These two had almost parralell careers. Say they met in their absoloute prime say 1941/1942 sorta time. I know a hard match to choose anyway, but with the lack of footage it will be nigh impossible, but whats your thoughts on it anyway, as to be honest in them days they might have only seen one fight of one guy (burley vs Smith) and only read reports of the other guy. Anyway discuss
Burley. He's got more variety and is faster. I think Burley can neutralise both the jab and the right uppercut with his style more naturally than the other way around.
I think Booker has the better offence though, and in a fight like this it could become crucial of who gets off first.
My impression is that Burley is faster and better at getting out of range though. I could be wrong, like you say this is basically impossible to call, but that would be my call.
Fair enough. I do think Booker had the better offence and probably more aggresive. But Burley is cleverer and quicker.
I would pick Booker because he was somewhat bigger. Knowing nothing much else about them, a good big man beats a good little man.
Well they are the same height and Burley has a slightly longer reach. Booker was probably a bit heavier, but if the fight was made at 160 he has no significant size advantage.
It was a reason. I didn't say it was necessarily a good reason. How's this. Lloyd Marshall defeated Burley, but Booker defeated Marshall.
