How is Charley Burley rated?

Rocky Graziano, as were Jake LaMotta and Henry Armstrong, was an exciting fighter. Charley Burley was not.

- Chuck Johnston

 

Yea Graziano was an exciting fighter but it would be silly not to consider race a factor as well whether they officially drew the color line or not. In 1946 when Ray Robinson faced Tommy Bell for the vacant Welterweight title the promoter called in the boxing writers to get a barometer on having two black boxers fight for the title. How would white fans recieve this.

 

Tua got a title shot and lost. When did Burley get his title shot? Not apples to apples.

 

If you can cite a specific example of a white champion drawing the color line against Burley then do so. To ignore that the guys absolutely abysmal box office numbers had nothing to do with his inability to get big fights is to deny reality. By the time Burley retired black fighters in every division were making good money, drawing crowds, and getting title shots. The champion in Burley's division when he was rated the highest and longest before the war froze the titles was black. The HW champion was black, the LHW champion was black and when he retired a black fighter fought for the vacant title, a year after the war started one of the two recognized lightweight champions was black and would remain so for a decade, the featherweight champion in 1941 was black and the bantamweight champion in 1939 was black. Quit trying, unsuccessfully, to throw the race card around when it clearly didnt apply to Burley. The guy had a boring, safety first style that didnt connect with the fans. His cards frequently lost money. He was constantly at odds with his revolving door of managers. He never really established himself as a draw anywhere and all of those things, combined with WW2 are why he didnt get a title shot. Graziano wasnt an exciting fighter because he was white, he was an exciting fighter because he went for broke. Whether the promoter for Robinson-Bell called the press to gauge their response to a Robinson-Bell bout (I would call that assertion highly suspect considering the promoter was Mike Jacobs, not exactly afraid to promote black fighters. If such a call took place I find it far more likely that Jacobs was trying to get a line on the best contender considering Robinson was universally ranked #1 followed by Tippy Larkin, Beau Jack, and either Johnny Greco or Tommy Bell) the fight took place. Race didnt prevent Robinson or Bell from getting a title shot did it? In fact bell got the title shot over two white fighters who were ranked higher than him at the time.

 

The problem with this logic is that the comments by Moore et al were rewriting the narrative. Nobody ever said Burley wasnt a good contender. He was. He was talented, he could fight, he would have been a difficult match for anyone at that time. No question. But it was only decades later that guys like Futch and Moore started trying to rewrite the narrative around Burley. There was a reason he was respected but forgotten for the most part for decades. The fact that he was boring, terrible at the box office, and always at odds with his management over his prima donna behavior became "he was the greatest fighter to never win a title and he was ducked by everyone." They turned him into this boogey man that he wasnt. The idea that NOBODY wanted to fight Burley because he was either too good or too black is bull****. And frankly Burley furthered this myth himself. People act like Burley was this quiet, reserved guy who just sort of suffered in silence. Pfff! I guess nobody has seen any interviews with him. He spouted so much bull**** about his career. He was no different than any other fighter who embellished his accomplishments and minimized his negatives to inflate his story. They all do it and Burley was no different. Burley was one of SEVERAL fighters who were extremely talented but never got to rise to the highest levels, partly because of the war, but also partly because of his style and his career decisions.

 

I never said they were liars in regards to his ability. But anyone who tries to paint his career as anything other than being subject to style, ability to draw, and the war is speaking hyperbole as dubble said above. And that has become the narrative around Burley, that he was sooooo avoided because he was sooooo good. That just doesnt jive with the facts or the context of the times. Its no coincidence that so many supposedly avoided, and supposedly "best to never win a title" fighters happened to have careers that coincided with WW2.

 

yes
but could be they said it about other boxer also?
people do sometimes do. " this is my number 1 favourite film' they say. you might hear them say it 20 times on 20 different film haha!
my favourite song 100 different song!

 

They weren't lying. They just weren't consistent. When Bowe was rolling, Futch said he was the best heavyweight he ever trained - and he'd trained, Frazier, Holmes and Norton, among others. When Futch was asked another time to name the top fighters he trained, he didn't list Bowe at all, but included Frazier and Holmes and Maurice Blocker (?) of all people, but not Bowe (or even Norton). But Maurice Blocker made the cut?

If we're talking about Langford, seems like he's the best who never won a title. If we're talking about Harry Wills, he's the best who never won a title. If we're talking about Jimmy Bivins, he's the best who never won a title. If we're talking about Burley, he's the best who never won a title.

And every time we talk about them, someone says "THIS trainer said he was the best who never won a title, so that's good enough for me."

(Didn't Arcel train Bivins when Bivins beat Burley?)

The point is, Burley was just considered another viable contender in his era when he was fighting. He was respected.

People have just seemed to HOP on this Burley bandwagon because they hear others have touted Burley as such (whether they actually did or not). And they pretend they see stuff in his fight clips that isn't anything we don't see other fighters do all the time.

Truth is, if that Burley-Oakland Billy Smith fight had been on the undercard last weekend of the Ryan Garcia fight, nobody would've been watching that undercard fight going ...

"I think that one boxer is the greatest fighter I've ever seen who never won a title."

Instead, they'd have been going "How long until the Garcia fight starts. This card is taking forever."

But every time someone posts that clip or a variation of it we're all supposed to collectively go "WOW. He's AMAZING. Clearly the best who never won a title. I totally see it now."


Whatever man.

Every era, every division, has fighters (Quarry, Cooney, Ibeabuchi, Laszlo Papp) who were the "best" who never won a professional title (for whatever reason).

Throw him in with those in "the best who never won anything" pile.

It's not a pile anyone wants to be in anyway, no matter where you are seeded.

 

A lot of fans of Italian heritage in that era were big fans of Italian fights — probably still true. Just like Irish fans like Irish fighters, Mexican fans like Mexicans, etc. To pretend that played no factor in Graziano’s marquee appeal seems a bit blind to me.