Charley Burley Or Thomas Hearns?

[wmute]

Charles was nothing but a novice fighter when he easily beat Burley, he was also a late substitute taking the bout at a few hours notice.. so please get your facts correct..

yes Archie Moore was a tremendous KO puncher during his career but there was many he could not KO like Bobby Zander who was a complete `novice fighter` who had lost more fights than he had won yet put Moore on the canvas before losing on pts.... Moore improved his skills throughout his career and was a virtual unknown fighter when he lost to Burley

Charles was fighting Maxim, Bivins, Overlin and Yarosz around that time. He was certainly not handled like a novice, and he is probably in the top 10 of the greatest fighters to enter a ring, and a heavyweight champion.

Moore had 70+ fights when he fought Burley.

You do realize that Hearns is the one was stopped before? Not Burley, yet you are worrying about "Burley staying away from that right hand." You have seen the footage of Burley, does it seem a fighter you can land right hands on easily? Maybe that has something to do with why he was never stopped.

[TheGreatA]

1942

Tony Zale*, Champion

1. Archie Moore
2. Charley Burley
3. Holman Williams
4. Kid Tunero
5. Jose Basora
6. Jake LaMotta
7. Jack Chase
8. Eddie Booker
9. Harry (Kid) Matthews
10. Antonio Fernandez

[sonnyboyx2]

Charles was fighting Maxim, Bivins, Overlin and Yarosz around that time. He was certainly not handled like a novice, and he is probably in the top 10 of the greatest fighters to enter a ring, and a heavyweight champion.

Moore had 70+ fights when he fought Burley.

You do realize that Hearns is the one was stopped before? Not Burley, yet you are worrying about "Burley staying away from that right hand." You have seen the footage of Burley, does it seem a fighter you can land right hands on easily? Maybe that has something to do with why he was never stopped.

Charles was a `Novice` with only 23 fights under his belt compaired to Burley who was a 60 fight contender...

Hearns being stopped before is rather meaningless, Manny Pacquiao had been stopped before when he fought Hatton & Morales..

Burley staying away from Hearns right-hand would be imperetive as Hearns had the punch-power to poleaxe any fighter in history from 147-175lbs..

you are also underestimating Hearns boxing skills which was as good if not better than Sugar Ray Leonards.. Hearns repeatedly outboxed smart boxers his whole career, guys like Virgil Hill, Michael Olajide & Wilfredo Benitez and his right-hand poleaxed granite-chinned fighters in Roberto Duran, Dennis Andries, Marcos Geraldo, Juan Roldan & Pipino Cuevas,

[wmute]

Charles was a `Novice` with only 23 fights under his belt compaired to Burley who was a 60 fight contender...

Hearns being stopped before is rather meaningless, Manny Pacquiao had been stopped before when he fought Hatton & Morales..

Burley staying away from Hearns right-hand would be imperetive as Hearns had the punch-power to poleaxe any fighter in history from 147-175lbs..

you are also underestimating Hearns boxing skills which was as good if not better than Sugar Ray Leonards.. Hearns repeatedly outboxed smart boxers his whole career, guys like Virgil Hill, Michael Olajide & Wilfredo Benitez and his right-hand poleaxed granite-chinned fighters in Roberto Duran, Dennis Andries, Marcos Geraldo, Juan Roldan & Pipino Cuevas,

Charles was an ATG, the best LHW in history, and he also became heavyweight champion, when he was fighting Burley he was also fighting other hall of famers. If Charles ever fought Hearns, at any point in his career, I don't know who would put money on Hearns seeing the final bell.

How does Hearns being stopped means nothing? It means he lacked stamina and chin compared to other greats.

Hearns did not have the punching power to "poleaxe any fighter in history at 147-175" or he would have had more stoppage wins above 160. After 160, he had considerable power, but it was not 154 anymore. End of the story.

Boxing skills are NOT just fighting from the outside. Hearns was a great outside fighter, no doubt. Not so much on the inside. Furhtermore, he could also be dragged in a kind of fight he did not want to be dragged in. So his skills were not as good as Leonard's, because Leonard could actually do it all and had more boxing IQ (Same with Burley btw)

These (relative of course, because Hearns is a great fighter) shortcomings (chin, stamina, smarts) are why he is not at the top of any list.

[sonnyboyx2]

Charles was an ATG, the best LHW in history, and he also became heavyweight champion, when he was fighting Burley he was also fighting other hall of famers. If Charles ever fought Hearns, at any point in his career, I don't know who would put money on Hearns seeing the final bell.

How does Hearns being stopped means nothing? It means he lacked stamina and chin compared to other greats.

Hearns did not have the punching power to "poleaxe any fighter in history at 147-175" or he would have had more stoppage wins above 160. After 160, he had considerable power, but it was not 154 anymore. End of the story.

Boxing skills are NOT just fighting from the outside. Hearns was a great outside fighter, no doubt. Not so much on the inside. Furhtermore, he could also be dragged in a kind of fight he did not want to be dragged in. So his skills were not as good as Leonard's, because Leonard could actually do it all and had more boxing IQ (Same with Burley btw)

These (relative of course, because Hearns is a great fighter) shortcomings (chin, stamina, smarts) are why he is not at the top of any list.

You are now trying to match-up "Hearns vs Charles" when your topic subject is Hearns vs Burley.... Charles easily beat Burley... so using Ezzard Charles as the yardstick for Charley Burley is wrong... Ezzard Charles fought 100 fights after he easily beat Burley twice, and like i pointed out earlier Charles was a 23 fight novice when beating the vastly more experienced Burley, so please stop using Ezzard Charles as leverage to glorify the career of Charley Burley as it seems your whole argument is based on Burley lasting the distance with the great Ezzard Charles

Hearns was stopped 3 times in his career:
1/.Prime Ray Leonard (IHOF & ATG) stopped Hearns in the 14th round of the 1981 Ring Mag FOTY..if it was a 12rd fight Hearns would have been a clear winner (would Burley have survived 15rds with a prime Ezzard Charles?)

2/. Prime Iran Barkley - 3 division champion KOd Hearns when on the brink of being stopped - with a thunderous left-hook

3/. Prime Marvin Hagler (IHOF & ATG) KOd Hearns in one of the greatest fights in boxing history, Hagler fortunate that Hearns broke his famous right-hand in the opening round..

For you to claim Thomas Hearns was not one of the greatest punchers in history is ridiculous...there was legitimate excuses for Hearns 3 KO loses... Hagler refused to give Hearns a return match even tho Hearns fought his way to be No1 contender... Hearns fought a draw with Ray Leonard in a rematch with most thinking Hearns was a clear winner after putting Leonard down twice... Hearns lost a split-decision to Barkley in a rematch at 175lbs (28lbs above his natural weight) having his nose broken early in the fight..

Are you claiming Burley would beat Prime Sugar Ray Leonard & Prime Marvin Hagler?

[wmute]

You are now trying to match-up "Hearns vs Charles" when your topic subject is Hearns vs Burley.... Charles easily beat Burley... so using Ezzard Charles as the yardstick for Charley Burley is wrong... Ezzard Charles fought 100 fights after he easily beat Burley twice, and like i pointed out earlier Charles was a 23 fight novice when beating the vastly more experienced Burley, so please stop using Ezzard Charles as leverage to glorify the career of Charley Burley as it seems your whole argument is based on Burley lasting the distance with the great Ezzard Charles

My argument is very simple and it has nothing to do with all the trash you typed. The argument is the following.

If Charles and Moore did not stop Burley, Hearns would not stop him.

This has all started because you said that you were not sure Burley would last the distance with Hearns. A ridiculous claim for someone who was never stopped and fought a number of hall of famers, some of them very succesful in weight classes where Hearns could not do much.

To glorify the career of Burley you only need to look at his record. If only you knew the names.

Hearns was stopped 3 times in his career:
1/.Prime Ray Leonard (IHOF & ATG) stopped Hearns in the 14th round of the 1981 Ring Mag FOTY..if it was a 12rd fight Hearns would have been a clear winner (would Burley have survived 15rds with a prime Ezzard Charles?)

2/. Prime Iran Barkley - 3 division champion KOd Hearns when on the brink of being stopped - with a thunderous left-hook

3/. Prime Marvin Hagler (IHOF & ATG) KOd Hearns in one of the greatest fights in boxing history, Hagler fortunate that Hearns broke his famous right-hand in the opening round..

That's three stoppage losses, against a great WELTER, a great MIDDLE and a good MIDDLE. You are making ridiculous excuses for each. Burley was never stopped by the best LIGHTHEAVYWEIGHT and a top 5 LIGHTHEAVYWEIGHT

For you to claim Thomas Hearns was not one of the greatest punchers in history is ridiculous...there was legitimate excuses for Hearns 3 KO loses... Hagler refused to give Hearns a return match even tho Hearns fought his way to be No1 contender... Hearns fought a draw with Ray Leonard in a rematch with most thinking Hearns was a clear winner after putting Leonard down twice... Hearns lost a split-decision to Barkley in a rematch at 175lbs (28lbs above his natural weight) having his nose broken early in the fight..

Don't twist my words. I never claimed Hearns was not a great puncher. I claimed, backed by facts, that above 160 he was not able to knock out people left and right. I don't think that your excuses are legitimate. Broken hand, broken nose... Where did Hearns break his hand? On Hagler forehead. How did he break his nose? Barkley might have had something to do with it.

1. So you are saying that if the fight was a 12 rounder, both fighters would have fought the exact same fight? Interesting theory.

2. Barkley won the rematch too, odd coincidence...

3. I thought it was the leg rubbing Manny did not want Hearns to get before the fight. Which one is your favorite excuse? Hearns fought competitively for one (great) round, then it was all Hagler for a grand total of two more rounds, in which Hearns got demolished and then sparked.

Are you claiming Burley would beat Prime Sugar Ray Leonard & Prime Marvin Hagler?

If Ray Robinson wanted none of Burley, he might have seen something you don't get.

Leonard and Burley and Hagler and Burley are actually good matchups, probably the best thing you typed in this thread.

It's a fair and good fight with Leonard, it is unclear who would want to keep the fight where. Leonard probably have an edge on the jab here, with Burley being in his zone counterpunching and slipping at midrange. On the inside, with a few rare exceptions, the older you go the better the inside fighting, so i would feel that Burley, who went 2-1 with Zivic, has the better toolbox here . Leonard best bet would be staying on the outside, boxing the boxer using reach and height advantage, and winning and losing some of the exchanges at midrange. But like I said he would be boxing a helluva boxer, who could take a punch and moved smart. It's unclear how long could the plan work. This would be a close fight.


I don't know at all with Hagler, I have no idea of how Burley fared with southpaws.

Let me answer your question this way. I claim that Burley has a much better chance of beating Hagler and Leonard than Hearns has of beating Charles and Moore.

[Joey Giardello]

Charles was a `Novice` with only 23 fights under his belt compaired to Burley who was a 60 fight contender...

Hearns being stopped before is rather meaningless, Manny Pacquiao had been stopped before when he fought Hatton & Morales..

Burley staying away from Hearns right-hand would be imperetive as Hearns had the punch-power to poleaxe any fighter in history from 147-175lbs..

you are also underestimating Hearns boxing skills which was as good if not better than Sugar Ray Leonards.. Hearns repeatedly outboxed smart boxers his whole career, guys like Virgil Hill, Michael Olajide & Wilfredo Benitez and his right-hand poleaxed granite-chinned fighters in Roberto Duran, Dennis Andries, Marcos Geraldo, Juan Roldan & Pipino Cuevas,

I agree with this post, tommy hearns is not geting the respect he is due! in this thread,

[wmute]

I agree with this post, tommy hearns is not geting the respect he is due! in this thread,

You and the other guy need to understand that rating a fighter below Burley is NOT disrespectful.

[Poet682006]

You and the other guy need to understand that rating a fighter below Burley is NOT disrespectful.

It's been my experience that the definition of "disrepectful" is not rating someone's favorite fighter as high as they do

Poet

[sonnyboyx2]

My argument is very simple and it has nothing to do with all the trash you typed. The argument is the following.

If Charles and Moore did not stop Burley, Hearns would not stop him.

This has all started because you said that you were not sure Burley would last the distance with Hearns. A ridiculous claim for someone who was never stopped and fought a number of hall of famers, some of them very succesful in weight classes where Hearns could not do much.

To glorify the career of Burley you only need to look at his record. If only you knew the names.



That's three stoppage losses, against a great WELTER, a great MIDDLE and a good MIDDLE. You are making ridiculous excuses for each. Burley was never stopped by the best LIGHTHEAVYWEIGHT and a top 5 LIGHTHEAVYWEIGHT



Don't twist my words. I never claimed Hearns was not a great puncher. I claimed, backed by facts, that above 160 he was not able to knock out people left and right. I don't think that your excuses are legitimate. Broken hand, broken nose... Where did Hearns break his hand? On Hagler forehead. How did he break his nose? Barkley might have had something to do with it.

1. So you are saying that if the fight was a 12 rounder, both fighters would have fought the exact same fight? Interesting theory.

2. Barkley won the rematch too, odd coincidence...

3. I thought it was the leg rubbing Manny did not want Hearns to get before the fight. Which one is your favorite excuse? Hearns fought competitively for one (great) round, then it was all Hagler for a grand total of two more rounds, in which Hearns got demolished and then sparked.



If Ray Robinson wanted none of Burley, he might have seen something you don't get.

Leonard and Burley and Hagler and Burley are actually good matchups, probably the best thing you typed in this thread.

It's a fair and good fight with Leonard, it is unclear who would want to keep the fight where. Leonard probably have an edge on the jab here, with Burley being in his zone counterpunching and slipping at midrange. On the inside, with a few rare exceptions, the older you go the better the inside fighting, so i would feel that Burley, who went 2-1 with Zivic, has the better toolbox here . Leonard best bet would be staying on the outside, boxing the boxer using reach and height advantage, and winning and losing some of the exchanges at midrange. But like I said he would be boxing a helluva boxer, who could take a punch and moved smart. It's unclear how long could the plan work. This would be a close fight.


I don't know at all with Hagler, I have no idea of how Burley fared with southpaws.

Let me answer your question this way. I claim that Burley has a much better chance of beating Hagler and Leonard than Hearns has of beating Charles and Moore.

1/. please explain where i typed "TRASH".

2/. nothing i wrote is as you claim "ridiculous"

3/. Moore & Charles was both far from world-class operators when they fought Burley..

4/. you claim to `glorify`Burley by looking at his record, then say `if only i knew the names`.. i know the names ok on his record dont kid yourself about that..i also have lots of footage of many of those fighters : Williams, Zivic, Moore. Charles, Bivins, Burley, Smith, Marshall, Soose...

5/. You laugh at Hearns 3 stoppage losses, yet fail to say that 2 of the losses was in Ring Magazine Fights of the Year.. (was Burley ever in a RMFOTY)...

6/. you claim that Ezzard Charles could not KO Burley.... Yet Charles was a virtual novice and late substitute and floored Burley and had him on the brink of a KO before knocking him from pillar 2 post for the remainder of the fight... (Hearns would have finished him off)

7/. you claim Hearns was not a great puncher at over 160lbs yet he demolished Dennis Andries then returned to the lighter weight divisions and was years past his best when campaigning above 160lbs+

8/. you query Hearns breaking his right hand in the opening round against Hagler... Then you are obviously not as clued-up on the sport as you try to profess, so i suggest you Google it using the words "Hearns breaks right-hand in opening round"..

9/. Leonard vs Hearns (1) was a 15rd fight with Hearns well ahead on the scorecards going into the 14th with Leonard needing a KO to win... Leonard vs Hearns (2) was a 12rd fight... i fail to see what you are trying to imply? ... are you saying Leonard waited to the 14th round of their first fight knowing he would KO Hearns ?

10/. Barkley won the rematch at 175lbs which is 28lbs above Hearns original weight class... you seem to be diminishing the achievements of both Hearns & Barkley.. their 2nd fight was a `split-decision verdict.. Barkley went on to campaign at heavyweight beating a former heavyweight champion..

11/. Did Burley ever campaign at the higher weight classes like Hearns did... Burley stayed in his comfort zone of 155lbs which is why he was able to fight Moore & Charles who was years away from being seasoned pro fighters which we know they went on to be.

12/. "BIGGEST MYTH IN BOXING" is your claim that Ray Robinson wanted nothing to do with Charley Burley...

13/. To claim Burley vs Zivic was the `blue-print` on how Burley would beat Ray Leonard is laughable.

14/. You said "Let me answer your question this way. I claim that Burley has a much better chance of beating Hagler and Leonard than Hearns has of beating Charles and Moore."...

But again you are claiming Burley beat Ezzard Charles which is incorrect, Burley was "BUTCHERED" by the novice Ezzard Charles getting floored and almost KOd.. so you must try to make your case without using Ezzard Charles as your yardstick...

The overwhelming opinion of the boxing world had Thomas Hearns as the clear winner in his rematch with Ray Leonard... Could Burley have beaten Hagler & Leonard.. i think once again the opinion would be an overwhelming NO

Once you have established the fact that Thomas Hearns broke his famous right-hand in the opening round against Marvin Hagler you then must ask yourself the question, "what is the probability that Hearns would have been declared the winner on a 3 round TKO..

Charley Burley was without doubt a very good fighter as was many others like him at that period in time, yet you should not `buy into the hype` that he was avoided by Legendary fighters like Robinson, Cerdan, LaMotta, Zale etc.. i suggest you do your own research and watch what footage you can of that periods fighters before making claims that a fighter of Burley`s caliber would beat a fighter like Thomas`hitman`Hearns who was one of thee most explosive fighters who ever lived.