Hopkins for me. Not quite a fair one, like Tiger versus Basilio (one fighter a bit bigger than the other).
I think Burley's overrated anyway. Yes! A great fighter. But I see people rate him in above Joe Gans and Packey McFarland. Clearly not reasonable. A little lower please #40 or so.
Burley for me by decision . Hopkins size should not really come into it as burley fought ligh-heavyweights and heavyweights
Agree 100% (see him in way too many top 20s) but as Burley proved he could hang with bigger guys he's a live dog here.
Flea thing that makes me laugh is people like arcel and Futch rank burley extremely highly and remember they saw him . But it seems their opinions are not valid as there is no real film of him:shock: . But other fighters that their is no real film of are total monsters sorry but I will take what is said by arcel and futch as pretty good advice when rating a fighter he was not greb but he was an amazing fighter and would beat Hopkins
Funny, but the only advantage people seem to be able to come up with for Hopkins here is size. How much bigger do you feel that a prime BHop was? And why do you think it would matter to Burley considering he beat a 5 lbs heavier Aaron "Tiger" Wade, thrashed a 6 lbs heavier Archie Moore, beat a 7 lbs heavier Jack Chase and an 8 and a half lbs heavier Shorty Hogue? That's three Murderer's Row members and one rugged white fighter. Hopkins has no advantages here. Or perhaps you feel he has something on Archie Moore?
So true S. i don't understand why Hopkins who would be under 160 pounds against Burley in their MW, match would be "much bigger' than Burley if they both weighed in the day of the fight...? Burley,as you described fought often bigger men with great results...