I lean towards KG myself, both great fighters. I like the punches in bunches of Kid Gavilan a lot, I like his change of pace also. I like his versatility, and I really like his clean work up close, the ability to be very clean with a high volume of work at different ranges and switch up his targets. Both are great no doubt. I like Burley's generalship from what I have seen, I like his defense, I like his countering and I like his craft. The footage is very limited but from what I know I like Gavilan as the better fighter hands down, and in the boxer department it is debatable, I think the argument for Burley can definitely be made in that respect. Overall I lean towards Gavilan.
There's a good-sized physical gap to close. I just don't believe anyone weaker, less powerful, slower, with a shorter reach is going to beat Burley at WW.
I doubt available footage could have lead you to that conclusion. It must be the things you've read and his results that you feel are better than Gavilan's. Personally, I like Gavilan more, because when you cut through the bull**** decisions that went against him, he actually was quite a dominant fighter. Burley never really was. Burley faced a better crop of fighters overall, but not by much imo.
What are you basing this on? He was a little naturally bigger, but size aside, I struggled to come to an explanation for why Burley was better. How about the dominance of Kid?
I never said he would beat him, I do consider him better though. Some people believe Forrest beats Mayweather but those people don't believe Forrest is better than Mayweather. But on the actual fight, I think you can make a great case for the Kid based on his tempo and workrate. Kid is versatile and has a fine jab, I don't see him getting outclassed mid ring, not at all, but if he does happen to be losing in that department and decides early on to fight Burley instead at a rapid pace, I see him edging the fight. I don't see Burley countering Kid in any dominating fashion that definitely gets him the win, and I don't see Burley stopping Gavilan, not a chance. His power is huge but he was a spectacualr ko man as opposed to a great finisher, and there's no way he's just taking Gavilan out.
Neither man was ever knocked out despite both of their having fought great punchers. It is certain that they won't literally be = in chin, but the difference will not be serious. I think Burley took on the better punchers, Smith, Marshall, Charles, Moore, Turner. Both are as good as unknockoutable at WW and probably MW - Burley is obviously more proven against bigger men. He is physically better. It's not just size. And he's actually the shorter man, i think. I don't know if KG could have mixed it with LHW's and the occasional HW. So that small advantage, as you see it, was certainly stretched out across the weight divisions. You think that's relevant though? In an argument about who is better? KG could certainly be greater. I have almost nothing between then in that department personally. In a h2h argument i'm more interested in the fact that Burley beat better guys and bigger guys.
In 1942 Burley was bringing 1000 to 1200 people at the gate up north at a time when Robinson was regularly having gates between 10,000 and 20,000. Burley's biggest gate while up north was 5000 but guess who headlined that card: Ray Robinson.
Do you not think if he was more offensively minded, he would've got bigger purses/fan base and thus title shots? nb, I'll respond to your earlier post later on tonight/tomorrow
All of these stories about what Burley offered Robinson, and Servo, and others all originate from Burley and his manager. And all come at a time when Burley's fights were literally losing money and his purses didnt really amount to much at all. Suddenly hes supposed to be able to come up with career high paydays for some of the highest paid non-HW fighters in America? Like I said, I need to see proof on that. I have no doubt Burley was damn good and didnt get the opportunitys he deserved but there was a reason why and it was solely because he was too damn good or black. Lots of good fighters that are black still get opportunities, and lots of fighters who are just too good still get opportunities. If it were solely that he was black and too good then why wasnt he able to carry a card on his name alone? Obviously he wasnt setting the world on fire, which means you can generate paying customers, which also means small purses, which also means the guys who can generate big gates and big purses can dictate terms. When someone can show me that an actual promoter offered Robinson far more than he was getting anywhere else and far more than Burley would have been paid (because if Robinson is the one putting his rep on the line AND selling the show he should get paid far more than Burley) then I will buy it. Until then I take anything Burley and his managers say about the matter with a grain of salt. I can offer Floyd Mayweather four hundred million dollars and 110 percent of the ppv revenue to fight Pacqiauo but at the end of the day it doesnt really mean anything. Burley and his manager can say they were going to offer Robinson a truck load of money to fight Burley but lets keep this in perspective: a guy who buys Burley's contract for $500 and a guy who is making about $1500 bucks a pop before expenses is suddenly going to come up with a career high payday for the highest paid WW in the world? Where are they getting this money because Burley basically worked his whole life in addition to boxing his purses were so small. Who was the promoter? What was the venue? See? Once you start asking questions about such a story it starts sounding more improbable. Burley's manager would say that a cadre of nothern "sporting men" were putting up the money. And remember, thats Burleys manager, not exactly an unbiased source when you consider that he is piggy backing on Robinson's fame at Robinson's expense, to Burley's benefit.
I think his biggest problem wasn't style but management. He was bounced around several different mangagers and I think was mis-managed quite badly at times. You are right to say that if he had a more pleasing style though he would have had more "clout." Another factor was his character. He was a very quiet man and not given to showy self-publicity. The combination of all three was not good. Colour played a role too I suppose in the sense that a white man with his ability would likely have gotten a shot. No probs.
Like who? I make you an offer of 3k for one of your fight films. You say no thank you. What independent source exists?
There was also a war on which complicated things in a major way. Titles were frozen, films were not being made, revenues were way down, etc etc. Its been said over and over and over that Joe Louis ducked a, b, and c. Robinson, Burley, LaMotta, Jimmy Bivins etc didnt get a shot because they were too black, or good, or whatever, and on and on. People almost always forget in these situations that if you were a non champion from 1941 to 1945 or 1946 then you were pretty much **** out of luck and it didnt have **** to do with the color of your skin, or your ability. There were bigger forces at play. Even after the war was over some of those guys, Zale is one Im thinking about, returned to the ring and had one thing on their mind: Cashing in and frankly, in the mindset of the day, who can blame them. one could easily argue that for nearly decade during the 1940s championships were a very rare commodity indeed due to almost entirely to the war and its aftermath. It sounds great to say those guys were avoided for one reason or another, and maybe they would have been had there not been a war on but thats just speculation. As for Burley-Robinson if you are good and colorless and cant draw flies then you cant blame the top dogs for not fighting you. Its up to you as a fighter to generate that kind of buzz and revenue. Fans werent avoiding Burley fights because he was too good or because he was black. There were plenty of good black fighters making money at the time, before, and after.