Burley never would have found his way into a Hagler ring, I don't think, with the money just not in it, but Hagler feared no man and if he were on the way up, he'd have sought out Burley like a heat-seeking missile were there a requirement to do so. So let's imagine that Hagler has been kicking the **** out of everyone on the west coast and getting nowhere so he pulls his wagon up Pittsburgh around 1941 with the strange idea of matching Billy Conn who has just lost to Joe Louis. Burley, who has been dogging Conn's steps for years absolutely bristles at the very thought of it and just like he did with Moore, decides to take Hagler's approach personally. Charley Burley has just stopped Gene Buffalo in five; Marvin Hagler has just stopped Lloyd Marshall in ten. Charley Burley is 5'9, 75"; Marvin Hagler is 5'9, 75". Burley's safety-first, lashing, serpentine style versus Hagler's surety of boxing pressure. The two greatest middleweight economists that side of Bernard meet in a big old Pittsburgh ring over fifteen rounds, October, 1941 in front of a small, well-educated crowd. What occurs? This content is protected This content is protected
I want to take the easy way out and choose "controversial draw," but this is one I'll have to ruminate over for a proper answer. Great matchup in any case. I'm pretty much sure neither is knocking the other out, so those options are eliminated early on. As mentioned, they share similar dimensions, and Hagler's not packing on a lot of extra weight on fight night. Getting the best version of each guy going in here, and with Burley holding a grudge and Hagler needing to get through him, I don't see this being a purely technical affair. And that's where I think Hagler might have the edge, managing to outwork Burley, but just barely, in a fight that goes back and forth, with a number of hotly contested rounds and ends up being debated for decades after.
Congratulations @The Senator for replying to this fascinating thread, the first to do so in nearly 90 minutes! A thoughtful post, and a good one.
Hagler, close decision in a very, very, enjoyable fight. Half the crowd cheers, the other boos, it's really that split in the audience. Hagler would give him a rematch but hope the other guy gets run over first!
You know what I keep thinking about? Hagler-Duran. Duran kept Hagler honest with that sharp quick left jab and sort of forced Hagler to keep it clean, to keep it honest. Burley was a technician of Duran's class, I believe, a little bigger and expert at exhibiting the toll not with the left but with the right. This is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, I think Burley could close-but-clear some early rounds slinging this punch at Hagler, timing him, stinging him badly with the shot, which would probably get faster more consistently once Burley confirmed the granite and dialled down the power. This might make people feel as though Hagler would be forced to jump on him, and the fight would change, but that is not what we saw in Hagler v Sharpshooter matches where there was no disaster: Duran and Leonard. I think Hagler could be hypnotised a little bit by serpants and I think Burley was the ultimate serpant. I haven't been drinking wine, you've been drinking wine.
Would love to be able to say an opinion but having only viewed Charleys record and read a few accounts I don’t feel qualified to comment on it. I do look forward to reading murderers row soon
Hagler, and its not even close. Burely just has one trick but little else while Hagler, along with Greb are the two best ever. This Burley is SO overrated
Burley is not overated, he is a Poster Boy Fighter, for many, many great contenders & unsung fighters who were both Top fighters and major threats to ALL of their contempraries, champion or fellow contenders alike. Plus Burley fought in an era of unsurpassed competition levels. but I too would take Hagler, though I would never rule out any true top fighters.
I'm sorry but I found myself laughing at this guy. there is no need to be in awe of this guy! He's just a cutey We've seen better in our era alone; Monzon, Hagler, Roy Jones, Hopkins, Micheal Nunn, Sugar Ray Leonard, all of them, much better overall fighters. Even Hugo Corro. Believe me, he's not that good. Like I said, he's just a cutey but on offense, average at best. Look at his jab, how off target it is. He really doesnt have much on offense. I'm surprised you guys dont see it
ask yourself this question: why does Charley force clinches so often in his fights? Because he's anemic on offense. He's just one of those gimmicky cheap ass fighters. Let's be grateful he DIDNT win a title! Ray Robinson was a far better all around fighter and much more deserving of holding the title.
You’ve literally only seen highlights of ONE of his fights. A controlled, careful out pointing of a much bigger, huge punching fighter who sent Harold Johnson into a coma with one shot. And from this, you judge his entire offence. You’re the type of guy who would be on here telling people Roy Jones boxed off the jab having only seen the Ruiz fight. This post is THAT bad.
