, but even WHitaker couldn't stand in the pocket and get hit less then Winky.

Why should it be a joke have you seen Marlon Starling at his best ? he would of gave Winky Wright fits P4P he owned Mark Breland the first time with excellent boxing and then got robbed in a rematch..........

He destroyed Lloyd Honeyghan etc Marlon Starling was inconsistent but at his best he would of have Winky Wright all he could handle.

Do you think Marlon Starling at his best was better than Shane Mosley who lost to Winky twice? Hmm, I guess we could argue that, but even if you say Starling was better it can't be by much, and the two fighters have a lot of similarities. Shane got beaten pretty decisively in the first fight, I'm not sure I see Starling doing much better.

I suspect Shane would have also dismantled Honeyghan. Based on the Forrest fights, Breland would be the tougher matchup for Shane, but I suspect Shane would have gotten to Breland's chin at some point. Breland was a good fighter, but he was chinny. That saved Starling in the first fight, Starling was behind on all cards.

First off Shane Mosley was too small for Winky Wright and didn't belong at Jr Middleweight so i think its an unfair comparison and Shane Mosley always had struggled against a good jabber......

As for Marlon Starling vs Mark Breland 1 i remember that fight somewhat and Mark Breland was trying to get a break all the time he went down multiple times when they were clinching but the fact is Mark Breland was a good fighter who was a freak of nature at 6'2 and was also considered the next big thing at that time........

But Marlon Starling prove he was the better fighter because he did beat Marlon Starling in the rematch but he was robbed and it was a draw which it really wasn't........

I think Mark Breland would have gave Shane Mosley fits and may have won a decision if his chin held up.

Originally Posted by ICB

Originally Posted by RozzySean

Originally Posted by ICB

Why should it be a joke have you seen Marlon Starling at his best ? he would of gave Winky Wright fits P4P he owned Mark Breland the first time with excellent boxing and then got robbed in a rematch..........

He destroyed Lloyd Honeyghan etc Marlon Starling was inconsistent but at his best he would of have Winky Wright all he could handle.

Do you think Marlon Starling at his best was better than Shane Mosley who lost to Winky twice? Hmm, I guess we could argue that, but even if you say Starling was better it can't be by much, and the two fighters have a lot of similarities. Shane got beaten pretty decisively in the first fight, I'm not sure I see Starling doing much better.

I suspect Shane would have also dismantled Honeyghan. Based on the Forrest fights, Breland would be the tougher matchup for Shane, but I suspect Shane would have gotten to Breland's chin at some point. Breland was a good fighter, but he was chinny. That saved Starling in the first fight, Starling was behind on all cards.

First off Shane Mosley was too small for Winky Wright and didn't belong at Jr Middleweight so i think its an unfair comparison and Shane Mosley always had struggled against a good jabber......

As for Marlon Starling vs Mark Breland 1 i remember that fight somewhat and Mark Breland was trying to get a break all the time he went down multiple times when they were clinching but the fact is Mark Breland was a good fighter who was a freak of nature at 6'2 and was also considered the next big thing at that time........

But Marlon Starling prove he was the better fighter because he did beat Marlon Starling in the rematch but he was robbed and it was a draw which it really wasn't........

I think Mark Breland would have gave Shane Mosley fits and may have won a decision if his chin held up.

Considering that Forrest (a tall WW with a great jab) was the only guy who really "beat up" Shane, I have to agree that Breland would stand a very good chance...the "matchups make fights" cliche. I would definately give Shane a punchers chance, just because of Breland's weak. Forrest has a pretty good one, and that pretty much took away the punchers chance from Shane. At the time Forrest fought Shane, before the injuries, he was a hell of fighter. Tall, power, skill. The only guy to stop him was Mayora, and I think he was underprepared for that fight, on top of it being a matchup nightmare.

BUT - Shane is about the same size as Starling. He's half an inch taller, and he has good reach for a guy that height. If Shane was too small for Winky, Starling was as well.

ICE, Starling was a great fighter when he was at his best, but he wasn't always there. When he did, he had the whole package. I'm one of the old geezers who often takes the side of the older fighter, but when you compare Starling to the best WW of the last 20 years, since that's when he was champ. Where does Starling fall? He was the best WW from about 87-89, a relatively weak era for WW's. For champions between then and now, he's behind Tito, Pernell, Floyd and Oscar. He was horribly inconsistent. If he were around today, do you think he would be able to unify the belts?

Compare Wright to the best LMW's in the last 20 years, Winky is arguably the best. He got robbed against Vargas. He dismantled Tito. He never fought Oscar, and that's too bad for all of us, and I don't think Oscar ever wanted a piece of him. He beat Mosley. The only guy you can really make a case for being better at that weight is Terry Norris or if you want to take it back farther, Hearns. His contraverial draw to Taylor was to a larger man at MW and his loss to Hopkins was at 170.

No disrepect to Wright, but I don't see it being a hard call.