Packey McFarland destroys Charley Burley with laughable ease

Burley had dynamite in his hands. This is a risky fight for the undersized McFarland.

 

Got it ... If Burley doesn't KO him or hurt him bad .. How does it play out skills wise?

 

You are a cankerblossom.

 

When I rise again from my fainting couch, there will be a reckoning.

 

I don't think Burley had enough unorthodoxy in his style to puzzle McFarland and win this.

 

"What about Rocky Marciano?" says somebody and the forum bursts into civil war. There is open and unpunished murder in the streets. It all comes back to agreement when somebody posts a single word.

Duran.

And all is right with the world again.
There. I've saved us all 10 pages of arguing and nobody remembers what @OP asked about.

For the record I'd favor Burley.

 

I literally killed this thread.

 

Packey McFarland was a 130 to 140 pound fighter most of his career. So not only is McFarland much smaller than Burley the era Packey fought in was much weaker. Boxing skills wise was a joke compared to even the late 30's plus when Charley fought.

 

The two fights I've seen with McFarland both fail to blow me away.

I know, I'm likely to catch some flack for saying this… but, honestly, Packey seems way overrated!

Burley easy on points for me.

 

Well done, sir. And a well deserved death I might add.

 

"Evolution of the sport."

 

Size and style carries Burley to victory in this one, in my opinion. Interesting fight, though, and I'm always glad to see some different, intriguing matchups posted.

 

Have to say Burley. Bigger and a consummate technician. Mcfarland is perfect for light Welter.

Very interesting match up.

 

Bully.