Archie Moore on Charley Burley

I wouldn't go so far as to say he's a whole class above Duran. They're close IMO all-time P4P, and while Charles edges it for me, certainly not a class above him.

 

great win for burley, but archie moore was clearly not in his prime yet mentally or physically. Archie Moore hit his prime around 1947 and reached his peak in around 1952 and didnt start to decline until 1956. The 1952 archie moore would have taken burley apart, he would have been to big and powerful for burley.


archie may have been age wise prime, but on film archie became a better fighter later on. like he said he used the burley fight as a learning experience.

 

Honestly archie moore had a Masters Degree in BS, so I really dont take many of his opinions seriousely. You should hear his opinion about the ref "saving" marciano from knockout, kind of hilarious. Archie was one of the best con artists.

 

Remember it could be true but Moore did not like Robinson because of all the attention and LB$LB stuff and Moore was no where near his prime as middleweight, he primed at lightheavy and heavyweight and had a 50 fight win streak moving to heavy

 

The irony is that the ref was actually favoring Moore in that moment, because he didn't make him go to the farthest neutral corner. He let him stand just a few feet away.

Moore likes to say, "The ref told us in the pre-fight instructions, that a man is a target as soon as he rises". He leaves out the part where the ref said, "a man is a target as soon as he rises and I finish wiping off his gloves", which is exactly what happened.

The ref also said in those instructions, "When a fighter is knocked down, the opponent was go to the farthest neutral corner". The only rule that was broken was that one.

Moore just couldn't stand that he lost a fight he had lobbied for and talked sh*t about for three years, and he acted like a crybaby ever since.

 

Burley was raised with some serious old-fashioned country values. He was humble to a fault. Even as an older man, he declined to train Michael Moorer because he didn't like the "attitude". He really didn't like braggarts and made it his moral obligation to humble them as you discuss. It wasn't just Moore he went after hard (Moore was in the hospital for three days afterwards) he also had a problem with Jack Chase, who hadn't been stopped in 40 fights before his rematch with Burley. Burley stopped him in 9 and then again in the third meeting. Chase was only stopped by Moore after that.

This content is protected

I think that he was well-served by the lack of access to film in those days. His style was odd and unusual to say the least. He was hell to fight, especially if you were going in blind and expecting the norm. He scared hell out of Zivic, who resorted to unorthodox measures to protect himself from defending his title agaisnt Charley, after going 1-3 against him before he beat WW king Armstrong (who incidentally absolutely avoided Charley at least as obnoxiously as Robinson). Burley hadn't yet had 20 fights when he dropped a controversial decision and then beat Zivic, who had over 80.

You had to special to deal with him at his best. Charles was special. Bivins was special. Both were bigger. Burley does have a few surprising losses, but they can almost always be laid at the feet of bad decisions or exhaustion from travelling and fighting so often.

 

I very seldom take TOTAL heed of much fighters say about one another. History is littered with much bull**** in this regard. I do enjoy however greatly enjoy the comments and what i take here is that Burley was sure one helluva fighter.

 

Yes, it would have been nice for Archie to say stuff about Charles. In an interview I have with him from 1971, he talks about all his most difficult opponents, yet fails to give Ez a mention. :huh

 

Which shows my point perfectly.

 

Now that is well put.

 

He fought better and bigger opponents than Ray though despite them being the same size pretty much

 

anyone else think burley would get overwhelmed against the early 1950s archie moore?