10 January -69 years ago. The Fight That Should Have Been

"Defending WW Champion Henry Armstrong vs. Charlie Burley"

In 1938 after Armstrong defended his WW title against Ceferino Garcia, Burley's manager (Chappy Goldstein) tried to get his man a shot by talking to Meade, who was Armstrong's manager.

Meade told Goldstein that Armstrong would be "moving back down to lightweight and would relinquish the title." This, of course, turned out to be a fib because Hank defended that title another 18 times until Fritzie Zivic took it (and then KOd him in the rematch, only to lose the rubber a couple of years later).

Burley, by the time Zivic took the title, had beaten Zivic 2 out of 3 times. Zivic bought Burley's contract to make damn sure he didn't have to defend and inevitably lose the title against him.

On January 10, 1939, Armsrong defended the WW title against Arizmendi in CA while over in Pittsburgh, Burley was in a barnburner against Sonny Jones. Burley needed a bonecraft after that fight on his left hand. At this time, Burley was hitting hard with every shot. [Those of you who over glorify modern fighters should pay attention to this:] After the Jones fight Charley dropped out of contention because he was inactive for 5 months (5 months!!!) while Zanelli, Armstrong, and Zivic tore it up -fighting practically every month.

Anyway, Burley never got the title shot in his natural division, which is a crying shame. Discuss how you see Armstrong-Burley going had they met each other instead of Arizmendi and Jones on that January night 60 years ago.

 

Nice job dpw.

This is a difficult one to call. Armstrong had already hit a great stride in '39 with a 41 fight win streak -and was a dominant fighter. Small for a WW yes, but he made up for it in surprising ways. He was surprisingly strong but the way he would maneuver larger guys on the inside was efficient enough to conserve strength. He actively used his elbows and did not lean on guys or get leaned on -what he did was use leverage and an agility that was elastic -and land vicious shots up close, both under and over the top. And he just did not stop.

Burley style is among the most complex that I have ever seen. Moore described him as "serpentine". And he was. He would slide while punching in an exaggerated manner to his left usually, while throwing a left jab. Actually, the jab was shot out hard enough to be similar to Moore's "left-cross" -he knocked Moore down with one of those. Moore also said that he would seem to be off balance often... but rarely was. I see alot of bait and switch in the Smith film. He would jump in and jump out like Roy Jones. He would jump in and throw the kind of left hook to the body that jerked his own head up. ALL of his shots were designed to hurt. Which is why his hands gave out. His overhand right was done with an exaggerated lean to his left -this reminds me of Dempsey. In fact, he throws shots with Dempsey-like leverage. His stance was wide than the technician's and he held his hands low and would often lean back and out. If you watch his style, it is reminiscent at times of Benny Leonard -or other fighters from the 20s. He would angle sharply and show you his left shoulder and then jump back when you took the bait -then he'd try to nail you with a hook as you came in. Most of his peers were getting more efficient and tight. Not Burley, he was hearkening back a decade or two! And it worked.

Tough call this one. Armstrong -one dimensional but supreme in that dimension, he could conceivably out work him if he managed to get close enough to land shots. Burley struck me as less comfortable inside. He could read the shots easily, and then would spin off an elbow as soon as he wanted. Armstrong could counter that move though. Burley was murder outside though and if he catches Armstrong coming in it's trouble. His serpentine style would help here because Armstrong would find himself chasing the wind while Burley was jumping back and over. Burley would actually be adjusting the distance during these rushes to set up the big shots.

A four inch heigh advantage and serious mitts combined with a flexible style may be too much for Armstrong. Burley was awfully tough to pin down and at the same time he had guns.

Burley gets the slight advantage here. I'm more comfortable with that considering that Armstrong's people avoided Burley. Perhaps they agreed with us.

[yt]e4IsZxqeJos[/yt] [yt]_RSxuglJYi4[/yt]

 

I share your uncertainty.

I like the great swarmers. That style can overwhelm technicians and neutralize superior athleticism. Hell, I was looking for reasons to favor Armstrong.... Had Burley been shorter, had he not been such a serious counter puncher with the kind of power that could KO 200+ Elmer Ray with one shot, I'd favor Henry.

Burley had real trouble with Charles and Bivins. They were bigger than he and had evidently solved his confusing style. Armstrong was a smaller man coming up from the feathers and didn't try to "solve" a damn thing. He wasn't exactly an intellectual in there. I think it likely that Burley would catch him and avoid him enough to take a decision.

 

I don't see Armstrong, or many other WWs dealing with the Duran of June, 1980. Robinson should be favored. Hearns, for me, is 50/50. I would favor Burley -perhaps even more than Robinson.

PS/There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Robinson, as great as he undeniably was, avoided Burley.

 

Burley was using caution against a larger man... but he wasn't predictable -he was feinting and slipping and sliding all over the place. He also, if you noticed, 'boxed on springs'. Jones did this as well. Moore said that Burley's head "was flying like a threshing machine" and that he could punch from any angle." I think that this style is complimentary because it enable a fighter to land more shots from a wider variety of angles and also provided added leverage if you had that kind of physical agility.

 

Burley was physically stronger than both SRR and Hearns. I'd say very much so. Duran would not be the stronger man in there, first of all. Second of all, Burley had a 75 inch reach. That's only 3 inches shorter than Hearns'.

As for power, Burley has been described as a heavy puncher. Robinson and Hearns had faster, more shocking KO power, but Burley was a demon with those overhands and although his shots were a step slower, they came from odd angles and at unexpected times. Even Duran's great skill would not mitigate the tough time he would inevitably have with the unorthodoxy of a bigger, highly skilled, and hungry great.

J.D. Turner outweighed Charley Burley by 70 pounds and told Futch that he actually woke up in the dressing room after the Burley fight. Elmer Ray said that Burley hit harder than any HW he had ever fought and probably harder than any current ranked contender. I doubt that anyone would have said the same about SRR or the Hitman himself.

Now, Duran respected power. He was more wary of it when he left the LWs behind him because bigger men hit harder. This is a big part of the reason why he countered more and rushed less -he became more ...careful. A careful Duran is not the real Duran; a careful Duran is more beatable. This really explains why I just cannot agree that a LW like Whitaker would stand much of a chance over a prime, primal 1978 Duran. Duran would simply not respect him and all the finesse in the world is not going to keep him at bay. Burley, however, would keep him at bay -and could absolutely hurt him.

First of all, Robinson was greater. No question. Burley cannot be called greater simply becuase of what "might have been." That's just tough luck. We have to look at 'what is'.

Robinson saw the Sonny Wilson fight from ringside and commented to his manager that he was "too pretty to fight Burley." That accounts for nothing --but this does:

Robinson was offered $17,000 to fight Burley. Gainford (SRR's manager) accepted. Robinson turned it down saying that Gainford was not authorized to do so. And yet, when responding to fight fans in an open letter about accusations that he was ducking Tommy Bell and Joe Curcio, he said that they need to "meet the demands of his manager, George Gainford." Huh?!

Burley himself claimed that he was approached about getting a 3 fight deal with the Sugar Man, but that would require he take a dive in the first. Burley made no deals like that, so he turned them down. He figured that once the first fight was over and done, there would be no return. Robinson was cunning. Whether or not Robinson acceded to this is unknown. It is loose history and more like rumor.

Right after the Smith fight I posted above was fought ('46), Burley was under the assumption that he had a gentleman's agreement to fight Sugar Ray... but Ray doubled his price from $25k to $50k and added in a % of the gate for himself. It's clear that he was freezing Burley out.

Robinson would do this at times against dangerous guys. But it was really obnoxious with Burley. Meanwhile he'd fight set-ups (not fixes per se, but non-threats) for $7 grand. Burley was asked about it in 1989 and said that "Robinson ducked me." Gainford, he claimed, admitted as much. Burley has credibility as an honest man.

Do I fault Robinson? Yes. It hurts his legacy and it robbed Burley of his chance to become a name -he literally robbed him of a decent payday.