Charley Burley at Welterweight

McGrain · 07-20-2007, 07:57 PM

Charley Burley - one of the greatest boxers who ever lived - has somehow failed to make Shake's welterweight tournament. So I thought I'd take the time to outline Burley's credentials.

Burley started out at Welter. Probably if he started out now, it would be at light-welter, but it did not exist in his day.

At welter, Burley beat Zivic twice and was supposedly robbed of a third decision. He also beat Cocoa Kid, Holman Willliams, Shorty Hogue...not a lot of great names. Of course, Burley moved to MW quickly. Weight problems? No. Zivic and his people bought out Burley's contract rather than face him. When Zivic (Somehow) came to the title before Burley, Zivic bought him out and then sent him on a nationwide tour in order to avoid fighting him. The man describded as "Pittsburgher's best fighter" (Greb hailed from that city) understandibly moved up to middleweight when faced with his own divisions champ's (also his boss) reluctance to meet him. There was no way for him to lift that coveted title at his natural weight.

Burley rarely weighed in at 160. It almost never happend. This is because he was not a middleweight. He was a welterweight. Even up at this weight he rarely weighted in at 160 and usually weighed around 150.

When he fought future light-heavy champ and heavywieght challenger Archie Moore he weighted 155. He won that fight. Moore called him "the best he ever faced", including Marciano and the many great fighters he fought.

When he desperatley stepped up in weight to fight to fight light-heavies such as Smith he came in at 160, finallly. He won.

When he fought at heavyweight in 1942 he scaled 151. But the officals were to embaressed to weight him. He won that one too.

Burley was ducked by some of the greatest fighters ever, including ATG Sugar Ray Robinson, definitley at welter and probably at middle.

In short, he was one of the greatest fighters, and possibly the greatest welter to ever breath air.

And the knowledgable gents of ESB classics have failed to find him a place in their play welterweight tournament for the ATG #1 spot just as Zivic, Robinson and history did.

Shame on you.

Manassa · 07-20-2007, 08:03 PM

Burley is becoming overrated.

McGrain · 07-20-2007, 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manassa

Burley is becoming overrated.

His wins speak for themselves, as the loses do.

That he was ducked by Sugar is advertisement enough for his quality.

As far as my post goes - think all the guys who qualified for the tournament are better?

Manassa · 07-20-2007, 08:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by McGrain

His wins speak for themselves, as the loses do.

That he was ducked by Sugar is advertisement enough for his quality.

As far as my post goes - think all the guys who qualified for the tournament are better?

No, Burley was better than some of them. But he wasn't one of the best. Someone like Luis Rodriguez or Carmen Basilio were probably better.

McGrain · 07-20-2007, 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manassa

No, Burley was better than some of them. But he wasn't one of the best. Someone like Luis Rodriguez or Carmen Basilio were probably better.

I don't disrespect any of your opinions but I do dispute them. Burley would hammer these guys in my view. But he never did prove this, and I understand one opinion is as valid as another - and that losing to great light heavyweights doesn't qualify a guy for beating thest greats.

I just think it's a shame he is overlooked in this enviroment as he was overlooked in his actuall enviroment.

I bet it would be hard for many to pick against him if he got in.

Manassa · 07-20-2007, 08:33 PM

Would Burley really hammer a man who went life-and-death with Emile Griffith, and won the most convincing decision of their four fight series? A man who beat hard men like Bennie Briscoe and Rubin Carter and also adept boxers such as Benny Paret, Curtis Cokes and George Benton? Rodriguez' resume is worth checking out; he beat a surprising number of contenders. Virgil Atkins, Federico Thompson, Denny Moyer, Joey Giambra, LC Morgan, Holly Mims, Yama Bahama, Isaac Logart, Joe Miceli, Gomeo Brennan, Sugar Hart, Tony Mundine, Fraser Scott, Jose Gonzalez, Vicente Rondon, Ted Wright - those are just the ones I know, if I checked the ratings I'd find some more.

McGrain · 07-20-2007, 08:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manassa

Would Burley really hammer a man who went life-and-death with Emile Griffith, and won the most convincing decision of their four fight series? A man who beat hard men like Bennie Briscoe and Rubin Carter and also adept boxers such as Benny Paret, Curtis Cokes and George Benton? Rodriguez' resume is worth checking out; he beat a surprising number of contenders. Virgil Atkins, Federico Thompson, Denny Moyer, Joey Giambra, LC Morgan, Holly Mims, Yama Bahama, Isaac Logart, Joe Miceli, Gomeo Brennan, Sugar Hart, Tony Mundine, Fraser Scott, Jose Gonzalez, Vicente Rondon, Ted Wright - those are just the ones I know, if I checked the ratings I'd find some more.

In my opinion yes.

Burley beat many great fighters, Williams, Wade, Moore, Jack Chase, Cocoa Kid, Williams etc.

Of course he lost, but generally only to bigger men or strange decisions, he was never stopped, had enormous reach, great power (over 50% stoppage rate) and a fearsome body attack, but his greatest weapon IMO was his generalship.

I'd pick him to beat Rodriguez (who is a fighter that I happen to know a wee bit) though I agree he is generally underated and disrespected.

Manassa · 07-20-2007, 08:49 PM

The whole Murderer's Row & Co. are being overrated as well. I know I'm using that word a lot lately, but I can only say what I believe. Chase, Wade, Lytell, Kid, Hogue; they were quality fighters, but no better than someone like Federico Thompson or Virgil Atkins. I would suspect Curtis Cokes was as good as Williams, who suffered from hand problems. Marshall and Booker were classy operators, but too big for Burley. So were Charles and Bivins. A young Moore was a formidable opponent, but of course, he hadn't shown his true colours at the time he fought Burley, he was still developing.

Burley beat a lot of solid fighters but they've been hyped up too much. They didn't get the chances they deserved, but they weren't magic men either. I think the fact we have little film of most of the Row serves them in good stead as fans are left to their own devices to imagine their mythical skills, and in turn, they are blown out of proportion. I think Rodriguez has a better resume.

McGrain · 07-21-2007, 07:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manassa

The whole Murderer's Row & Co. are being overrated as well. I know I'm using that word a lot lately, but I can only say what I believe.

Of course. I like reading your posts even when we don't agree. We don't agree here. Though it is interesting that most of these guys didn't get to take on some of the best fighters of that era? Because if they're as good as you say they are or as I say they are, we still must agree that many were denied what was rightfullly theirs.

Quote:

A young Moore was a formidable opponent, but of course, he hadn't shown his true colours at the time he fought Burley, he was still developing.

Still, Moore maintained that Burley was the best he ever fought. If I am overating Burley then so is Archie Moore.

Quote:

Burley beat a lot of solid fighters but they've been hyped up too much. They didn't get the chances they deserved, but they weren't magic men either. I think the fact we have little film of most of the Row serves them in good stead as fans are left to their own devices to imagine their mythical skills, and in turn, they are blown out of proportion. I think Rodriguez has a better resume.

I think that you are correct in your general view; and Burley has become a sort of poster boy for that crew which is embaressing, for sure. But again, I find it interesting that there is now a backlash to the backlash - JT described a situation where "history has more than compensated" for Burley's marginalisation - beautifully put, but not accurate either literally or figurativley as far as I can see.

As far as my own opinion is concerned, I wouldn't pick any fighter aside from a peak Sugar to beat Burley at welter - maybe Hearns would be the guy with the next best shot...and where reality rather than fantasy is concerned I feel Burley would have been the man for the job at the actual times when the Sugar fight was mooted (before Sugar hit his peak), I would probably be happy to lay money.

JohnThomas1 · 07-21-2007, 08:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manassa

Burley is becoming overrated.

I've been stating this for 3 months now.
he was at one time criminally underrated, but we've now more than caught him up.

07-21-2007, 11:43 AM

I nominated Sugar Ray Robinson, Kid Gavilan and Joe Walcott in Shake's tourney.
If I had known Burley was in danger of not making the cut I would have nominated him without hesitation.

I agree with McGrain as to the quality of Burley's credentials.
I disagree with anyone who says Burley is becoming over-rated. His record speaks for itself. He's one of the best ever.

McGrain · 07-21-2007, 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnThomas1

I've been stating this for 3 months now.
he was at one time criminally underrated, but we've now more than caught him up.

Where do you place Burley at welter?

07-20-2007, 07:57 PM	#1
McGrain Diamond Dog East Side VIP Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 63,260 vCash: 1000	Charley Burley at Welterweight Charley Burley - one of the greatest boxers who ever lived - has somehow failed to make Shake's welterweight tournament. So I thought I'd take the time to outline Burley's credentials. Burley started out at Welter. Probably if he started out now, it would be at light-welter, but it did not exist in his day. At welter, Burley beat Zivic twice and was supposedly robbed of a third decision. He also beat Cocoa Kid, Holman Willliams, Shorty Hogue...not a lot of great names. Of course, Burley moved to MW quickly. Weight problems? No. Zivic and his people bought out Burley's contract rather than face him. When Zivic (Somehow) came to the title before Burley, Zivic bought him out and then sent him on a nationwide tour in order to avoid fighting him. The man describded as "Pittsburgher's best fighter" (Greb hailed from that city) understandibly moved up to middleweight when faced with his own divisions champ's (also his boss) reluctance to meet him. There was no way for him to lift that coveted title at his natural weight. Burley rarely weighed in at 160. It almost never happend. This is because he was not a middleweight. He was a welterweight. Even up at this weight he rarely weighted in at 160 and usually weighed around 150. When he fought future light-heavy champ and heavywieght challenger Archie Moore he weighted 155. He won that fight. Moore called him "the best he ever faced", including Marciano and the many great fighters he fought. When he desperatley stepped up in weight to fight to fight light-heavies such as Smith he came in at 160, finallly. He won. When he fought at heavyweight in 1942 he scaled 151. But the officals were to embaressed to weight him. He won that one too. Burley was ducked by some of the greatest fighters ever, including ATG Sugar Ray Robinson, definitley at welter and probably at middle. In short, he was one of the greatest fighters, and possibly the greatest welter to ever breath air. And the knowledgable gents of ESB classics have failed to find him a place in their play welterweight tournament for the ATG #1 spot just as Zivic, Robinson and history did. Shame on you.
Top

07-20-2007, 08:03 PM	#2
Manassa - East Side Guru Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: ESB since '05 Posts: 9,774 vCash: 75	Re: Charley Burley at Welterweight Burley is becoming overrated.
Top

07-20-2007, 08:33 PM	#6
Manassa - East Side Guru Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: ESB since '05 Posts: 9,774 vCash: 75	Re: Charley Burley at Welterweight Would Burley really hammer a man who went life-and-death with Emile Griffith, and won the most convincing decision of their four fight series? A man who beat hard men like Bennie Briscoe and Rubin Carter and also adept boxers such as Benny Paret, Curtis Cokes and George Benton? Rodriguez' resume is worth checking out; he beat a surprising number of contenders. Virgil Atkins, Federico Thompson, Denny Moyer, Joey Giambra, LC Morgan, Holly Mims, Yama Bahama, Isaac Logart, Joe Miceli, Gomeo Brennan, Sugar Hart, Tony Mundine, Fraser Scott, Jose Gonzalez, Vicente Rondon, Ted Wright - those are just the ones I know, if I checked the ratings I'd find some more.
Top

07-20-2007, 08:49 PM	#8
Manassa - East Side Guru Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: ESB since '05 Posts: 9,774 vCash: 75	Re: Charley Burley at Welterweight The whole Murderer's Row & Co. are being overrated as well. I know I'm using that word a lot lately, but I can only say what I believe. Chase, Wade, Lytell, Kid, Hogue; they were quality fighters, but no better than someone like Federico Thompson or Virgil Atkins. I would suspect Curtis Cokes was as good as Williams, who suffered from hand problems. Marshall and Booker were classy operators, but too big for Burley. So were Charles and Bivins. A young Moore was a formidable opponent, but of course, he hadn't shown his true colours at the time he fought Burley, he was still developing. Burley beat a lot of solid fighters but they've been hyped up too much. They didn't get the chances they deserved, but they weren't magic men either. I think the fact we have little film of most of the Row serves them in good stead as fans are left to their own devices to imagine their mythical skills, and in turn, they are blown out of proportion. I think Rodriguez has a better resume.
Top

07-21-2007, 11:43 AM	#11
Sonny's jab Guest Posts: n/a vCash:	Re: Charley Burley at Welterweight I nominated Sugar Ray Robinson, Kid Gavilan and Joe Walcott in Shake's tourney. If I had known Burley was in danger of not making the cut I would have nominated him without hesitation. I agree with McGrain as to the quality of Burley's credentials. I disagree with anyone who says Burley is becoming over-rated. His record speaks for itself. He's one of the best ever.
Top