Charley Burley v Roy Jones jr at middle weight

That would be interesting. I think this match-up is quite intriguing, based on them being so similar. Jones got the physical advantages, so Burley have to outsmart him. Very hard to say if he could. People like to say "Jones only had x fights at this stage", but he had been boxing since almost a toddler and had excellent amateur pedigree. I mean if he was green at MW just because of the number of fights he had, then Leonard was green in Montreal and even against Hearns. But, of course, it's not that simple.

 

Leonard is different because he competed on a higher level than Jones in those time frames we´re talking about and thus had more experience at that level. Jones was a natural though. He was never outsmarted in his prime but that had to do with not facing really good ring generals - don´t bring up Hopkins, he wasn´t when they met - and his athleticism letting him getting away when he would fall for a trap now and then. We saw he could be troubled by a good plan though - Grfifin I. I don´t think it´s so easy that you can say he was fast, had power and was bigger thus he wins.

 

Leonard had not faced fantastic opposition (Mayweather being perhaps the wiliest) before Benitez, either, but he looks aces in that one. Just like McCallum did against Kalule with not much pro experience. And what did those three have in common? Yes, a very thorough boxing education and a great amateur career.

Hell, Jones held his own in sparring against a welter champ when a teenager and amateur.

It's the best we have to go on. Buy let's not kid ourselves, we have very little footage from that time not only of Burley but also of his best opponents (what we have of Charles and Moore is mostly of a later date), so we're all fumbling in the dark here.

 

Well Mayweather surely was more experienced than Hopkins and a better learning experience - noting NOT a better opponent but I think Leonard learned more from the Mayweather fight than Jones from the Hopkins fight. Kalule is one of the most overrated guys on here anyway. I´m not playing down anything here. Jones would get away with plenty of stuff due to his athleticism but against the very best I think he needs more than that.

True. I´m not satisfied with it yet. And while I´d pick Jones due to that I haven´t voted yet. Stonehands made some very good points that still need to be taken care of.

 

Perhaps. But it's kind of nitpicking. Neither had much pro experience at that point, but they both had a very solid foundation in schooling and amateur experience. The similarities are far greater than the differences.

But he was skilled and experienced (if on the way down) anyway you slice it.

Hard to tell. Too bad he just missed McCallum at 160. If he had met the McCallum that fought Toney a lot of questions about Jones' MW pedigree would have been answered.

I probably shouldn't have voted myself considering how little footage we have of Burley and how relatively untested Jones was at 160, but, hey, sometimes you have to do things just for the hell of it.

 

Lord help any of you who are trying to make an accurate account of a bout like this. When breaking down a unique match-up you have dig deep into every single intagible. I say this though one of the deciding factors in this bout would definitely be Jones blinding speed, he had the ability to leap in with straight shots and left hooks in less than a hearbeat. Anyone in history would be susceptible to his speed. But, Burley had extroadinary defense. Even from the limited film you can see his ability to slip and roll with punches was extroadinary and his ability to transition from defense to offense was on par with any. One thing for sure though, Burley would have to be the one coming forward....no question.

 

Yeah, all true. :thumbsup

Would be boring if people would never risk beeing wrong. :thumbsup

 

Yeah, this is all for good fun. Should never get too serious about it really. Someone probably should tell Mendoza and McVey that.

 

Mayweather Sr was not very experienced, didn't he have only 14 fights and had never been in with any kind of reputable contender himself? I mean he was actually pretty good though if you watch Leonard-Mayweather, just out gunned

 

Are the rose tints up to full glorious pink? Pretending Jones is a novice and therefore incapable at 160 when he beat Hopkins there and would shut out Toney 1 fight after leaving the division is nonsense. To pretend his talent was purely athleticism, just because he isn't textbook, doesn't mean he doesn't have A+ skill level, is short sighted and bordering ignorance. Burley wasn't textbook himself and in all fairness you haven't seen the skill level of Burley or Williams or most of. Bivins was not a particularly skillful fighter, a novice Charles who was younger and less experienced than Jones (bare in mind the amateurs) dominated Burley. To pretend all these men have better technique than Jones without even seeing them, now there is some nonsense my friend

 

Timing, balance, reflexes, leverage, distance judging and hand-eye coordination are to be expected among great athletes in any number of sports.

Any argument that posits that he was a supremely skilled technician is wrong. Worse yet, they reveal a basic misunderstanding of what Jones brought. I'm not going to nitpick about degrees, but Jones is not a skilled technician and he didn't try to be. If he did, he would be doing what Duran did or Toney did or Hopkins is doing, now wouldn't he. But he isn't. His mastery and domination declined directly with his reflexes. And that only reveals him for what he was -a superb athlete.

 

Tough fight for both men. Burley was a talented tough man with special skills but Roy has had some extremely exceptional skills and athleticism. With the knowledge that Charley was a tough challenge Roy would fight a very correct fight and may finish a close battle on top....But Roy would have to fight a perfect fight and use all his gifts. Roy by DEC

 

But it's applied to boxing and therefore boxing skill. If it wasn't you could just put any supreme athlete from any sport in the ring and expect him to look like Jones. He wouldn't.

Let's be clear, Jones was not a skilled technician (and neither was Burley judging by that film) since he was too flawed, but he was skilled. And some of the things he did was also of high technical quality. Most of his punching (with the jab as the big exception), his combinations and his head movement were very good.

It's his flawed guard and, especially, footwork that lacked the most from a technical perspective. But his footwork, flawed as it was, still required skill in it's own way. It was even more reliant on raw athleticism, though.

And then we also have other things as feints, awareness ("radar"), reading the opponent, setting traps etc. and Jones was very good in these aspects as well.

What he was lacking was a tight guard, economic footwork and a good, varied jab. These flaws prevented him from lasting longer than his legs and reflexes.

 

Jermaine Taylor was a supreme athlete, excellent 400m runner, I think he clocked 47-48secs, it didn't quite translate the same way as Jones for some reason :roll:

 

Another way to look at it. Archie Moore, Fritzie Zivic, Holman Williams v Bernard Hopkins, James Toney, Jorge Castro?