Middleweight Tournament: Quarter Final - Charley Burley vs Robert Fitzsimmons

Strong observations. Off the film of the Boardwalk Billy Smith fight, Burley carried his hands low, rarely threw combos, and relied on torso and head movement to avoid punches. His technique seems closer to the 1890's than to the "modern" world, and why not? He was in fact closer in time to Fitz than to a modern fighter.

 

I think Fitzsimmons wins this one.

I picked Fitz to beat Robinson because he was the bigger man with the bigger punch. He is also bigger than Burley and frankly, I don't see Burley as being as good as Robinson. Robinson never lost at welterweight. Burley lost not only to Zivic, but to Eddie Dolan and Jimmy Leto. Robinson near the beginning of his career was already rated ahead of Burley at welter.

And at middle? What do Ezzard Charles, Jimmy Bivins, Lloyd Marshall, and George Abrams have in common? They all fought Burley at middleweight and he didn't defeat any of them. All weighed 161 pounds or less when they fought Burley. Nor will an argument that they were simply invincibly great fighters wash. Charles defeated Burley twice but could only manage a loss and draw with Ken Overlin in two tries. Bivins defeated Burley in his 15th pro fight, but lost to the 163 lb Anton Christoforidis. Lloyd Marshall lost to Teddy Yarosz. Abrams drew with Burley but lost to Tony Zale. The bottom line here is that Burley did not defeat men others were defeating.

As for his positives, he had the strong win over Moore, but Moore came in having lost 3 of his previous 7, and two fights earlier had been knocked out in 8 by Eddie Booker. Burley defeated Holman Williams three times, but also lost to him three times. The bottom line, there were obviously others, Eddie Booker, Lloyd Marshall, and Holman Williams, who have a strong claim of having been as good or better than Burley at middle even during his peak years.

Now I think boxing improved for many reasons from the 1890's to the 1940's, but I don't think that improvement is so great that it justifies rating the top man of the 1890's, a unique three division champion, behind a man who seems merely one of the pack among a solid group of contenders.

 

The iorony of this thread is that Burley himself, is arguably the strongest argument that fighters like Fitzsimmons would have been competitive in later era's.

He fought in a style that nobody could argue to be an advance over that of Corbett or Fitzsimmons and he rarely used combinations.

Despite this he beat the snot out of Archie Moore.

 

Well Smoking Joe Frazier struggled to beat that type of fighter, twice. Ken Norton also. More recently, Lennox Lewis and Vlad Klitchsko had the same problem. Not so long ago, Tim Witherspoon threw mega million pay day against Tyson away because of a caution to the wind out of character James Bonecrusher Smith tactic. It is so common in boxing it isnt funny.

 

The comments by Old Fogey and yourself are exactly why it is good to hold off from making predictions. So many people make assumptions in boxing fantasy matches. I am sure that many people reading this fight were beginning to think of Burley as a naturally bigger version of Sugar Ray Robinson with a better chin and a heavyweight punch. I know this was what i was thinking of him (havent seen the film of him yet). Clearly that does not seem to be the case.

I like Burley, and think he is definitely better than his record indicates, buti think Old Fogey has hit the nail on the head, in that he did not prove himself as the best of his contemporaries. He may have been, but he did not prove it. Fitz did.

Now that i realise that his work rate was down and he used the old time stance, it pretty much makes all the predictions based on modernisation seem (for want of a better word - unobjective). Is there a link anywhere to some Burley footage?

It is hard to put Fitz into words, and he wasnt the superman people are suggesting, but at the very worst, at middleweight he hit people (on a middleweight level) as hard as prime Tyson hit people and despite what people say, he did throw combinations. The solar plexus punch for example was a two shot body head combination punch. Even though Fitz like to counterpunch, that sort of power does force others to shy away and can help a fighter win on points.

Still, i have to say, i am starting to get the opinion that Fitz does the same thing to Burley as he did to every other middleweight he ever faced in a 10 round or more contest, but i stil like to know more about burley. So far from the posts it seems he doesnt really have the combination work rate, he is going to be fighting a cautious fight and making Fitz come to him, but he might have the chin to survive. For those who are picking him to win on points, is it a points decision where he jabs and runs or is he mixing it up with Fitz regularly.

I think it is important to understand what tactics Burley decides to use in such a fight rather than simply make him the second coming of Sugar Ray Robinson with more power, a better chin etc.

 

Burley would win this for me, he's busy. Burley would outbox him imo, he's not letting a big shot get in on him to the point where he's getting laid out.

But it really pisses me off that people are taking Burley to win but Fitzimmons stopped Robinson. Don't give me the styles match up, ****ing question yourselves.

 

I have now had as good a look at Burley as possible and given him every opportunity. He was very good and he may have even been the best of a great era (though i dont think he was). But Burley isnt in the same class as Fitz, certainly not from a legacy standpoint anyway.

Burley lost at least once a year, in every year he fought except for 1. Yes, they were good or great fighters but let us not forget that he is Facing one of the best in Fitz. And one who is coming off one of the best wins ever (a prime Sugar Ray Robinson). When Charlie was at his best as a middleweight, he weighed about 150 -155 pounds, usually closer to 150. He was giving away quite a bit of weight and size to prime Fitz, who when at his best (the day he won the world heavyweight title) came in at 158 pounds. And a little too much is made of his wins over Moore. Archie Moore was a great fighter, but he became a lot better as gained experience and moved up in weights. This was not the same fighter that dominated the light heavy scene or that smashed heavyweight contenders in future decades. In fact, just 3 fights before this fight, Moore had been stopped by Booker after being knocked down about 5 times in the fight. Before long Moore, a bigger moore, would be KOd by Bivins, would be beaten by Holman williams, Ezzard Charles and would even draw with Billy Smith, Even worse, he would later be Starched in one round by Leonard Morrow and lose on points to Henry Hall. In fact by the 1950s, he had became an all time great, but this is not the fighter that Burley beat!

Much has been made by supporters on this thread, of Burley taking on and beating bigger fighters, but this is simply not correct as the bigger fighters he fought simply were not in the same class as fitz or the heavyweights that Fitz KOd. The fighters that Burley fought who were over say 163 (ie what a natural middleweight could weigh on fight night nowadays) were: JD Turner (219 lbs KO , Oakland Billy Smith (165-170 lbs), W Pts over 10, both times. Charlie Doc Williams (166 lbs) L10 Chuck Higgins and Buddy Hognett (166 and 165) - both KO wins. The ironic thing is not so much that these guys were bigger, but also that they were all at the tail end of Burleys career. He did well, but Billy Smith was the best and he would have been not more than a fringe contender. And one that Burley simply could not KO, despite being pretty dominant from the available film. None of the others would seem to be much of a wins, which is understandable since it seems that Burley was getting a little long in the tooth.

If you look at the film, i dont see how Burley can hope to beat Fitzsimmons. He is much smaller, he is probably slower, he doesnt fire as many combinations (ie is more primitive?), he isnt proven to the same level among his contemporaries (despite some high ratings by some) ie Fitz was the no1 undisputed middleweight of his time where Burley could be argued anywhere in the top 5, maybe lower. He split a series with Holman williams, lost to Bert Lytell, Fritzie Zivic, Jimmy Leeto, In fact, he was floored 3 times by the unheralded Lloyd Marshall, when he was at his best.

Now, in fairness to Burley, he was never stopped. But the problem is that he was consistently knocked down. If lesser fighters than Fitz Knocked him down, then it was a fair chance that Fitz knocks him down too. Certainly, at some stage he is tagging him and testing the chin. Common sense says, looking at Fitz' ko records, that when he tags him and starts to land (and remember, Burley doesnt really have the power to worry fitz) Fitz finishes him. If Fitz can leave the iron man Jack sharkey (admittedly he was a touch heavier but all evidence says that Fitz carried the same power at 180) then he is going to stop Burley. Burley has to fight defensively and use all his guile to stay away from Fitz and in doing this, there is no sensible way that he can be seen to have a chance to amount enough points to beat Fitz. Burley lasts longer than Sugar Ray, but he also gives Fitz far less trouble. The closest fighter Fitz fought to Burley was clearly the Non Pareil Jack Dempsey, who i imagine was very, very similar. Fitz took a while to catch him, but he still KOd him. the mistake people are making here is thinking that because Fitz was a big hitter, he could not win rounds. Nothing coudl be further from the truth. Fitz himself was a master improviser in the ring and very rarely lost rounds, especially at middleweight. The more I think about this, the less chance i give Burley.

I think Fitz Knocks him out cold by the 8th or 9th round.

 

I'll have film of the two fighters uploaded on the internet (in length) today.

I think there's enough film of both to form an opinion.

 

Mr butt,
I understand the theory in the Sugar Ray fight (and agree with it obviously). I also understand how that theory would work for a Fitz Burley fight. The thing i dont understand though, is why you think that Burley needs to make a mistake for Fitz to win this fight. With Sugar Ray, yeah, obviously his speed, combinations, footwork etc would suggest that he might build up a bit of a lead, not totally unlike Jim Corbett did to Fitz for a while. But Burley, wont be any busier than Fitz, wont hit as hard, wont have a style which Fitz hasnt seen and solved many many times before. Even if he stays cautious and manages to survive 15 rounds, i dont see how he beats Fitz on points and dont forget he is the smaller fighter with the smaller reach. If he wants to win points, somewhere, some time he has to take a risk and go after Fitz but once he does this, he leaves himself open. I envision fitz doing some serious body work in this fight, and i see the solar plex switch hook finishing the fight, like it did Sharkey and Corbett and many others. But i am interested as to how you see burley winning on points.

Of course you may have just subconciously likened Burleys style to that of Leonards to come to your conclusion (as i originally did) and certainly i dont think there is any shame in that but i am genuinely interested in how people see Burley outboxing Fitz.

 

burley was as you said close to fitzsimmons in style and as you said smaller too,being smaller i am gambling on him being faster of foot and hand than fitzsimmons so although being defensive and cagey i think he was smart enough to realise he would have to dart in and out to land his precision shots and i feel he just may of been good enough to do this with just enough scoring shots to pinch a probably very disputed decision and although turner was no fitzsimmons burley`s punches had such an effect that his face was described as a red piece of meat by the ring after just 6 or 7 rounds so there is always the chance that fitzsimmons could be badly marked up by the eighth
but i can also see as you say fitzsimmons ko'ing burley
or as in one of the holman williams fights burley was ahead got caught around the 7th survived the round but lost nearly every round after apart i think from the 13th to drop a decision showing great defencesive skill to go the distance

i am not saying i am right just putting up an opinion and to be honest expected loads of **** just as i did when i picked fitzsimmons over robinson

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYFu7s37md4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zU_sT_FvyWU

 

What happened here, Fitz was just starting to get warmed up, did the police step in and stop the fight after 4 rounds?

Or did Wyatt Earp DQ Fitz for the solar plexus punch. :think

 

I did think that Fitzsimmons would start coming on late but I guess the fight was only scheduled for 10 rounds.

 

Fits wins another news paper decision.

 

Did the police step in and stop this one?????