Boxing  

Forum Home Boxing Forum European British Classic Aussie MMA Training
Go Back   Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > Classic Boxing Forum


Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 01-13-2008, 12:19 AM   #16
dpw417
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,405
vCash: 168
Default Re: 10 January -69 years ago. The Fight That Should Have Been

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stonehands89
Burley was physically stronger than both SRR and Hearns. I'd say very much so. Duran would not be the stronger man in there, first of all. Second of all, Burley had a 75 inch reach. That's only 3 inches shorter than Hearns'.

As for power, Burley has been described as a heavy puncher. Robinson and Hearns had faster, more shocking KO power, but Burley was a demon with those overhands and although his shots were a step slower, they came from odd angles and at unexpected times. Even Duran's great skill would not mitigate the tough time he would inevitably have with the unorthodoxy of a bigger, highly skilled, and hungry great.

J.D. Turner outweighed Charley Burley by 70 pounds and told Futch that he actually woke up in the dressing room after the Burley fight. Elmer Ray said that Burley hit harder than any HW he had ever fought and probably harder than any current ranked contender. I doubt that anyone would have said the same about SRR or the Hitman himself.

Now, Duran respected power. He was more wary of it when he left the LWs behind him because bigger men hit harder. This is a big part of the reason why he countered more and rushed less -he became more ...careful. A careful Duran is not the real Duran; a careful Duran is more beatable. This really explains why I just cannot agree that a LW like Whitaker would stand much of a chance over a prime, primal 1978 Duran. Duran would simply not respect him and all the finesse in the world is not going to keep him at bay. Burley, however, would keep him at bay -and could absolutely hurt him.



First of all, Robinson was greater. No question. Burley cannot be called greater simply becuase of what "might have been." That's just tough luck. We have to look at 'what is'.

Robinson saw the Sonny Wilson fight from ringside and commented to his manager that he was "too pretty to fight Burley." That accounts for nothing --but this does:

Robinson was offered $17,000 to fight Burley. Gainford (SRR's manager) accepted. Robinson turned it down saying that Gainford was not authorized to do so. And yet, when responding to fight fans in an open letter about accusations that he was ducking Tommy Bell and Joe Curcio, he said that they need to "meet the demands of his manager, George Gainford." Huh?!

Burley himself claimed that he was approached about getting a 3 fight deal with the Sugar Man, but that would require he take a dive in the first. Burley made no deals like that, so he turned them down. He figured that once the first fight was over and done, there would be no return. Robinson was cunning. Whether or not Robinson acceded to this is unknown. It is loose history and more like rumor.

Right after the Smith fight I posted above was fought ('46), Burley was under the assumption that he had a gentleman's agreement to fight Sugar Ray... but Ray doubled his price from $25k to $50k and added in a % of the gate for himself. It's clear that he was freezing Burley out.

Robinson would do this at times against dangerous guys. But it was really obnoxious with Burley. Meanwhile he'd fight set-ups (not fixes per se, but non-threats) for $7 grand. Burley was asked about it in 1989 and said that "Robinson ducked me." Gainford, he claimed, admitted as much. Burley has credibility as an honest man.

Do I fault Robinson? Yes. It hurts his legacy and it robbed Burley of his chance to become a name -he literally robbed him of a decent payday.
All viable points re Burley/Duran. I used a similar analogy in a hypothetical between Duran and Robinson in another thread...In my estimation, Duran may have had more success due to Burley's lower punch output on tape(albeit against a much larger man in Smith, who was also big puncher) Burley would problably approach a fight differently against a smaller or equal sized opponent...
My reasoning was that anything Armstrong could do...Duran could do better...Meaning Duran would have more options and versatility in how he engaged Burley...Your point re Burley being physically stronger than Hearns,Robinson, and Duran does make sense...Given Burley's record against heavier opposition, I believe that to be true...What I do not necessarily agree with is the 'much stronger' assessment...How good exactly was J.D. Turner?...I agree it is no small feat to kayo someone like Elmer Ray...But that is not actual competition...it's sparring...I think Emanual Steward once stated that Hearns routinely beat up Tony Tucker in sparring...
Duran had a strong physical presence as a welterweight...but also Duran knew how to negate physical strength to a certain extent by giving angles, spinning, rolling, and his overall defensive prowess, which was very considerable...Given the consideration that Burley was not the dynamic offsensive combination puncher that Robinson was, or Hearns, who also had very fast hands...Duran would have been better able to evade Burley, than a Robinson or a Hearns...Still Burley can generate very good torque on his punches, and could hurt Duran very badly...But Duran would present Burley problems as well with his speed and defensive accumen...Duran would have to adjust his workrate fighting aggressively at times then dis-engaging... to avoid Burley's counters....I'm not sure if Burley had the aggressive temperment to fully pursue and press Duran...That is why I feel That Roberto would have the opportunity to take this...I feel that the skill divide between Duran and Burley at welterweight is not large, but in fact very small...and given the records of both...I see a close encounter...Pure speculation.
On Robinson/Burley, I'm sorry too that Burley did not get his opportunity...It was a shame! I need to read more on Burley...From what I understand he was a humble, God fearing, family man...He should have received his chance!
Boxing is not a friendly business...but it is a business, a money driven business...and Burley presented huge risk for Robinson...that is a fact! Robinson was a tremendous fighter and a very hard negotiator, and it is very possible he used the tactics you described
Gainford and Robinson, I believe did disagree with proposed opponents...I believe at one time or another Robinson refused to fight Cerdan,Conn,Charles, even Patterson later in his career...
Given the competitive nature of Burley's fights with Holman Williams, He and Robinson would have fought on even terms...An article in The Ring(July'95) and a piece at the sweetscience.com picked Robinson in the hypothetical due to a more 'eye-catching' style...For what it is worth.

ps. Duran/Whitaker IMO is the closest fight between greats that could be made. It is true that Duran wouldn't respect Whitaker's power...But Duran would have an extremely difficult time hunting the elusive Whitaker down...Whitaker with his defense, takes the strength equation out of his fights...Pernell's mobility would give Duran fits! Not an easy fight at all for Duran. IMO.
dpw417 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 01-13-2008, 09:07 AM   #17
Stonehands89
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,270
vCash: 1000
Default Re: 10 January -69 years ago. The Fight That Should Have Been

Good restort.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dpw417
All viable points re Burley/Duran. I used a similar analogy in a hypothetical between Duran and Robinson in another thread...In my estimation, Duran may have had more success due to Burley's lower punch output on tape(albeit against a much larger man in Smith, who was also big puncher) Burley would problably approach a fight differently against a smaller or equal sized opponent...
My reasoning was that anything Armstrong could do...Duran could do better...Meaning Duran would have more options and versatility in how he engaged Burley...Your point re Burley being physically stronger than Hearns,Robinson, and Duran does make sense...Given Burley's record against heavier opposition, I believe that to be true...What I do not necessarily agree with is the 'much stronger' assessment...
Robinson was faulted by contemporary observers in the 40s as not being physically strong -his power was acknowledged but his somewhat deficient strength, so they saw, was considered a weakness. I tend to look at a guy's legs to determine strength. Robinson's legs looked like a woman's. I find those gams physically attractive! -kidding.

As for WW Hears, well, he was demonstrably not strong. Look at those threads he moved on! Leonard was the stronger man in their fight at least by the second half -and Leonard wa no juggernaut. Hearns was long and lanky, and that is no recipe for strength -it is for the whipping lightening in his hands, but not for moving men with sheer presence. As for Duran, I think that Duran was incredibly strong for his size. For him to deal with MWs like he did and take shots from guys who could drop LHW is stunning. But he had a LW frame. Burley would be demonstrably and considerably stronger than all three for those reasons, in my opinion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dpw417
How good exactly was J.D. Turner?...I agree it is no small feat to kayo someone like Elmer Ray...But that is not actual competition...it's sparring...I think Emanual Steward once stated that Hearns routinely beat up Tony Tucker in sparring...
Turner was no world-beater. He was an opponent. But he was a large man and large professional HWs are not often stopped by natural Welterweights, fighting 5 pounds over the WW limit. The KO of Ray is a complete anomaly. And that sparring match, by all reports, was indeed a competition. Ray was getting handled and got pissed and pushed Burley out of the ring. Burley, mind you, did not wear headgear in sparring. I don't know if Ray was. Burley came in and ended it all because Ray was throwing bombs to redeem himself in front of the crowd.

This is a one punch clean knockout. Elmer Ray's statements after confirm it and Burley as something special.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dpw417
Duran had a strong physical presence as a welterweight...but also Duran knew how to negate physical strength to a certain extent by giving angles, spinning, rolling, and his overall defensive prowess, which was very considerable...Given the consideration that Burley was not the dynamic offsensive combination puncher that Robinson was, or Hearns, who also had very fast hands...Duran would have been better able to evade Burley, than a Robinson or a Hearns...Still Burley can generate very good torque on his punches, and could hurt Duran very badly...But Duran would present Burley problems as well with his speed and defensive accumen...Duran would have to adjust his workrate fighting aggressively at times then dis-engaging... to avoid Burley's counters....I'm not sure if Burley had the aggressive temperment to fully pursue and press Duran...That is why I feel That Roberto would have the opportunity to take this...I feel that the skill divide between Duran and Burley at welterweight is not large, but in fact very small...and given the records of both...I see a close encounter...Pure speculation.
Some good analysis here. I agree that Duran was a Tasmanian Panamanian against Leonard and count that version as among the most formidable boxers in any moment who can be favored against damn near anyone -ever. But Burley had all of the factors that you'd need to deal with him. A few good posters out here favor Pryor over Duran. I don't, and the reason is that although Pryor's unorthodoxy could be problematic, it was more like wild than deliberate. His scorn of defense would set him hard for Duran's counters. Burley was unorthodox, but never off balance, and his defense was truly great. He was bigger, hit very hard, had a good defense, good legs, could counter like hell, and was experienced even more than Duran was in 1980.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dpw417
On Robinson/Burley, I'm sorry too that Burley did not get his opportunity...It was a shame! I need to read more on Burley...From what I understand he was a humble, God fearing, family man...He should have received his chance!
Boxing is not a friendly business...but it is a business, a money driven business...and Burley presented huge risk for Robinson...that is a fact! Robinson was a tremendous fighter and a very hard negotiator, and it is very possible he used the tactics you described
Gainford and Robinson, I believe did disagree with proposed opponents...I believe at one time or another Robinson refused to fight Cerdan,Conn,Charles, even Patterson later in his career...
Given the competitive nature of Burley's fights with Holman Williams, He and Robinson would have fought on even terms...An article in The Ring(July'95) and a piece at the sweetscience.com picked Robinson in the hypothetical due to a more 'eye-catching' style...For what it is worth.
"Eye-catching style" -that's a new one.

Futch said that Burley and Holman were the two greatest fighters he ever saw. There several fights together must have been clinics that outshined Toney-McCallum I.

As for Robinson or anyone else not fighting larger men -I refuse to count it against them. Many out here detract from guys who choose to dominate their own natural divisions. Hagler is always getting knocked for not fighting Spinks. Sometimes that decision is based on reasonable points like a man's capability to carry added weight. If a king raised in Wales decides to subdue the British Empire and does so, why fault him because he didn't conquer Russia too? Russia is too big! However, if a guy jumps up and defeats larger guys, I count it more as a bonus.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dpw417
ps. Duran/Whitaker IMO is the closest fight between greats that could be made. It is true that Duran wouldn't respect Whitaker's power...But Duran would have an extremely difficult time hunting the elusive Whitaker down...Whitaker with his defense, takes the strength equation out of his fights...Pernell's mobility would give Duran fits! Not an easy fight at all for Duran. IMO.
Benny vs. Roberto is more interesting to me. Benny could hit like hell. Mosley also has a style that even at LW would pose problems for Duran -speed & power. Ike Williams would be fascinating. Whitaker is interesting of course, but the Duran that beat Leonard would beat the smaller, less powerful Whitaker. He'd swarm him and rough him up and stick to him like a heavy sweat. To each his own I guess!
Stonehands89 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2008, 10:39 AM   #18
dpw417
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,405
vCash: 168
Default Re: 10 January -69 years ago. The Fight That Should Have Been

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stonehands89
Good restort.


Robinson was faulted by contemporary observers in the 40s as not being physically strong -his power was acknowledged but his somewhat deficient strength, so they saw, was considered a weakness. I tend to look at a guy's legs to determine strength. Robinson's legs looked like a woman's. I find those gams physically attractive! -kidding.

As for WW Hears, well, he was demonstrably not strong. Look at those threads he moved on! Leonard was the stronger man in their fight at least by the second half -and Leonard wa no juggernaut. Hearns was long and lanky, and that is no recipe for strength -it is for the whipping lightening in his hands, but not for moving men with sheer presence. As for Duran, I think that Duran was incredibly strong for his size. For him to deal with MWs like he did and take shots from guys who could drop LHW is stunning. But he had a LW frame. Burley would be demonstrably and considerably stronger than all three for those reasons, in my opinion.


Turner was no world-beater. He was an opponent. But he was a large man and large professional HWs are not often stopped by natural Welterweights, fighting 5 pounds over the WW limit. The KO of Ray is a complete anomaly. And that sparring match, by all reports, was indeed a competition. Ray was getting handled and got pissed and pushed Burley out of the ring. Burley, mind you, did not wear headgear in sparring. I don't know if Ray was. Burley came in and ended it all because Ray was throwing bombs to redeem himself in front of the crowd.

This is a one punch clean knockout. Elmer Ray's statements after confirm it and Burley as something special.


Some good analysis here. I agree that Duran was a Tasmanian Panamanian against Leonard and count that version as among the most formidable boxers in any moment who can be favored against damn near anyone -ever. But Burley had all of the factors that you'd need to deal with him. A few good posters out here favor Pryor over Duran. I don't, and the reason is that although Pryor's unorthodoxy could be problematic, it was more like wild than deliberate. His scorn of defense would set him hard for Duran's counters. Burley was unorthodox, but never off balance, and his defense was truly great. He was bigger, hit very hard, had a good defense, good legs, could counter like hell, and was experienced even more than Duran was in 1980.


"Eye-catching style" -that's a new one.

Futch said that Burley and Holman were the two greatest fighters he ever saw. There several fights together must have been clinics that outshined Toney-McCallum I.

As for Robinson or anyone else not fighting larger men -I refuse to count it against them. Many out here detract from guys who choose to dominate their own natural divisions. Hagler is always getting knocked for not fighting Spinks. Sometimes that decision is based on reasonable points like a man's capability to carry added weight. If a king raised in Wales decides to subdue the British Empire and does so, why fault him because he didn't conquer Russia too? Russia is too big! However, if a guy jumps up and defeats larger guys, I count it more as a bonus.


Benny vs. Roberto is more interesting to me. Benny could hit like hell. Mosley also has a style that even at LW would pose problems for Duran -speed & power. Ike Williams would be fascinating. Whitaker is interesting of course, but the Duran that beat Leonard would beat the smaller, less powerful Whitaker. He'd swarm him and rough him up and stick to him like a heavy sweat. To each his own I guess!
I've enjoyed this thread very much! Your points are all very substancial. Robinson was not noted for physical strength...true. But nonetheless, he demonstrated an almost unparalleled offensive dynamic of amazing power and speed, along with technique (at welter)...and his overall record is a testament to his durability and longevity...and Robinson did fight larger men...but not the extent that Burley did.
I'd imagine the fights between Burley and Holman were amazing boxing exhibitions...Futch is also quoted somewhere as stating that Holman had the finesse of Robinson, but not the power.
'Eye catching style'?...Yes, that is what the article stated...If I remember correctly...It stands to reason...IMO. That Robinson's more offense oriented style could perhaps sway the judges...I don't think that is a stretch, by any means.
Burley/Duran? I can see the scenario play out like you've stated...But IMO it wouldn't be a foregone conclusion, by any means. It may just boil down to Burley's overall aggressiveness in the fight...Burley's skill set, stylistic approach, and yes...physical strength would play a very large roll...But a more aggressive Duran may possibly take the play away in portions of their fight...Burley could not sit back and 'watch' Roberto...That is the unknown in this match up...
Duran against any of the lightweight greats is facinating stuff. I'll take Duran 99.5% of the time...A fight between he and Whitaker IMO is a very close call...Whaitaker would have to employ movement...if he 'stood in the pocket' he would be overpowed against an onrushing, pressuring Duran. Whitaker had that capability. The scoring would be subjective for sure.
dpw417 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2008, 06:01 PM   #19
Stonehands89
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,270
vCash: 1000
Default Re: 10 January -69 years ago. The Fight That Should Have Been

I've enjoyed this too. I expected more responses, this being the Classic section and all, and also because this is a hypothetical that could have happened and should have happened, but you came through and made it a short but pretty good thread!

Thanks.
Stonehands89 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Reply

Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > Classic Boxing Forum

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump





All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:54 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Boxing News 24 Forum 2013