Charley Burley and Bernard Hopkins

His economical , gliding footwork enabled him to slide into reach where he feinted for opening with shoulders, head, eyes and feet...even at a young age his ability to defend from a punch while remaining in range to counter was baffling to many of his opponents.


​

This could be a description of either one of these men.

Hopkins is maybe my favourite fighter of right now, I admire his natural fitness and his style, I find his history interesting, he's old fashioned and a tough man.

Burley is probably my favourite fighter, although we only have those few precious rounds of him on film. His story fascinates me, I can't really leave it alone. From the beginnings, refusing to have anything to do with the boxing at the Berlin Olympics because of his concerns about the Nazi Government, to his early retirement - literally unable to find people willing to fight him.

But Burley has often been accused - sometmes on this site - of being a "boring" fighter (an accusation levelled at Hopkins too). This probably isn't fair.

Here's Archie Moore's account of his losing effort v Charley Burley:

Fighting Charley Burley was almost inhuman, because he kept his punches coming at you like a riveting gun beats a tattoo on a rivet. He was a human machinegun the way he kept those punches spouting out, and nearly as dangerous...he was the best fighter I ever fought and the best fighter I ever saw.





​

And an account from the Minneapolis Morning Tribune reporting on Burley's fight with the great Holman Williams:

Burley boxed beautifully and lasing out with rapier-like fists incessantly for the full 10 rounds dominated the fight so clearly against the cunning and fast moving Williams, that Charley won the unamimous decision





​

Perhas starting to sound a little less like Hopkins now - although, of couse, the executioner was far more aggressive and active when he was a bit younger.

Burley did turn in dull performances of course - he was capable of winning a fight without getting hit and sometimes he did this. If he felt he was fighting beneath himself he would do this and the crowd and the press never liked it. But there are reasons to expain this. Burley never earned more than $3,000 in a fight - a pitiful sum. He also never took dirty money to dive, though there is evidence he may have carried a couple of fighters. He had mouths to feed and often had to fight many times a year to achieve it - if he could win a fight without gettin hit, that was what he would do.

This combination of Hopkins like smarts and deep aggression would have made him a multi, multi-millionare and a multi-weight world champion were he fighting today - I would argue that he would have held belts at light-welter, dominated from welter to middle, held belts at super-middle and possibly light-heavy. I think it's possible that Charley could have beaten top guys like Tarver at lighy-heavy, though that was the kind of fight Burley might lose - against much bigger men of quality.

Burley KO'd more than half his opponents, including heavyweights. He was never stopped, a natural welter outside of his comfort zone. He had Hopkins defense and chin but far outstripped him in power, workrate and punching. That's my reasoning for placing him above the great Hopkins on my list of ATG middleweights:

1) Sugar Ray Robinson
2) Harry Greb
3) Carlos Monzon
4) Charley Burley
5) Bob Fitzimmons
6) Bernard Hopkins
7) Marvin Hagler
8) Stanley Ketchel
9) Roy Jones Junior
10) Dick Tiger

 

I'm very interested in head to head - though I know it's by far the least scientific way of deciding things. Jones gets in to the top ten for this reason. He looks absolutelty electric at that weight - he gives anyone a fight.

Fitz held the middlewieght title, of course, which qualifies him. His power at heavy makes what he could do at middle almost unimaginable. If anything, an argument could be made for placing him higher on the list.

He and Burley are pretty much inerchangeable to me, in fact I swapped them while I was writing.

 

Do you really think so?

It's possible - Hopkins is a very good man who is bigger. But i'd suggest to you that any advantage ins strength and size would be negated - the type of fighter Burley is forces Hopkins into potshoting against a fighter that may be cagier, and probably has an edge in power.

If they fought I'd go for Burley UD.

 

Interesting stuff - I think Burley was pretty chameloleon-like depending on opponent and circumstance (especially schedule and money) - and as you say he was in with a much larger opponent.

I hadn't hear that A.J Nelson quote - thank you.

I have Hopkins above Hagler because I pick him to beat Marvin - but I have no problem with anyone wanting to switch them.

 

I'm bumping this.

Weird that the Azim/Homicidal Hank (where is he?) posts have been deleted.

 

Really? Just for being wrong all the time?

 

This is a decent list, especially allowing for the changes you are planning. I'm planning some changes myself, I think I'll do MW next (though i'm tempted to do HW) - bascially i'm having a stab at all my lists again, because my p4p is so wrecked, and I like that kind of thing.