At middleweight and welterweight. Burley was one of the best welterweight and middleweight fighters of his era. Ray was one of the best of his era. Burley owned a win over Archie Moore at middleweight and Ray owned a win over Hearns at welterweight and Hagler at middleweight. It's also rumored that Robinson avoided Burley.
There's only one film of Burley and although he looks really good in it, its simply not enough information for me to know how he would do against Leonard.
Of course it is, these kind of statements always make me laugh (not offensively, nor against you, just in general), Why, because you Don't Need the Footage, when there is ample footage of many a fighter's opponents, and in this case fortunately some of Burley himself. When comparing and/or 'speculating' about fighters, it is Always about Who they Fought and How well they did Win or Lose, especially if fighting 'up' outside of their own Division(s)... again, there is enough film of Charles, Moore a few others Burley fought, Zivic, Marshal, even a short amount of Williams, which clearly show his excellent movement in defence, if I remember right. So when you have Actual Fight Reports and Film of many other Contemporary Fighters & Opponents, that is ALL One Needs to Know these fighters were Good, Very Good i.e Mr. Burley. It would be a good fight, but one hard to pick, could go either way, with a lean to Burley, only because he DID It a 100 Times!
there's enough film of Burley to evaluate him. Leonard was the much more solid fighter and would outhit, out plug Chorley, then fluster him en route to pts win.
The question isn't whether if Burley is really good, I made it clear in my post that I think he's really good. The question is how exactly a Burley vs Leonard match would look and play out, which is something I personally can't figure out based on the information provided to me.
Ray telegraphed. Randy Shields said it first, then Benitez and Duran in Montreal both made him miss. A lot. Burley used a Max Schmeling type stance (which he may actually have deliberately adopted, as Charley originally took up boxing just as Max was at his athletic peak and height of American popularity around Risko and Uzcudun I), and Joe Rein described him as having the same defensive radar as Marcel Cerdan. I expect Leonard to have difficulty reaching him. Burley is 28 when we see him school the 6'0" Oakland Billy Smith. The UD win over the several years younger southpaw Bert Lytell (just into his peak) is his next bout. (As for Smith, he would also go on to decision Lytell, and his career would be closing down just as he knocked out Harold Johnson in one for the camera.) For Moore and Futch to say he was the finest all around fighter they ever saw says something, and they were both extremely familiar with SRL. Burley also saw all of SRL's career except the meaningless stupid comeback attempt against Camacho. J. D. Turner, at 6'3" 220 is a reasonable stoppage scalp for somebody described as a lighter puncher than three time opponent Zivic. (Fritzie could hit.) Turner brought King Levinski pretty much to the Kingfish's career end, decisioned Babe Hunt in a rematch, also Babe Ritchie, and dropped a decision to Conn less than two months before Burley. Turner was 24-22-3 at the time, and had also been in with Simon and Mauriello. He finished his career with 24 stoppages in 36 wins, so he wasn't exactly Zuri Lawrence when it came to heavyweight power. Of course Ray never tested himself against someone that size, and he wasn't spectacular at 160 or above. Charley too slick, too difficult to hit, too much experience against too many greats by his prime, and Hearns proved in 1981 that Ray could be outboxed. Burley takes the UD. He would make Leonard miss and make him pay. We only have film of Burley-Oakland II, but I'm satisfied that's sufficient evidence. Charley is very conservative, but wins very safely and convincingly against a guy with pretty good skills and punch.
