P4P: Burley and/or Johnson?

Good to hear.

I'm thinking of taking a hiatus. The sport is pissing me off, might spend six months purely delving into older fighters even more. Much more aesthetically pleasing and fulfilling :good

 

I was thinking of going into isolation, like Hagler.

 

Not a bad shout, I pretty much am

 

Who cares how many they beat? The true test is how they fared against a similar quality of fighter, and how they fared against the very best. Not to say that those guys are lacking in that area, but I see no reason to rank Burley behind them simply because they beat lesser fighters who happened to be rated more frequently. That proves nothing to me.

Burley proved himself the class of the Murderer's Row all in all, I believe. The rest of the Row (at least those on record, such as Eddie Booker) agrees with me, as do Eddie Futch and Archie Moore.

 

Consistency? Proving oneself against high-level opposition more often? That has to count for something.

 

?

You're implying Burley has quality over quantity on his record. A typical fighter he's rated ahead of, say Ike Williams, beat a larger quantity and probably better quality of fighter at the top level, too.

 

:roll:

 

I think Jack Johnson deserves to be rated pretty highly. He really did clean out "both" hw dicisions pretty impressively.

 

Yep but when he was champ he avoided the best that he beat them before makes it look better but is no excuse.

 

Yet he got the better of both (despite the WIlliams fights technically being level, the NC was being won by Burley, and another fight could/should have gone the other way). You also have to factor in the close SD with Marshall and some possible bad decisions Burley may have suffered

In response to the question though I find them quite impossible to compare, just too different

 

The fact he was ran out of his own country does though

 

I wouldn't agree that he beat a higher quality. A higher quantity, sure, but it's not like Burley was lacking in that regard. Unless a fighter is especially lacking in consistency or quantity at the top level I don't see the point in giving a fighter who did it more often the edge. It really comes down to the level of performance for me. Burley, by all accounts, and from the film we have, was a genuine master technician capable of working well with any size or style. I don't feel the same way about Williams, great as he was.

 

Williams was a whirlwind at his peak and for my money, as good or better than Burley - fair enough if you don't agree, but Williams' record definitely wins. Let's not forget that his career was hindered by the mob either.

But anyway, if you don't like Williams as an example, how about Jose Napoles?:

Angel Robinson Garcia
Bunny Grant
Tony Perez (x2)
Baby Vasquez (x2)
LC Morgan (x3)
Alfredo Urbina (x2)
Carlos Hernandez
Adolph Pruitt (x2)
Eugenio Espinoza
Herbie Lee
Leroy Roberts
Eddie Pace
Ernie Lopez (x2)
Edwin Mack
Manuel Gonzalez
Billy Backus
Jean Josselin
Hedgemon Lewis (x2)
Ralph Charles
Roger Menetrey
Clyde Gray
Horacio Saldano
Armando Muniz (x2)​

Eddie Perkins
Curtis Cokes (x2)
Emile Griffith

--

Many times I've seen Burley rated in the top fifteen while Napoles resides at around #35. In my mind this isn't justifiable.

Nothing against Burley, but his myth is being blown out of proportion.

 

The edge I give Burley in comparison to Napoles was his success against significantly larger opponents. Napoles never proved the ability to belt quality Light Heavyweights, or Heavyweights outweighing him by upwards of 70 pounds. Not that weight-jumping has everything to do with it. Certain fighters simply have a style much better suited to dealing with larger opponents. Burley's style didn't really strike me as such, though. He was just a master craftsman it seemed, capable of handling and adapting to almost anything he was faced with.

That said, while I don't think Napoles was as well suited to dealing with significantly larger opposition (even though he was quite small for a Welterweight himself), I've never seen a better ring mechanic on film. I rate Napoles exceptionally highly as well.

 

Wow - you do actually rate Burley above Napoles. I was thinking of a few lists I saw before, I didn't expect you to defend that position.

The only justifiable reason you can give for that is 'Burley was better' because he certainly wasn't more accomplished. Even if he was avoided, Napoles still has the better record. Remember, too, that Napoles was really just a lightweight, and an avoided one at that, which is why he fought slightly above his head at welterweight. There are people out there who will tell you a 135lbs Napoles was the best fighter they ever saw.

Of course, the larger opponents. Back to Williams then, because he beat several rated welterweights, and holds a win that should eclipse any of Burley's - a points win over Kid Gavilan.