Charles won handily as I understand it, but then again a competitive loss to Top Bigger foes only enhances ones reputation as far as I'm concerned. people shout about LaMotta victories & Hopkin victories against big Names -Smaller men, like they were spectacular wins, rather than forgone conclusions like they should have been. And then question fighters like Burley in a loss to BIGGER Opponents. Burley should have lost, and he did, but by remaing competitive fighters like him only enhance their greatness!!!
Yes Rocky ,Arcel who trained Ezzard Charles for awhile, thought the world of his charge "Snooks",as Ezzard was called. I agree with the notion that Ezzard Charles who was never beaten as an amateur, and won his first 20 pro fights as a middleweight,most likely would have beaten Ray Robinson at MW...Ezzard to me at his prime as LH, was a better P4P fighter than Clay/ Ali,hands down...And a gentleman to boot. One of my favorite good guys in boxing...
I 2 think that Charles would have beaten Smith , because he was no MW . Prime Charles was a supermiddleweight and prime Smith was a welterweight . And this is how his win over Burley should b taken .
I heard Charles won convincingly but no shame losing to one of the greatest fighters to put on the gloves....Charles was great at every weight he fought and had some amazing wins....to beat Burley before Charles primed speaks volumes
Fight #1 from boxrec 1942-05-25 : Charley Burley 155 lbs lost to Ezzard Charles 161½ lbs by UD in round 10 of 10 Location: Forbes Field, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA "Ezzard Charles moved into the first rank of the nation's middleweights today through an upset conquest of Charley Burley. Charles snapped Burley's string of victories at 26 straight and he did it so convincingly that even Burley's best friends admitted he was licked. Charles won the first two rounds but when Burley came back to win the 3rd, everyone thought Charley was just cold and now warming up. In the 4th, however, Charles had Burley as close to being KO'd as any fighter can be. Burley then had his best round in the 5th when he not only took the play away from Charles but battered him from pillar to post. Burley also won the 6th using a long looping left to his advantage. Charles then stepped into the classy Burley to take the play away from him in a great fight." -Associated Press Attendance - 12,134 Gate - $31,686.50 Fight #2 1942-06-29 : Charley Burley 151 lbs lost to Ezzard Charles 160 lbs by UD in round 10 of 10 Location: Hickey Park, Millvale, Pennsylvania, USA "For the second time in less than two months, Ezzard Charles carried home to Cincinnati today the figurative scalp of Charley Burley. Burley lost by unanimous decision to the 20 year old Charles in the 10 round feature which broke all Hickey Park attendance records. A crowd of app. 4,200 turned out. With a nine pound advantage at 161, Charles proved his punching power on inside fighting and kept Burley mostly on the defensive and unable to strike a telling blow. Charles took 7 rounds, splitting 1 and giving up 2 to Burley." -United Press
..Cincy Schoolboy Gets Unanimous Nod Over Burley .Jenkins...‎ Pittsburgh Post-Gazette - May 26, 1942 In the fourth, however, gave the crowd a thrill when he had Burley as close to being kayoed as any fighter can be. Charley managed to hold on -and come out ... http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&....,cf.osb&fp=a68fdcf78cfb8664&biw=1280&bih=509 Here, you can read up yourself from ringside.
Isn't it ironic how Charles dominated Burley where as Burley dominated Moore, then Charles picked up the 3 wins over Moore. Then Moore would age gracefully while Charles would fall from grace
Ironic? That Burley and Charles were Moore's superior but 'The Ol' Mongoose' had more longevity? Not sure that's ironic but impressive stats nonetheless.
Maybe the wrong word but I'm not sure, Moore was a bit of whipping boy for the Murderer's Row and Burley and Charles, yet became a World Champion when Burley never did and reigned long after Charles faded from grace. Yes I'll stick with my 'ironic' It also makes you wonder how good the win over Moore actually was for Burley given he didn't really flourish until much later. Was Moore a green boxer learning his trade or was the Murderer's Row opposition just that tough? Hard to say, maybe somewhere in the middle
Reminds little bit of Jones-Toney-Hopkins situation. Where one fighter beats convincingly 2 other ATG and declines before them. Only Hop-Toney didn't fight.
Wright was on d level of d rest of d row , not any better , what separates him from them is his so called "longevity" but then he lost 2 almost every man who became d HW champion : Charles , Markegiano , Patterson , Ali . Wright was also stoppable @ any weight he fought @ and rarely had any wins that mattered during his extra time over d rest of his contemporaries . It should also be mentioned that he was bigger from most of d "Murderers Row"
Yea Jones does mirror Charles while Hopkins and Toney mirror Moore. Jones actually has pretty good longevity going unbeaten (unless you count Griffin) until the age of 35. If he retired after Tarver 1 he'd largely be considered unbeatable
Archie moore was no "green' boxer when Moore lost to Burley in 1944. Old Archie was 31 years old and had fought 71 bouts before he lost to Burley, so I deduce Burley was a better P4P fighter, and Moore had more success against the bigger and slower LHs...
