Tommy Hearns not many can beat him at 147

Win, lose or draw i highly doubt this.

 

How so?

Burley was the complete package. He could box, he could punch, he had excellent defensive skills, and he was quick. He also possessed an iron chin, as he was never knocked out in his career. The late great Eddie Futch compared him to Roy Jones, Jr. style-wise.

He knocked down the great Archie Moore 4 times when they met, I am sure he'd to that to Hearns, who's chin was shaky.

 

Burley is one of few with a chance of pulling off the victory over Hearns, but at the end of the day Hearns still holds most of the advantages.

 

Hearns was an absolute monster at 147. That's where he showed his best form and consistently gave his best performances. At 154 he didn't show quite the same fire and intensity, and at 160 and upwards his legs and reflexes were slowed by the added weight and he was much too hittable. Robinson and Leonard are the only two welters I think I would back with certainty to beat him. Most others would have some terrible size and/or stylistic disadvantages to overcome.

 

Burley in real life has lost to guys who had little or no experience at the highest level - ie: Jimmy Bivins, Ezzard Charles(twice). Bivins in fact only had about 10 or so fights when he whupped Burley.

 

Which of their losses do you think were "off nights," and how do you come by determining that?

Could Hearns' losses to Leonard or Hagler be put down to "off nights" as well?

 

Burley may or may not stop Hearns, but i can't see ANYONE outboxing him onesidedly.

 

What exactly exists of Burley on film? I've seen one bout i think.

 

Redrooster sure says he did

 

I think he posted very recently in the 5 titles thread, yeah the SRL one