Currently reading book on Middleweight Fighters called Men Of Steel and in the book they say Burley rejected to take a dive thus was not given a chance at the title. If he would of took the dive, he would of been given a shot, but rejected due to being a proud man. Anyone else heard this, and any more info?
Versus Robinson. Charley tells a story where he was offered a trilogy with Sugar if he agreed to chuck the first one. I don't know if it's true or not, I do know that Burley told it apparently without biterness and that he wasn't given to wild stories generally, or even being loud about the things he did generally. Probably there is a kernel of truth to it. Burley also opined that Robinson knew nothing about the proposed deal. Burley probably should have played ball. He could have ended up being another Cocoa Kid, repeatedly wearing the cuffs for possibly very little reward but there's also a chance he could have been given a chance and taken it. But I suppose his flat out refusall to tank, at least (and it seems he did carry fighters...should have carrie McQuillan) is a part of what makes him special.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=egcOAAAAIBAJ&sjid=020DAAAAIBAJ&pg=1632,3292642 http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=egcOAAAAIBAJ&sjid=020DAAAAIBAJ&pg=6962,3302208 We know all about the boxing of the 1940's and 1950's but still, you do have to wonder which fighters were offered the same deal against Robinson except they took it.
Burley was just a monster. It's amazing how often people who saw him described him as amongst the best there were. He spooked people with his ability. Absolultely spooked them.
Well he didn't have the protection or the value. Robinson accidently KO'd an opponent he had agreed to carry (i forget who) and Blinky let it slide. But then Robinson was a cash cow. My best guess is that Burley would have been offered the chance to ditch the title to a longshot to make it up to the powers that be. Drowning a world champion isn't the kind of exposure these guys were after. The direct threats would likely have been to those associated with Burley.
McGrain your big on Burley, i always find it hard to pin him down to a set style do you think that was part of his talent?
just reading that article TGA put up what a great guy Burley was. A man who stood by his prinsapals, not many men are as commendable as that.
No i mean i just cant comprehend what type of fighter he was he was a counter puncher but he used so many different ways to counter and seemed in hsi early career to be a boxer-puncher.
I think Burley adapted for his opponents. He seemed to fight differently against the bigger men he was in the ring with and that's the only footage we have of him - versus the bigger Smith. He certainly hadn't a hefty bag of tricks he could go to if he needed to. I think he should have been more aggressive at times, things may have been different for him then.
yeh from them quotes he seemed annoyed but not annoyed with anyone in particular. Makes sense as you wouldnt be as happy to get a bit reckless if you had a big guy hurt compared to a smaller guy, also you lack that physicality. I always got the feeling he was fairly aggresive as a Welterweight but it was educated pressure and he used lots of feints and movement to draw oponents onto his oncoming attacks. yes no doubt about it
To hear them tell it, Burley was the best feinter that ever did it. He certainly finished Archie Moore's education.