Charley Burley Or Thomas Hearns?

[wmute]

Duran was not that old! he went on to win the middleweight title after hearns beat him, and the 28 year old moore was not as good as the 36 year old moore who never lost his lightheavyweight title Moore was like fine wine he got better with age

When Duran won the MW title against Barkley, it was hailed as a miracle, for a simple reason, Duran was way past it at the point at the wrong weight. He was not as past it when he fought Hearns, but he was certainly past his prime.

Moore at 28 was doing his thing, he might have improved some more, but he had 70+ fights at the time, also he was fighting better competition in the 40s than when he was defending his belt.

[wmute]

Duran was not that old! he went on to win the middleweight title after hearns beat him and was a great win for tommy! knocking out roberto duran is better than beating a archie moore who is yet to hit his peak, the 28 year old archie moore was not as good as the 36 year old moore who never lost his lightheavyweight title moore was like fine wine he got better with age

I already addressed this in the other post. However, I am going to play devil's advocate... Let's assume that a 33 year old Duran is better p4p than a 28yo Moore. Hearns was the bigger man in the fight and Burley the smaller man.

[sonnyboyx2]

I already addressed this in the other post. However, I am going to play devil's advocate... Let's assume that a 33 year old Duran is better p4p than a 28yo Moore. Hearns was the bigger man in the fight and Burley the smaller man.

it is obvious that you rate Burley above Hearns and that is your choice, but you are in the minority, Thomas Hearns was one of the greatest fighters ever whereas Charley Burley is "here-say".... here is a couple of lists for you to ponder on the bottom one is based on:
In-ring Performance
Achievements
Dominance
Mainstream Appeal

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080424165526AAdvUX3

http://boxing.about.com/od/history/a/50_greatest.htm

[wmute]

it is obvious that you rate Burley above Hearns and that is your choice, but you are in the minority, Thomas Hearns was one of the greatest fighters ever whereas Charley Burley is "here-say".... here is a couple of lists for you to ponder on the bottom one is based on:
In-ring Performance
Achievements
Dominance
Mainstream Appeal

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080424165526AAdvUX3

http://boxing.about.com/od/history/a/50_greatest.htm

For the love of god, why would I care about Mainstream Appeal?

As for Bert Sugar, he is an interesting guy but he ranks Moore ahead of Charles.

I don't care if I am in a minority. The majority are also the posters of NSB, or the people who vote on ESPN polls... so thanks, but no thanks.

I know about Burley and Hearns enough to not be swayed by others' judgment.

How about you try to talk about boxing instead of "majority vs hearsay" (not "here-say")? That would be more useful to convince me, or anyone who thinks with his head.

[The_Demon]

Thomas Hearns

[sonnyboyx2]

For the love of god, why would I care about Mainstream Appeal?

As for Bert Sugar, he is an interesting guy but he ranks Moore ahead of Charles.

I don't care if I am in a minority. The majority are also the posters of NSB, or the people who vote on ESPN polls... so thanks, but no thanks.

I know about Burley and Hearns enough to not be swayed by others' judgment.

How about you try to talk about boxing instead of "majority vs hearsay" (not "here-say")? That would be more useful to convince me, or anyone who thinks with his head.

i can talk boxing all day long buddy...
Bert Sugar is a leading boxing historian who i am sure will also have seen both Hearns and Burley fight `live` Bert was also editor of the Ring Magazine and Boxing illustrated magazine which would have given him access to documentation of Burley`s fights that include ringside analysis from the magazines ringside writers, yet he does not rate Burley as great as Hearns just like the huge majority of Boxing fans who voted on the 2nd poll...

Looking at the fight record of Burley it is clear that most of his victories was against "Tomato-Cans" who had as many defeats as they did victories.. IMO he does not measure up to Hearns in any department it is also debatable if Burley could stand up to Hearns right-hand which was one of the most lethal punches in boxing history and savage enough to poleaxe Roberto Duran who had a chin of granite.

[wmute]

i can talk boxing all day long buddy...
Bert Sugar is a leading boxing historian who i am sure will also have seen both Hearns and Burley fight `live` Bert was also editor of the Ring Magazine and Boxing illustrated magazine which would have given him access to documentation of Burley`s fights that include ringside analysis from the magazines ringside writers, yet he does not rate Burley as great as Hearns just like the huge majority of Boxing fans who voted on the 2nd poll...

Looking at the fight record of Burley it is clear that most of his victories was against "Tomato-Cans" who had as many defeats as they did victories.. IMO he does not measure up to Hearns in any department it is also debatable if Burley could stand up to Hearns right-hand which was one of the most lethal punches in boxing history and savage enough to poleaxe Roberto Duran who had a chin of granite.

Bert Sugar can be the editor of the bible, and that does not change that looking at the list, one can already pick out a big mistake. Sugar rates Moore ahead of Charles. Charles is 3-0 against Moore, has a better record on a long list of common opposition, and they fought at similarweights throughout their careers. Guess what? There are more mistakes in the list.

As for the other list, the fact that it's motivated also by "Mainstream Appeal" is enought to not bother reading it.

If what you see looking at Burley's record are tomato cans, it's clear you have no knowledge of the day and age in which he fought, and who were the top fighters at welter, middle and lightheavy at the time. Burley has a better record than Hearns against the top fighters of their respective times. That's what there is to it. If you learn about the 40s, you will know.

As for the right hand, anything can happen in boxing, but if Burley was not stopped by anyone, and anyone includes Charles and Moore, who were stopping 175ers like there was no tomorrow, it's wishful thinking to think that Hearns would be the one to stop him, because let's remember that Hearns was not stopping any top fighter above 160.

[sonnyboyx2]

Bert Sugar can be the editor of the bible, and that does not change that looking at the list, one can already pick out a big mistake. Sugar rates Moore ahead of Charles. Charles is 3-0 against Moore, has a better record on a long list of common opposition, and they fought at similarweights throughout their careers. Guess what? There are more mistakes in the list.

As for the other list, the fact that it's motivated also by "Mainstream Appeal" is enought to not bother reading it.

If what you see looking at Burley's record are tomato cans, it's clear you have no knowledge of the day and age in which he fought, and who were the top fighters at welter, middle and lightheavy at the time. Burley has a better record than Hearns against the top fighters of their respective times. That's what there is to it. If you learn about the 40s, you will know.

As for the right hand, anything can happen in boxing, but if Burley was not stopped by anyone, and anyone includes Charles and Moore, who were stopping 175ers like there was no tomorrow, it's wishful thinking to think that Hearns would be the one to stop him, because let's remember that Hearns was not stopping any top fighter above 160.

Dennis Andries?

[wmute]

Dennis Andries?

Sigh...I guess you can qualify Andries as a top fighter.

The fact that you bring up Hearns' ONLY stoppage win against Andries, a good fighter, but far from great, really shows you have no idea of who Burley was fighting in the 40s, or the entire boxing scene.

Charles stopped among others Moore, Marshall and Bivins. Charles floored Jersey Joe Walcott. He could not stop Burley in 2 fights.

Moore has a record (or almost) for career knockouts. He knocked down a slew of people, including Marciano. He could not stop (or beat) Burley.

Both fighters were knocking out heavyweight contenders, and they could not stop Burley.

A more interesting question, is what makes you think that Hearns' chin and stamina would hold for 15 rounds against Burley?

[sonnyboyx2]

Sigh...I guess you can qualify Andries as a top fighter.

The fact that you bring up Hearns' ONLY stoppage win against Andries, a good fighter, but far from great, really shows you have no idea of who Burley was fighting in the 40s, or the entire boxing scene.

Charles stopped among others Moore, Marshall and Bivins. Charles floored Jersey Joe Walcott. He could not stop Burley in 2 fights.

Moore has a record (or almost) for career knockouts. He knocked down a slew of people, including Marciano. He could not stop (or beat) Burley.

Both fighters were knocking out heavyweight contenders, and they could not stop Burley.

A more interesting question, is what makes you think that Hearns' chin and stamina would hold for 15 rounds against Burley?

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