Why is Burley ranked so high?

On the only film of him,Burley reminds me of an aggressive version of Mayweather.

 

I was really surprised at how my ma was impressed with it. More than my brother, which is strange.

I was thinking though. Everyone talks about how modern day guys would whip guys from the past, then this legendary youtube guy breaks down how Hopkins is an 'old' fighter and them man whips the **** out of guys today with ease!

 

I can see why he is ranked so highly, however don't see why so many have Williams and Marshall so much lower. In my opinon Holman is the greatest of them.

 

Holman gets criminally overlooked...and I have been guilty of that before.

 

We've also got a lot more of SRR to go on too. Hard to make a blanket statement on such little footage IMO.

 

Theres that aspect too, but even the fans of the time, Burley wasnt the most pleasant to the eye but too the boxing madmen he was god.

 

1. So there's no point discussing any fights we dont have on tape, certainly dont discuss Harry Greb, all his fights are newspaper reports. You're clutching at straws here, Burley edged Williams in the series

2. It sounds like

3. He was technically a LHW as he weighed 160 3/4, it was likely a MW rated fight. In reality there was practically always 1 old division between the 2 of them and Bivins had 8lbs on him, despite that he was likely draining as 5months later he'd be weighing 174lbs and stay at that weight or higher for the rest of his career

4. How about actual opponents instead of fights? How many were losses?

Burleys opposition seems to have and someone of the quality opponents werent rated, which was an unjustice in some cases

5. 10 of which against the same 2 opponents, most were loses

6. Yes Burley didnt have any fights against current champions as he was avoided by Armstrong, Zivic, Zale, Graziano

7. So against Moore and Charles, Bivins lost 8 out of 10, Burley lost 1 our of 3, thats a far better ratio. If Burley fought Moore 6 times he'd get more than 1 win, Moore said Burley was the best he'd ever faced long after having faced both men.

8. You're assuming governing bodies are fair and just, in this time they werent, Burley rightfully should have had his WW shot

9. Bivins has far more losses in his prime years, worse losses and often ko'd, Burley was never stopped.

 

Correct.

Which is why we don't discuss the fights, only the reports.

No, I'm pointing to reality here.

Again, you'd only actually know that if you saw it.

"Sounds like" is not the same thing as actually being. :nono

No, weight limits often have a pound or two leeway for non-title fights.

All irrelevant to what you said earlier, and the highlighted part is pure speculation (and if he was drained at 160, that would actually make Burley's loss look worse not better).

Rated opponents:
Bivins - 27
Burley - 17

You still lose.

Irrelevant to your original fabricated claim that Burley fought more rated opponents than Bivins.

Like who?

Disregarding them, Bivins still has more.

Again, irrelevant to your original fabricated claim that Burley fought more rated opponents than Bivins.

A point that blatantly contradicts your original fabricated claim that Burley fought more rated opponents than Bivins.

No it isn't, because he was 0-2 against Charles.

And if he fought Charles 5 times he'd have no wins. What's your point?

No, I looked at Ring rankings as well.

No more than Bivins should've at LHW and HW.

Which is to be expected when you have far more fights against rated opponents in your prime years.

So?

 

1. So look atthe reports of Burley-Williams, they point to Burley having the advantage, you give the same treatment to Greb, give it to Burley

2. A weight limit, is a limit, even if governing bodies do accept it in their ranking

3. Weight draining is an advantage aswell as a disadvantage, the advantage is you get a size advantage

Bottom line Bivins was way bigger than Burley, so comparing them on head to head, is like comparing Duran on head to heads against the Fab 5 and saying he must be the worse of the 5 P4P, I presume you realise how dumb that sounds?

4. Whats the source, I want to see, if you provide 1 fair enough, I'll admit I'm wrong on that, I didnt have access to such a resource and made an assumption looking at the quality of opponents each fought

5. You do understand a 33% ratio is higher than a 20% ratio? Its not hard to grasp, 1 number is bigger

6. It seems both Holman Williams/Burley werent ranked in top 10 for periods of their prime, which is laughable. It seems many of the murderers row werent getting ranked in the top10 despite

7. Both should have had title shots at 2 weights, I dont dispute that

8. Burley was consistantly facing all the top men who'd face him, he fought much bigger men, Bivins was normally facing men his own size.

Going by your numbers, which I dont know if you've skewed, Bivins has 27 ranked opponents to 25 loses, Burley has 17 ranked opponent to 12 losses. Burley again has the better ratio

9. never being stopped when facing Burleys opposition is impressive

 

Charley Burley is ranked high by many because of the romantic aura surrounding him. He is the name that many will throw forward to prove that their knowledge extends past the Alis and Ray Leonards of the sport. But he was great. And although many of the 8 widely included members of BMR were nearly as formidable, Burley is comforable up at the top.

Then again, it depends on your criteria.

Burley punched as if his arms were springs and his fists were granite blocks, he was a natural athlete with masterful timing and an acute sense of distance. Technically-sound, iron-jawed, great stamina, --he was complete.

His losses were often against larger men -Charles, Marshall, Bivins. His coming out more or less on top of Holman is also nothing to sniff at. I wish that he had faced Eddie Booker -that would have been more of a decisive indication as to where he placed. Holman came out dead-even against Eddie. Charley himself acknowledged that Booker would have been his sternest test.

If you look at the records of each of the 8 standard members against the other, it turns out like this:

Booker: 2-3-1
Wade: 2-7-1
Chase: 4-9-2
Marshall: 3-4-1
Williams: 14-15-4-1 (though if he ducked Cocoa Kid, he'd be 12-7-2-1)
Cocoa Kid: 10-7-3
Lytell: 6-2-1

But, Burley comes out at 11-5-1-1.

And Archie Moore, who some may include in BMR but I won't because he did after all, take a world title, comes out at an impressive 10-5-1. Incidentally, Bivins really shouldn't be included either. BMR is usually relegated to the round robin of black fighters recorded above and most often they were competing on the west coast. Archie went west, much like Marvin Hagler went on down to Philly... to test himself against monsters. If we include every black fighter routinely avoided, "BMR" will populate a small city.

Anyway, interestingly, no member of BMR had more than one KO against a fellow member except Burley with 3. Moore had 4. Looking at the records, we really get an idea of how formidable that group was -and how durable.

 

It's all debatable but they are all very good fighters in their own right. Chase was good enough to beat Booker and Wade was good enough to beat Cocoa Kid.

And, I wasn't putting forth an argument per se, I just offered some statistics that are worth seeing but are not quite conclusive alone
.

The Black Murderers' Row was a term that Budd Schulberg invented to describe a group of fighters that more or less had the following characteristics:
1. They campaigned on the west coast.
2. They were avoided and so actively faced each other.
3. They were black
4. They campaigned in the 40s

Fighters who don't have at least those qualities aren't part of the row in the estimation of most. Take Ezzard. Murderers' Row? Nah. He faced only Marshall and Burley in Ohio and Pennsylvania. He didn't even fight on the west coast until '49 and that was against Pat Valentino.

Now take Bivins -he didn't come west to San Fran until '43, also against Valentino and only faced Marshall and Burley.

Archie Moore, in my opinion, is a special case. He would have been remembered as perhaps the 7th or 9th member had he retired before the Maxim win. He was there in the right place, at the right time, and faced all eight regular members. But Archie passed them. See? He exceeded them. Charles, had he done what Archie had done, would have exceeded them as well since he became a linear HW Champ.

Joe Carter, now that's another story. --->

This content is protected

 

No, bottom line is that you claimed he was two weight classes bigger at that time than he actually was.

Only if you think the other Fab 4 were green as grass when they fought Duran and supposed to lose to him, as Bivins was against Burley; I presume you realize how dumb that sounds?

I already said, The Boxing Register.

Oh, so now you ADMIT to being a blatant liar then? - after you accuse me of being "ignorant" of the facts. :-(

So then you understand that a 20% ratio is higher than 0%, which was their respective win ratios vs. Charles. It's not hard to grasp, 0 is the smallest number possible.

What "periods" would those be?

Who wasn't being ranked at times that they should've been?

Bivins deserved shots more, and simultaneously at his two weights (unlike Burley).

No, he often fought 200-plus pound fighters while only weighing around 175-185 himself.

Which is still to be expected if Bivins had far more fights against those ranked opponents.