P4P: Burley and/or Johnson?

That's Panama Al Brown in my avatar, not Williams. You should know that.

By the way, I was here before you, so when you came over the horizon, yeah, I was into Hagler.

You like bringing that up like it's a bad thing. Hagler's still one of my favourite fighters and so is any fighter I've ever talked about, I love 50% of the greats throughout history, dislike a couple, and have yet to delve into the others. I hope it's not a problem for you if I decide to talk about one more than the other between months.

Yeah.

You try too hard to be superior. We all try it, it's the internet. If you want a last word because you think you need it, go ahead.

 

Contentious little ****er aren't you?
.
I didn't look at your avatar,I was referring to your bigging Ike up ,which I agree with . Superior ?
"Well yes ,but like everything else we go from day to day,and from promise to promise.
Ive had a good many promises now, so I can wait for the harvest.
And for some of them to come about " .R . McKuen.

 

Surely in terms of getting a title shot Burley did have it harder than Johnson with Armstrong, Lamotta, Zale and even Robinson all happily avoiding him. In terms of P4P competition of his day and having to fight bigger stronger men he also had it harder than Johnson.

No he didn't clear out a division like Johnson but maybe he could have at WW, his natural weight class. He also had much harder divisions to clean out.

 

I dont think Burley was ever shot at ,or assaulted by a gang of toughs, persecuted on trumped up charges and forced to flee his country, or go to jail . Burley was more low key than Johnson[who wasnt],maybe he was as good but he never proved it ,so my vote goes to Jack.

 

It might be lacking in the depth you want, but in that list of fighters you have a very broad range of styles, who all pose difficulties to Burley in different ways, and are of a very high calibre. Surely that should mean something?

Also he was a leading figure in two weight divisions at the same time for a matter of years and he was dominant in both of these weight classes.

Holman Williams is a fighter I very much admire, it is about time he got some respect IMO and ranked slightly higher than most. However, I would say Burley proved himself 'better' than Williams in there series. Perhaps he did not win the series but throughout it Burley showed he had the beating of Williams more so than Williams had the beating of Burley.

Also Burley proved more dominant and consistent than Williams throughout his career IMO.

He was still one of the best fighters around at the time, in the weight division above Burley's natural one. Also he was racking up some good wins and seen as a handful for anybody, Burley won very one-sidedly. Surely that adds kudos to the win?

What makes you categorically say he was not as good as Ray Robinson. Arguably at Welterweight Burley is much more accomplished against his peers of the time than Robinson was.

What about Ezzard Charles who was a massive Middleweight who not long after beating Burley emigrated north to Light Heavyweight?

 

I disagree on Williams being a whirlwind, he was more a superb defensive boxer who excelled in the use of angles. Personally against a wide range of styles Burley is better IMO.

 

What is it with you and picking me out on trivial points?

Metaphorical whirlwind, not an actual whirlwind :huh

By the way I meant Ike Williams, not Holman. But both have better records.

 

It seems like people are making a lot of excuses or finding a way to worm in an argument.

Now let me establish one thing - I rate Burley as an underrated (well, not anymore) gem of his era, a spectacular technician who never got the shots he deserved. Even so, he racked up a very good record of wins, proved himself a capable fighter above his natural weight, and therefore rates on a top hundred list at about #50.

But why any higher? Just because a few people said he was the best ever? That's been said about Jose Napoles, Ike Williams, Willie Pep, Roberto Duran, Ray Robinson, Harry Greb, Packey McFarland, Benny Leonard, Henry Armstrong and loads more.

Maybe, in reality, he was better than where we typically used to rate him. I'm concerned that nowadays, upon recognition, people are starting to rate Burley too high, and based on little more than his reputation.

Because the fact of the matter, or about as close to fact as you can get, is that Burley didn't beat anywhere near enough rated opponents as people he'd be next to or above on an all-time list.

I've read a couple of accounts of people saying Holman Williams without bad hands would be the greatest who ever lived. He had a record greater than Burley's, regardless of whether Burley scraped superiority in their series. Williams just proved himself more. Whether that was Burley's bad luck or not, we shouldn't overcompensate too much for that by rating him above certain fighters who are deserving of a higher rating through prolific records.

I'm going to post Henry Armstrong's wins over yearly rated opponents. He's my #1, Greb #2, and Robinson #3, for their phenomenal records which reflect the reality of what they did. Burley lacks this, not too much, which is why he retains a respectable place on my list alongside greats such as John Henry Lewis, Kid Chocolate and Rocky Marciano. Where is the debate? As I touched on before; it may be Burley's bad luck that he didn't get certain opportunities, but we have to go by what actually happened rather than what could have. Salvador Sanchez may very well have proved himself to be a pound-for-pound legend, but unfortunately didn't.

Anyway, here's Armstrong's record:

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

--

Willie Pep's:

Pedro Hernandez (x2)
Spider Armstrong
Bobby Ivy
Vince Dell'Orto (x2)
Bill Speary (x2)
Allie Stolz
Sal Bartolo (x3)
Jackie Wilson (x2)
Willie Roache (x2)
Willie Joyce
Lulu Constantino
Joey Peralta
Charley Lewis (x3)
Phil Terranova
Jackie Graves
Joey Fontana
Lefty LaChance (x2)
Joey Archibald
Humberto Sierra (x2)
Jock Leslie
Miguel Avacedo
Teddy Davis (x3)
Paddy DeMarco
Eddie Compo
Harold Dade
Charley Riley
Ray Famechon
Bobby Bell (x2)
Carlos Chavez
Eddie Chavez
Baby Neff Ortiz
Rodolfo Gonzales
Gil Cadilli
Armand Savoie

Chalky Wright (x4)
Manuel Ortiz
Sandy Saddler

--

Jimmy McLarnin's:

Joey Sangor
Joe Glick (x3)
Billy Wallace
Sid Terris
Phil McGraw
Ray Miller
Sammy Baker
Young Jack Thompson
Al Singer
Sammy Fullmer

Fidel LaBarba (x2)
Pancho Villa
Jackie Fields
Charles Taylor
Louis Kaplan
Sammy Mandell (x2)
Billy Petrolle (x2)
Benny Leonard
Young Corbett III
Barney Ross
Tony Canzoneri
Lou Ambers

--

That's the kind of record you need to get in my top fifteen. Burley's doesn't match up for me:

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)

 

I wrote that post out then, went 'No' this is just unnecessary. Didn't think I posted it. Sorry about that.

Nah.

I think we are different sort of guys. You are much more cut and dried facts sort of man, whereas I am much more about the actual ability and quality of the fighter. Nothing wrong with either really, good to have both sides.

I feel his record demonstrated he had a wide skill range, obviously a top class boxing technician, was dominant for about 3/4 a decade in two weight classes and is arguably the most proven Welterweight in the era.

I think he slots in with them names easily. They are all top 30 say and he has as much right as any of them to be there.

I think people can tend to overrate someone when they have in the past been underrated. This perhaps is the case with Burley, when people are saying he is Top 10 or whatever.

I don't do P4P lists but Burley would be in my top tier of great fighters. I think that is reasonable.

I feel I have explained this above.

I disagree with Williams having a better record than Burley. I think Burley proved himself much more dominant and consistent at both Welterweight and Middleweight. His top wins are every bit as good as Williams's top wins and he 'scraped' superiority in a series with Williams. I, however, would rate them very close together.

 

He hits like Joe Louis. Edwin Rosario and Earnie Shavers punched harder, but were not as damaging.

I just found out that Ike Williams vs Livio Minelli is on film. Buying that.

 

If your wanting I could send you it. Save you a wee bit.

 

Okay we'll have to separate. I'd have Williams about #43? Or something, and Burley at #50. Ike Williams at #26, or something, Kid Gavilan #27... Jose Napoles #24. Pedro Montanez, #80... Just to give you an idea. I did plan a top hundred list a while ago, I may have to finish it.