Most overrated fighter of the Murderer's Row?

Burley.

Burley is one of those fighters that certain factions have given a big push in recent years, to compensate for the fact that he's been underrated for so long, and the result is that he's actually become slightly overrated. He's by far the most celebrated of the Row today, thanks to his much-celebrated win over Moore, and high praise from his contemporaries (ie: Eddie Futch calling him "the best all-around fighter" he ever saw). But in truth, he was only on the same par as the other top fighters of the Row. I've never understood why his decision win over Moore has come to be so celebrated today, yet Eddie Booker's KO win over the same Moore earlier that same year (at a time when Booker was near-blind in one eye) is virtually forgotten. Charles and Bivins both beat Burley decisively when they were still very green, and he was already at his peak and a top contender. Personally, I rate Bivins, Holman, and Marshall over Burley, and have him roughly level with Booker.

 

While its true Bivins and Charles were both short of their peak at 21 years old ,Burley was conceding weight to both of them 61/2 lbs and 9lbs to Charles,and 7 3/4 lbs to Bivins.Charles had 22 fights when he fought Burley, very green?

 

Can't really be anyone else other than Burley.

 

If anyone is overrated from the era (not the Row) its Sugar Ray Robinson who didn't go near Row fighters and fought far weaker competition.

How can Burley be overrated when he proved himself no1 WW in the world by beat Zivic, Cocoa Kid, Leto? Then got pushed out of WW by politics from Zivic/Armstrong. And again proved himself the top man at MW and 1 of the best LHWs? Won the series with Holman Williams. Beat Moore and fellow Moore conquoror in Chase, no less than 3 times. Lost an SD to Marshall who is another great and naturally solid at LHW and ofcourse went onto lose multiple time including a ko loss to Moore who Burley dominated. Beat other top contenders Lytell and Wade.

Yes Burley lost to Charles and Bivins, both of these were 2 of the best LHWs in history who would become top5 HWs. SRR would get his ass kicked by Charles and Bivins too

So in conclusion Burley was 1 of the best of the Murderers Row, despite being a naturally smaller man. His losses to Charles/Bivins are similar to Duran's loss to Hagler and shouldn't be held against his legacy. The fact legendary trainers and fighters rate him as the best of the era says allot, and makes him a top10 ATG contender

 

This is true, but overlooked. How would we look on Leonard if he had had gizilllion wins, but had skipped Benitez and Hearns, and not taken on Hagler?

 

I don't see how anyone from the murderers row can be counted as overrated. Just because people have actually heard of them and started to realise they were brilliant fighters now does not make them overrated.

 

Charley Burley is the most celebrated; Eddie Booker is the least.

 

1. You don't think Futch may have known what he was talking about when he said

2. Burley was 1 of the smallest Row fighters and won the series against Holman Williams, beat Moore, took the bigger Marshall to an SD, beat Chase (Moore conquorer), beat Zivic, Cocoa Kid etc etc

3. It wasn't just the decision over Moore, which by the looks of it was the most dominant performance (according to Moore himself). Chase also beat Moore and Burley beat Chase 3 times, he won the series over Williams, bet Cocoa Kid etc

4. Both Charles and Bivins are 2 of the top LHWs and HWs in history and may have been around 20fights but were already not far from peak. Burley was a natural WW, yet relatively held his own

5. Burley got the better of the series with Holman Williams, Burley also performed far better against common opponents. Marshall only got an SD over Burley and got his ass kicked time and again by Moore, who Burley dominated, he also has worse losses. Booker's resume isn't nearly as deep as Burley's. Charles and Bivins are much bigger than Burley

 

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

First I can't read your post without highlighting it :nono

1. Futch claimed Burley beat up Galivan in sparring or he personally did? Judging by the small footage of Burley I'd fancy him over Galivan. Futch's opinion certainly not the be all and end all but combined with other factors it paints a very sweet picture.

2. Our resident Burley expert claims Burley deserved the better of at least 1 of those fights he lost. Given his best performances/wins were around this time Williams seemed to be in his prime, he was ofcourse a great in his own right, with wins over Moore, Marshall, Booker, Chase

2/5. Well I must admit Boxrec is my only source, I would think Burley had his moments to get an SD against Marshall. And the point that Burley beat numerous men who beat Marshall still stands

I seriously don't think Burley ducked Booker, if you fight Charles (twice), Bivins, Marshall, Williams, Chase and Zivic, you don't duck Booker. Bookers best wins are Williams and Moore, and Burley fought 5 men who beat Moore beating 3 of them and he beat a few men who beat Williams

 

The terms "overrated" and "murderers row" are a contradiction.

Anybody in that group is underrated by default.

 

1. Futch claimed he beat up Gavilan in sparring.

2. I stated he was injured and was winning the no decision but Williams had much more matches. I never said Holman was shot or anything just that Burley was closer to his prime.

2/5. Read the reports Marhsall was the clear winner. Plus styles makes fights just becuase he beat men that beat Lloyd doesn't mean he was better.

Never said Burley ducked him just said he declined two possible fights and he did state that Booker would have been his toughest fight.

 

Again, did Futch or Burley beat Gavilan in sparring?