Educate me: How good was Charley Burley?

If Burley was great and by all accounts he was, how good was Holman Williams who seems to have been a punch-less wonder due to bad hands? Ranked number 3 for 1942,number 2 in 43,and number 1 in both 44 & 45,yet no title shot?

 

According to Eddie Futch Burley was the best he ever saw with Williams right behind

 

Well I don't know the circumstances of those fights so cannot comment ,but his overall record is terrific!

 

The WW2 years, with titles "frozen".....and some fighters in the Military Services, and some fighters actually getting ducked by the "legends".....led to some great fighters of that era who peaked, and really never got a true deserved shot at the championship.

 

While guys like Graziano, who spent his military service in prison did.

 

Charley Burley was a very good fighter. I don't want this to sound like I'm insulting him. But I've always viewed the line that Burley was "the best fighter who never fought for a world title" as sort of a back-handed compliment.

Look at the current Fightnews top 15 at heavyweight, for example. Let's say Joseph Parker and bloated Andy Ruiz fight for the vacant WBO belt, which looks like it's about to happen, unfortunately.

Out of the top 15 guys they have listed, all but one has fought for a what is considered a world title by the sanctioning bodies. Fury. Wlad. Wilder. Povetkin. Ortiz. Joshua. Browne. Haye. We'll throw Parker and Ruiz in there due to their impending WBO fight (for this example). Jennings. Molina. Pulev. Chagaev. Duhaupas. Win or lose, they have all been in sanctioned title fights.

The only one out of the top 15 who hasn't is Jarrell Miller.

So if someone said "The best heavyweight right now to never fight for a world title is Jarrell Miller." That might sound like a compliment to Miller. But that doesn't mean Miller is better than the guys who have titles, or all the guys who fought for titles, or all the guys who won and lost titles. The person is just saying he's the best who hasn't gotten a shot.

Burley was clearly a far superior than the lumbering Miller. Like I said, I'm not trying to insult him.

My point is just when those old-timers say Burley was the "best" who "never" fought for a title ... I'm sure they mean he was a good fighter. A top guy. Very talented. And he deserved a title shot. But they don't necessarily think he would've defeated the reigning champs in a title fight or that he was better than everyone who held a title or got a title shot during his career. Just that he deserved one.

Maybe some do think he'd have been a champ if he'd been given a shot at the champs of his day. But saying he's the best guy who never fought for a title isn't the same thing.

The best who never fought for a title sounds like a compliment ... and it kind of is ... but not exactly.

 

Graziano got his shots cos he was an exciting fighter and sold tickets. I am not saying he deserved the shots just the way it was and still is.

 

Joe Rein wrote a nice article on Burley

http://www.thesweetscience.com/articles-of-2005/2602-it-wasn-t-so-much-charley-burley-s-color

 

The subject of Charley Burley has been discussed on a number of other threads on this forum. In regards to Burley not getting a shot at a world title, the main reason may have been that he never proved to be a good gate attraction, let alone a great one. It appears that the biggest gate that Burley drew while fighting in a stand-alone main event was about $14,000. or $15,000., which happened when Burley fought Oakland Billy Smith in his only known filmed bout in Oakland, California during 1946. At that time, Rocky Graziano, admittedly an inferior fighter compared to Burley, was a tremendous gate attraction. Who is going to get a title shot under those circumstances, Graziano or Burley?

- Chuck Johnston

 

Depends who you beat i guess, or it should. One shouldn't have to be a superstar gate attraction in order to get a gig.

 

Oh I agree, Zale was looking to fatten up his pension plan he was past his prime and knew it .Had he been prime there would not have been a trilogy,because there would have been no need for one.