I guess people who actually followed boxing then just didn't have a clue ... and you, who has seen the same Charley Burley fight everyone else alive today has, knows better. Excellent argument.
my point was Charles didn’t just throw hooks. In the video I posted, he threw a perfect straight right hand which you had argued he didn’t possess
That's not my argument, but actually I'd definitely say that people who study sports history can have a much broader and better view than contemporary followers. I doesn't mean I have a better clue on boxing than them, because I'm not an expert but I'm quite sure I know more about some random 1970s NBA teams than followers who usually followed only one team on TV.
Much more complex such as who had harder pathways against tougher opponents time and again on short notice , ect .., it was not a level playing field between black and white fighters or even all black which is my point. By simplistically stating there was a black champ in the twenties and the thirties and the fifties so that proves a level playing field doesn't work ..
well the 1st time I ever saw Charles fight on film, must have been in the 80's, but I knew right away he was a Great fighter, it would be a number of years later that I became aware of the retrospective analysis, but I for one don't do lists, nor pay any attention to Achievement based ratings... I look at the overall careers, opponents, longevity, ratings and consensus, which has brought me to the reality that TOP Fighters are TOP Fighters and there is often little difference between, ATG Champions, TOP Contenders and Top Noted fighters... achievement list are widely misleading, where as TOP Fighters winning & losing to one another competitively Proves all we need to know. I agree, that at various time Charles (and many others) are unsung or unaccounted for, in fact I acknowledged that in my post, but when researching and cross referencing Multiple Source, more accurate assessments can be found. Oddly enough, MY 3 Greatest fighters were ALL written off and/or out of special treatment, ink or accolades, but there is NO Doubting their Greatness and they are JJW, Charles and Lloyd Marshall. I'm I right or wrong in such assessment of these 3 Fighters, whom I rather Own as a Manager than any others.
Ok, but what did Moore who fought Burley say ? I read were he said Burley was the best fighter he ever fought and had it all .. as far as the weights I was asking to specify was the debate over light heavy or as a great fighter .. Yes Charles was a good eight or so pounds bigger than Burley but Burley was older and more experienced .. Charles would go on to give up size, weight and strength to many fighters and win ,,,, my point is overall level of opposition ... is your point that Burley wasn't a great fighter and those who say so are brainwashed ? Again, Moore had a very different opinion ..
Nah, **** that. I definitely know more about boxing than the average newspaper writer who saw and wrote about these guys live. And the idea that Charley Burley, Archie Moore and even to a lesser degree, Ezzard Charles weren't rated in their own time is ridiculous. So is the idea that they weren't ducked, or that Charles ever got mobbed up. If Charley Burley and Archie Moore don't impress you but Bermain Stiverne does, you need to follow a different sport.
And, may I add, if guys like Archie Moore, Bill Miller and Eddie Futch have are impressed by a guy like Burley or Ezzard Charles but you just can't see it....maybe you are the one that doesn't understand what he is seeing?
Again, Archie Moore’s first hand account of Burley? Own it and put you dumb , bait and switch last word freak nonsense to bed.
SRR, Moore and Futch rated Burley highly (especially the latter two) and they were very much contemproraries and weigh quite a bit heavier than sports writers, so it doesn't hold up to say that he wasn't rated in his own time. Charles was a bit heavier than Burley when they, met, though, but also a fair bit greener, so without a doubt good wins. Otherwise when it comes to Charles resume, it hinges quite a bit on how highly you rate Moore in the late 40's. He didn't have the consistency he'd have in the 50's, but was already in his 30's so it's hard to see how he could have improved that much. When you start to make a big deal out of some losses he had as a young pro to world class fighters or the losses he started to stack up in his 30's it seems a bit disengenuous. He had a long enough prime run with good enough opposition to judge from.
Undeniably a pound for pound great. A very good heavyweight and a great light-heavy. Shame he never got a shot at the 175lb title.