Burley made no secret that he wanted a piece of Conn, especially after shaming Pittsburgh's other Golden Boy, Zivic, twice. Conn was always more seasoned and a little bigger (tho neither seemed to intimidate Burley). Was there ever a year, or some point in time, in which you would choose Burley over Conn? Let's stick to pre-1943 for Conn's sake.
Wow great matchup. Two genuinely great fighters with great resumes. Both men avoided no one. Wow...ummmm. I think conns very fast combination and flurries would have outworked the very slick counterpuncher in burley. Burley may have landed the more quality punches, but conn would have outworked and outlander him giving him the slight edge. Fantastic footwork would have been on display here.
I want to say Conn, as it seems for Burley's losses was against heavier or taller fighters. Conn was over 6'0 however Burley's reach was longer. that moved a UD to a SD for Conn. From what I've read Burley was a precision puncher not a volume puncher, so Conn would have been busier. Conn 23% connect rate to Burley 42% connect rate, but isn't busy enough.
Mind you that both Archie Moore and Eddie Futch said that Burley was the greatest fighter they had ever seen. Mind you that Burley floored no less than Archie Moore 4 times in their fight.
Billy Conn was too big for Charley Burley, the latter being a welterweight or a small middleweight for most of his career. - Chuck Johnston
