I was split between two possible outcomes of this fight. I am aware that it is the sole film of the great Charley Burley. Part of me was expecting what happens so often in boxing. We have the only film of Burley, and it is a mediocre, poorly filmed fight. Or, it's a good performance, maybe even a good fight. Obviously, we would all hope for the latter. This content is protected This content is protected 1. Smith kicked things off fast, launching a telegraphed right hand as the first punch of the fight. Of course, it didn't score. I think I was able to accurately determine their styles in the 1st round. Burley was naturally more defensive and economical and Smith was the primary aggressor. Burley was a good boxer, a defensive fighter, a counterpuncher. Smith was a little tougher to figure out. He wasn't a pressure fighter, although he was aggressive. He wasn't a big puncher from what I could tell. He was a decent boxer, but nothing like Burley. He did seem to like being inside mauling. He looked like a brawler turned spoiler to me ig. Smith was more aggressive. Smith. 2-6. Round 2 saw an increase in Burley's offensive maneuvers. He showed a good jab and good rolling and footwork throughout rounds 2 through 6. Burley won every round, though 4 was close. 7. Here Burley's speed and dominance became very prominent to me. He struck Smith repeatedly with lightning-fast punches, particularly a left-right which Smith had no answer for. Burley. 8. Smith went all out, but never hit Burley. Smith tired more and more, in part due to his futile attempt at the beginning of the round. Near the end of the round, Smith desperately swung at Burley with a wild left hook, and Burley cleverly ducked, squatting on the floor, escaping the punch. Burley. 9. Burley was pretty passive. Burley. 10. Smith was barreling in quite exhausted, mauling ineffectively. Burley was a polar opposite to Smith. Burley was still quite bouncy and was hitting with superb combinations. Burley. Verdict: Not a great fight or anything, but it is all we have of Burley, and I thought it was a very good performance. I was satisfied with it. I found the fight "amusing". Watch it.
Smith was a good fighter with some very good wins, and with a big weight advantage too. I do wish we had footage of Burley against an opponent closer in size to him as I think that'd give a better overall view of his style, but beggers can't be choosers.
Thanks for posting. Interesting to see Burley. What this film shows is that Burley was a top of the line defensive fighter. He moved well and had a lot of torso and head movement. I didn't think his offensive skills were at the same level. Combinations were pretty basic. It is very difficult to evaluate the Murderer's Row fighters. They peaked during WW2 when huge numbers of young men were in the service. Burley was not able to separate himself from Holman Williams, and lost to Charles and Marshall. He regressed quickly against post war competition. Overall, he was obviously a good fighter and probably could have been champion with the right breaks. But was he a fighter for the ages? I have my doubts. He just looks like a very good, but not necessarily a great, fighter. This was a tactically interesting, but not exciting fight. Only of value to see Burley.
I agree. I read all about Charley Burley before I ever saw him. Boxing mags in the late 70s and early 80s would occasionally do profiles on the best fighter you never heard about and all that stuff. Some guys develop reputations among people (or in this case boxers) you respect. So you respect them, too, sight unseen. But then you see them and you're like "well, okay." (LOL) It happens in every era all the time. I AM NOT putting them in the same category, so don't slam me on this, but like 15 or 20 years ago or whenever all you heard about were sparring stories about Ishe Smith. Guys like Oscar and Shane and Vargas and Trinidad who were getting ready for big fights back then were like "I sparred with this young kid Ishe Smith. He's so great. Oh man. This guy, man. When you see this guy. The work we're doing in the gym." And on and on. Before every big fight, there was a story someone was sparring with Ishe Smith and what great sparring it was. And most hadn't seen him. And Youtube wasn't around. And people were like "Who is this Ishe Smith guy who all the top boxers are raving about?" Then Ishe Smith starts to get TV fights nationally, and I was like "um, okay." (LOL) So, I get that Charley Burley was respected by all the top guys in his era. And they all raved about him. And all the things he could do. And maybe he could. And it's too bad this is all we have. If there were WBO belts and things like that back then, I'm sure he'd have picked one up. But, like I said, "um, okay." (LOL) I'm sure he was a fine fighter. Like you said, he never really separated himself from some others who were pretty good, too. I'm happy he's respected and all that. If he picked up a paper belt today, held it for one defense, and lost it to another paper champ, I doubt he'd be as fondly remembered as he is now as this highly respected guy from decades ago who never got a shot. Sometimes I wonder how many "Charley Burleys" there would be today if there was one champ per division? But, with so many belts around, now we just consider those guys to be paper champs and kind of dismiss them when they don't turn out to be all-time greats. Like, if there was one champ per division, and Tim Bradley never fought the "one" champ, but Tim Bradley had outpointed Pacquiao and Marquez and Casamayor when no belt was on the line, would Tim Bradley be one of those Charley Burleys? Would he be a guy people said, "You had to see this guy who never got a title shot. Tim Bradley, man." But he did manage to win multiple alphabet belts in multiple divisions, and people just kind of dismiss him these days because he wasn't "Great."
