Who do you rank higher in both a H2H sense at their respective best and an accomplishment sense. Do you have an ATG list where they are numbered closely to each other (or if you were going by a tier system)? Would they be similar or far apart in both a H2H and accomplishment sense? Etc. Please, go for it. Poll to follow (may take a minute, I'm not sure how to phrase the poll, exactly). This content is protected This content is protected [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubUrl4YU2QE[/ame] [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81non05aKX4[/ame]
I knew I'd have trouble getting all my **** into one poll. I didn't even have room for the "I'm a smelly pirate hooker" option, which I thought might come up at some point.
I rank Burley higher on both. Johnson doesn't make my top 100 P4P alltime list, Burley makes the top 30. In terms of H2H, from what I've seen/read of Burley, he was clearly a potent Welter/Middleweight force (and could also beat bigger guys than that) I'm really not impressed with Johnson on film, though in terms of his time/ruleset he was clearly formidable. Johnson for me is between 15-25 on my alltime Heavyweight list. If it was Burley/HAROLD Johnson, I think it'd be closer Different thread entirely though.
Although Johnson is currently on my top 100, I respect what you're saying. It seems like whenever I see Johnson rated on a list, he's always higher than I'd have him. A lot of the time, he's quite significantly higher than I'd have him. I've always suspected that people are considering social significance when ranking Johnson, maybe without even logically realizing it, even though it doesn't change who he was as a fighter, if that makes any sense. :conf
I rank a fighter by A) how good he was in his era, and then, logically B) how good was his era? For me, whilst the likse of Burns, Fitz, Jeffries, Langford were awesome fighters, I don't think that the smaller guys could hassle Johnson too much, and that Jeffries was a physical mess by the time he faced Jack. Johnson gets immense kudos for beating these men comprehensively (Langford eventually anyway) but IMO, there are Heavys with more impressive Ring Records.
Depends what you are talking about. Achievement-wise it´s clearly Johnson, no matter how you want to turn it. H2h and in a p4p sense Burley should be ahead clearly. H2h and in relation to the division(s) they fought at it´s a toss up. So, overall I don´t think there is that much between them.
Johnson has to rank higher in terms of actual accomplishments on the basis that he won a legitimate, lineal title and Burley did not. However, it's not fair to penalise Burley because of this, so as a criteria, it is very low ranking. Burley for me was the superior fighter, Johnson was excellent don't get me wrong, but on a H2H and resumé basis, Burley makes my top 20. I don't know where Johnson would enter in a P4P list.
How Burley is rated so high is beyond me. Even his main rival, Holman Williams, beat more rated challengers, let alone Kid Gavilan, Ike Williams, Manuel Ortiz and Luis Rodriguez, who I constantly see rated below him.
I'd say I'd have to rate Charley Burley quite highly considering that Archie Moore said he was the best fighter he ever fought in his entire career - including heavyweights Marciano and young Clay and Patterson not to mention the great Ezzard Charles, and the 50 million other amazing fighters Archie mixed it with - i guess he has to be right up there - apparently Eddie Futch thought he was the best fighter he'd ever seen (over Robinson and all the usual suspects) - as far as Jack Johnson goes I personally think he was something of a genius fighter and certainly one of the best heavyweights ever period - I don't have a P4P list drawn up but I can tell you I only rate maybe 4 men as better heavyweights at least so he'd have to be pretty high on the list in terms of the heavyweights on the list at least - but Burley I'm guessing would end up higher - maybe were Robby and Billy avoiding him if they could get away with it??
You're alive :happy I'd rate Burley along with the rest of these fighters all in the same bracket. They'd all fall between 25-35 for me, I wouldn't argue with anyones individual placings of them. Lora/Mante for example, has Manuel Rodriguez in his top 20, higher than any of these. That's also justifiable IMO. So, your top 100 list: did it break you?
Fritzie Zivic Cocoa Kid Holman Willliams Jack Chase Aaron Wade Archie Moore Bery Lytell Oakland Billy Smith That is a hell of a resumé. Bare in mind he was avoided aswell.
I'm sure Manassa won't dispute that (neither will I) just the fact that the others have equally stacked resumes (Ortiz aside, although I think he still has a solid resume and we have a fair amount of footage available to see what a great all-rounder he was)
**** off, the list didn't break me, Flea. I just went on hiatus. Burley's record against 'fighters who were at some point rated' looks like this: Cocoa Kid Jimmy Leto Nate Bolden Antonio Fernandez Jack Chase (x3) Aaron Wade (x3) Joe Carter Billy Smith (x2) Bert Lytell Billy Soose Holman Williams (x3) Archie Moore Fritzie Zivic (x2) -- Here's Holman Williams' for comparison: Battling Gizzy Lew Massey Tony Falco Cocoa Kid (x3) Slugger White Bobby Pacho Saverio Turiello Jack Portney Steve Mamakos Izzy Jannazzo Joe Legon Antonio Fernandez (x2) Jimmy Leto Jose Basora (x3) Kid Tunero (x3) Joe Carter (x2) Lloyd Marshall (x2) Eddie Booker Steve Belloise Jack Chase (x4) Paul Lewis Aaron Wade (x2) Bert Lytell George Henry Bob Satterfield Henry Hall Charley Burley (x3) Archie Moore -- How many people would rate John Henry Lewis alongside Burley? If they even remember him, Lewis is mostly seen about forty places behind, however: Yale Okun (x2) Fred Lenhart (x2) Lou Scozza Norman Conrad Young Firpo Tony Shucco (x2) Bob Olin (x3) Tiger Jack Fox Jock McAvoy George Nichols (x2) Charley Massera Bob Godwin Al Gainer (x2) Red Burman Al Ettore (x2) Patsy Perroni Johnny Risko Elmer Ray Jimmy Adamick Jim Braddock Maxie Rosenbloom (x2) Len Harvey -- Burley's reputation isn't enough for me to rate him higher than #45.