It's difficult to pin Booker down what with the lack of accessible resources, but you get the idea of an intellectual aggressor, likely similar to Charles in some respects. He was considered a 'clever' negro to use contemporary termination and was in many exciting battles. His performance against Moore must rank as one of boxing's huge misfortunes not for it to have (apparently) survived on film. Eddie Booker is one of the fighters Ted Spoon will more clearly decipher in the near future.
Greg Haugen. So many times I read of his being a "tough guy", "brawler" type only...and he was those things, but in addition to being a smart, tactical fighter who went 15 rounds in outthinking Jimmy Paul, and outclassing Vinnie Paz...also in frustrating and outwitting Hector Camacho in that first fight of theirs. He may notg have been the most gifted of fighters, but he had a good boxing mind and could compensate for lacking flashy gifts by being an intelligent fighter. Having said all that, I concede that it wasn't intelligent at all to **** off Chavez the way he did before he got crucified in '93 in Mexico.
Odd how much more highly touted Burley's win over Moore seems to be in comparison to Booker's, which was in actuality the more impressive of the two.
Probably because Burley is the one from the row who seems to have perhaps gained more attention than his contemporaries - maybe unfairly as it turns out. The endorsement of Moore and Futch seems to have gone a long way. Throw in that he campaigned at welter and was the smaller man against Moore whereas Booker outweighed Moore by about half a stone and it's not difficult to see why Booker gets the shorter end of the stick. Having to retire early probably didn't help his cause in retrospect.
It should've, considering Moore was one of his last fights and he beat him essentially half blind. That said, most of the Row, including Booker, seemed to believe that Burley was the best of the bunch, if not the best in the world at the time.
