P4P: Burley and/or Johnson?

I don't rate fighters based solely on their accomplishments on paper. If I did, I don't see why Burley would fall behind Napoles. They both beat a similar quality of opponents, in fact Burley probably holding the edge in that regard overall.

On the subject of Williams, he also lost twice to Gavilan, with his one win of the series being somewhat controversial. Burley beat Moore, Smith, Chase, Wade, Soose, etc. All excellent fighters, all larger opponents at the time he beat them.

I'm not denying the greatness of any of these men, I just believe from what I know that Burley was the more adaptable and skilled of the bunch; Williams anyway.

 

Kid Gavilan would give Charley Burley a lesson. Tell Eddie Futch and Archie Moore that. :good

 

I disagree, but I respect your candor.

 

I can also understand Gavilan>Burley :yep

 

Napoles wasn't as big as Burley to be fair, he fought weighing 137 as a 28yo. I'd probably give Burley the edge in top quality wins/opponents over Napoles though

 

If only they fought...

 

I've seen few lists that rate Gavilan over Archie Moore, whom Burley beat. Williams won in a close struggle with Gavilan(and lost to him as well). Remember that Burley EASILY beat Moore.

 

I can't justify that myself. Archie is a lock for anywhere from 6-15 IMO.:good

 

Archie Moore outstrips anyone on this list. By far. Holman Williams, Cocoa Kid, as well(though you can argue a case for Emile Griffith). How about middleweight champ Billy Soose? With the exception of Griffith I don't see anyone here who is better. Fritzie Zivic? Nate Bolden? Bert Lytell? Shorty Hogue? Jack Chase? Aaron Wade?

World Champions and top contenders all.

I see absolutely no contest here when comparing resumes. Just my point of view

 

It sounds like that 'win' was a bit of robbery by all accounts

 

Hi Powerpuncher. I'm confused here. Are you saying that his leaving the country had something to do with his avoiding fighting the top contenders for his crown? Cuz if so I couldn't disagree with you more. If I recall he was offered good money to defend against Sam Langford overseas.

Johnson drew the color line himself probably worse than any heavyweight champ in history.

 

Now that I think of it, when Ike Williams rose up and fought welters he struggled pretty hard with most of them, winning some and losing some. When welterweight Burley rose up in weight and fought middleweights he was STILL dominant. And when he fought ranking light-heavyweights like Oakland Billy Smith? Dominant still.

 

Hang on - how good does everyone think Archie Moore was when Burley beat him? It was 1944. At that time, Moore was 'very good' and wasn't necessarily as hard to beat as Kid Gavilan or Eddie Perkins. Let's not make out like Burley beating Moore is one of the best wins in history.

I find it unfathomable how some people can assert the notion that Burley's record matches up with some of the others I've posted. I mean, seriously - count the wins over rated challengers. I'll post some for comparison:

Charley Burley

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)

-------------------

Ike Williams

Lefty LaChance (x2)
Wes Mouzon
Slugger White
Johnny Bratton (x3)
Dave Castilloux
Sonny West
Ronnie James
Lester Felton
Willie Roache
Johnny Hutchinson
Lulu Constantino
Joe Miceli
Bobby Ruffin
Bill Speary
Buddy Garcia
Gene Burton (x2)
Ralph Zannelli (x2)
Jesse Flores
Joey Peralta
Willie Joyce
Freddie Dawson (x3)
Maxie Berger
Juan Zurita
Tony Pellone
Rudy Cruz (x2)
Nick Moran
Enrique Bolanos (x3)

Sammy Angott (x2)
Bob Montgomery
Kid Gavilan
Beau Jack (x3)

--------------------

So far it isn't hard for me to see who'd be rated above who. Williams clearly beat more relevant opponents, more times.

More?:

Archie Moore

Sammy Slaughter
Johnny Ramero
Marty Simmons
Jack Coggins
Ron Richards (x2)
Jack Chase (x4)
Nate Bolden (x2)
Lloyd Marshall (x2)
George Kochan
Cocoa Kid
Curtis Sheppard (x2)
Buddy Walker
Rusty Payne
Bert Lytell (x2)
Charley Williams (x3)
Billy Smith (x3)
Henry Hall
Alabama Kid
Bob Satterfield
Phil Muscato
Leonard Morrow
Jimmy Slade
Clarence Henry
Nino Valdes (x2)
Bob Baker
Bob Dunlap (x2)
Yolande Pompey
Tony Anthony
Willi Besmanoff (x2)
Charley Norkus
Yvon Durelle (x2)
Giulio Rinaldi
Alejandro Lavorante

Jimmy Bivins (x4)
Harold Johnson (x4)
Joey Maxim (x3)
Carl Olson
Holman Williams

--------------------

Now Burley may have beaten Moore in his earlier days but he certainly can't match him for accomplishments.

Kid Gavilan

Nick Moran
Charley Williams
Bee Bee Wright
Tommy Bell
Tony Pellone
Al Priest
Rocky Castellani
Laurent Dauthuille
Johnny Greco
Tony Janiro (x2)
Joe Miceli
Paddy Young
Eugene Hairston
Aldo Minelli
Johnny Bratton (x2)
Walter Cartier
Bobby Dykes
Ralph Zannelli
Gil Turner
Eduardo Lausse
Chuck Davey
Ramon Fuentes
Ralph Jones (x2)
Ernie Durando
Gaspar Ortega

Ike Williams (x2)
Beau Jack
Billy Graham (x3)
Carmen Basilio

-------------------

I don't see the debate here unless you think Burley was genuinely as good as Ray Robinson, which I really don't think he was. Burley was a lost gem, but now it's getting silly.

Just for further comparison, here's what Henry Armstrong's looks like:

Frankie Covelli
Varias Milling (x2)
Bobby Levyas
Juan Zurita (x2)
Mike Belloise (x3)
Rodolfo Casanova
Tony Chavez (x2)
Moon Mullins
Aldo Spoldi (x4)
Frankie Klick
Ritchie Fontaine (x2)
Lew Massey
Enrique Venturi
Pete DeGrasse
Petey Sarron
Billy Beauhuld
Frankie Castillo
Everett Rightmire
Lew Feldman (x2)
Ceferino Garcia (x2)
Al Manfredo (x2)
Bobby Pacho (x2)
Davey Day
Ernie Roderick
Jimmy Garrison (x4)
Paul Junior (x2)
Joe Ghnouly
Ralph Zannelli (x3)
Sheik Rangel
Leo Rodak
Jimmy McDaniels
Tippy Larkin
Maxie Shapiro
Willie Joyce (x2)
Frankie Wills
John Thomas
Saverio Turiello (x3)
Al Davis

Midget Wolgast
Baby Arizmendi (x3)
Benny Bass
Chalky Wright
Barney Ross
Lou Ambers
Lew Jenkins (x2)
Fritzie Zivic
Sammy Angott
Pedro Montanez

--------------------

Can you see a pattern emerging? I rate fighters as objectively as I can and base it mostly on what they achieved for their own weight. Burley's record does not match up and he is certainly not a top ten fighter of all time, nor top fifteen, nor top twenty. I'd rate him about #50, which of course is not shameful in any way, just realistic.

 

The vast, vast majority of truly bigger opponents Burley faced were dog ****, save for Smith (who was hardly great).

 

The guys I mentioned certainly weren't ****, and they held just as big an advantage size wise as Gavilan held over Williams.

Either way, Manassa. I think it comes down to simply having a different judging method (you and I, anyway, can't speak for the others). You seem to be under the impression that more equals better, which I disagree with. Most all of these fighters proved themselves at the highest level, some more often, others more conclusively. Burley falls into the latter category as far as I'm concerned. When you get to reading contemporary accounts and peer reports it just strengthens his case. Film may be sparse, but even on the little bit we have it's clear he was a genius fighter.

Given our different methods we're always going to have differing opinions.