Charley Burley Or Thomas Hearns?

[wmute]

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

Whenever you put things in my mouth that I did not say, that's trash, When you imply that I am making arguments I am not making that's trash.

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

Yes, your insistence on a fighter who was not stopped by two all time top 5 175ers being stopped by Hearns is rather ridiculous.

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

Digging your own grave here.

http://boxrec.com/media/index.php/Th...eweight--1940s
Befor fighting

Charles as high as #2
Moore as high as #1.

BEFORE 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...

Maybe then you should have a look at that footage.

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)...

Ooohhhh wow those were FOTYs I guess Gatti is better than both fighters then...

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)

Charles was already the number 2 rank MW. FACT
He did not stop Burley. FACT.

Hearns would have finished him off. Fanboy Speculation

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+

He has one stoppage over a decent opponent. Yes, he was not the puncher he was at 160 and below.

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"..

i don't need to google. How did Hearns break his hand? By punching. That's boxing. He lost in a fair fight. Deal with it.

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 ?

I am saying both fighters would have pushed harder on the gas had it been a 12 rounder. The outcome of a 12 round fight would not have been the scorecards truncated after 12 rounds, because both fighters would have fought different. You may be right that Hearns would have done better in a 12 rounder, even against a prime Leonard, and I would have loved to see that fight, just because the first one was so good, but it did not happen.

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..

I am not diminishing anything, just pointing out that the first loss was no fluke.

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.

No, Burley never grew much above 160, never campaigned himself above 160, but he sure fought bigger men. Burley was a 5'9" man who often fought against bigger guys and never got knocked out. Hearns was 6'1" with a big frame who was stopped by smaller guys.

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

It seems that you don't know much about the sport. Robinson, like most popular fighters rarely fought great black fighters, which did not bring much money to the table. That is why Moore, Charles and many others were ranked for years without getting their due shot.

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

See this is trash, you will not find the word blueprint in my post, and I never implied that's how Burley would beat Leonard. I just pointed out that Burley beat Zivic, hence his inside game is likely better than Leonard's who lost when he tried to fight on the inside with a top notch inside fighter.

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...

Trash again. I never claimed Burley beat Charles.

Hearns lost to Leonard and Hagler.

Burley lost to Charles and beat Moore.

Throw in Burley with Leonard and Hagler, and throw in Hearns with Charles and Moore.

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

"the boxing world" today ranks Pacquiao ahead of Ali, and only behind Robinson (recent poll). I don't give a damn about what the boxing world has to say.

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..

The probability that Hearns dispatched of Hagler in 3 rounds? close to zero.

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.

I don't buy into the hype. Burley being avoided because for being high risk/low reward has been confirmed by many sources.

Thanks for your suggestion, but I watched enough footage to make my claims confidently.

The most explosive fighters usually lose to more complete, smarter fighters. You can change explosive with fast, powerful. Basically anything that's not skills, smarts and dedication. That's why Leonard beat Hearns. That's usually the nature of the game. The top of ATG lists are mostly made of complete fighters who fought smart, and a had plan b. Fighters who could finish strong in championship rounds, whose chin would not let them down. Hearns is not one of those.

[sonnyboyx2]

Whenever you put things in my mouth that I did not say, that's trash, When you imply that I am making arguments I am not making that's trash.



Yes, your insistence on a fighter who was not stopped by two all time top 5 175ers being stopped by Hearns is rather ridiculous.




Digging your own grave here.

http://boxrec.com/media/index.php/Th...eweight--1940s
Befor fighting

Charles as high as #2
Moore as high as #1.

BEFORE they fought Burley.




Maybe then you should have a look at that footage.



Ooohhhh wow those were FOTYs I guess Gatti is better than both fighters then...




Charles was already the number 2 rank MW. FACT
He did not stop Burley. FACT.

Hearns would have finished him off. Fanboy Speculation



He has one stoppage over a decent opponent. Yes, he was not the puncher he was at 160 and below.



i don't need to google. How did Hearns break his hand? By punching. That's boxing. He lost in a fair fight. Deal with it.



I am saying both fighters would have pushed harder on the gas had it been a 12 rounder. The outcome of a 12 round fight would not have been the scorecards truncated after 12 rounds, because both fighters would have fought different. You may be right that Hearns would have done better in a 12 rounder, even against a prime Leonard, and I would have loved to see that fight, just because the first one was so good, but it did not happen.



I am not diminishing anything, just pointing out that the first loss was no fluke.



No, Burley never grew much above 160, never campaigned himself above 160, but he sure fought bigger men. Burley was a 5'9" man who often fought against bigger guys and never got knocked out. Hearns was 6'1" with a big frame who was stopped by smaller guys.





It seems that you don't know much about the sport. Robinson, like most popular fighters rarely fought great black fighters, which did not bring much money to the table. That is why Moore, Charles and many others were ranked for years without getting their due shot.



See this is trash, you will not find the word blueprint in my post, and I never implied that's how Burley would beat Leonard. I just pointed out that Burley beat Zivic, hence his inside game is likely better than Leonard's who lost when he tried to fight on the inside with a top notch inside fighter.



Trash again. I never claimed Burley beat Charles.

Hearns lost to Leonard and Hagler.

Burley lost to Charles and beat Moore.

Throw in Burley with Leonard and Hagler, and throw in Hearns with Charles and Moore.




"the boxing world" today ranks Pacquiao ahead of Ali, and only behind Robinson (recent poll). I don't give a damn about what the boxing world has to say.



The probability that Hearns dispatched of Hagler in 3 rounds? close to zero.



I don't buy into the hype. Burley being avoided because for being high risk/low reward has been confirmed by many sources.

Thanks for your suggestion, but I watched enough footage to make my claims confidently.

The most explosive fighters usually lose to more complete, smarter fighters. You can change explosive with fast, powerful. Basically anything that's not skills, smarts and dedication. That's why Leonard beat Hearns. That's usually the nature of the game. The top of ATG lists are mostly made of complete fighters who fought smart, and a had plan b. Fighters who could finish strong in championship rounds, whose chin would not let them down. Hearns is not one of those.

1/. Once again you are using Burleys "shut-out"points defeat to Ezzard Charles are the basis for your argument that he would beat Thomas Hearns at 154lbs

2/. Burley not being stopped by Moore & Charles at 154lbs yet getting stopped by Hearns at that weight is far from ridiculous.. Moore & Charles never KOd world class opposition at 154lbs like Hearns did... Hearns is rated as the greatest 154lb fighter of all times, not Moore, Burley or Charles... Moore & Charles greatest days was in the 175lb division.. there is no boxing list compilled by historians which rates Charley Burley as greater or higher ranked than Thomas Hearns is at 154lbs which is the weight Burley campaigned at his entire career.

3/. i have often viewed that footage and find it almost impossible to make a case for Burley against Hearns based on the footage.. we cannot go by anything other than that footage to make our claim.. at 154lbs Hearns left Roberto Duran unconciouss on the canvas in less than 2rds yet not Burley, Moore, Charles or any other Burley opponent rates anywhere near as great as Duran in the ATG lists or P4P lists..

4/. Are you claiming that the 2 Thomas Hearns FOTY bouts was inferior in anyway to any fight Charley Burley partisipated in... Ring Magazine FOTY have been chosen each year since the late 1920s yet Burley never got a mention in any of them, those fights are based on performance & quality of opposition.

5/. Charles did not stop Burley, BUT he completely dominated the guy which does not make a case for Burley being a greater fighter than Thomas Hearns which is what Your Topic question asks....Joe Bugner was not KOd by Muhammad Ali in 2 world title fights but that does not make Bugner a greater fighter than Lennox Lewis who was `poleaxed` twice by journeymen.

6/. you say" Hearns would have finished him off. Fanboy Speculation"...... No, its not fanboy speculation, it is based on greatness and what both fighters achieved during their career, Roberto Duran achieved much more than Charley Burley did during his career and was never KOd other than by Hearns, so my opinion that Hearns would have finished off Burley is far from being "Fanboy Speculation"

7/. Hearns has less KOs when fighting over 175lbs because he fought at those weights when well past his best and only a shell of the destructive fighting machine he was at the lower weight classes.

8/. to criticize Ray Leonards tactics against Hearns is trivial, it is clear that if a 12rd fight Hearns would have had the victory.. you are basing your argument on," Coulda, woulda, shoulda theories"..

9/. i never said Hearns first loss to Barkley was a `Fluke`

10/. you must show me the proof that Ray Robinson "Ducked" Burley, Moore, Charles and all the other great coloured fighters from that era..

11/. You never used the word `blue-print` but you did imply that Burley beating Zivic gave him an advantage at in-fighting over Ray Leonard, yet again i must disagree, Roberto Duran is viewed by most fight-fans as one of the greatest if not the greatest `in-fighter` of All time, yet Ray Leonard fought Duran at his own game in their first fight in Montreal and was unlucky not to get the nod.

12/. putting Hearns in with Charles or Moore is not what your Topic question asks, so it is completely irrelevant to this topic.. your Topic question is : "Who was the greater fighter between Burley & Hearns, not Hearns against a former Heavyweight champion or a guy who twice fought for the heavyweight title... but if it was at 154lbs Hearns against those two fighters i would have to dwell on it and make my choice, which again would be difficult.

13/. you say, ""the boxing world" today ranks Pacquiao ahead of Ali, and only behind Robinson (recent poll). I don't give a damn about what the boxing world has to say.

it would be difficult based on achievements and P4P ranking for me not to agree with that `boxing world`poll, and should Pacquiao defeat Floyd Mayweather later this year then i would almost certainly rate Pacquiao as the greatest fighter of all time.

14/. you say, "The probability that Hearns dispatched of Hagler in 3 rounds? close to zero.

Once again i must say to you, go back and watch that fight, early in the 3rd round referee Richard Steele stops the action and take Hagler over to the neutral corner to be examined by the ring doctor such is the damage to Haglers face... Hearns fought on the back foot using boxing skills in rounds 2 & 3 after breaking his famous right-hand in the opening round, if not for breaking that hand i am sure Hearns would have continued his assault on Hagler in the same manner in which he continued it against Roberto Duran in their fight.... so the probability is nowhere near to zero.

You say that in your opinion explosive means,`fast, powerful. Basically anything that's not skills, smarts and dedication. ...... To claim that Thomas Hearns lacked those attributes is simply bordering in bazaar and not true.

you say that, "The top of ATG lists are mostly made of complete fighters who fought smart, and a had plan b. Fighters who could finish strong in championship rounds, whose chin would not let them down. Hearns is not one of those..... Yet on every list on the WWW you will never see Charley Burley ranked as "Greater than Thomas Hearns". so the answer to your Topic question must & should be that Thomas Hearns is the greater of the 2 fighters.

[wmute]

This is a sign... The post was too long

1. No, I am not.

I am using the fact that if Burley lost a shutout (incorrect because none of those fights was scored 10-0) in which he had to get up from the canvas to CHARLES, he would not get knocked out by HEARNS even if Hearns was to win the fight.


2. sigh... 154 did not exist until the 60s.


3. Basing your opinion on footage only, is not a fair evaluation. There is written evidence. If you can use only footage, then every modern fighter would be ranked higher than any oldtimer.

Charles not only ranks close to Duran in p4p terms, but also happen to be the greatest at 175, not at 135. Moore ranks well below, but he was a much bigger fighter than Duran was. p4p rankings are interesting, but they are called p4p for a reason. Burley was fighting bigger young all time greats. Hearns was fighting a past his prime smaller all time great who has a higher p4p ranking.

Now, since I am tired of you climbing on glass with all of this, why don't you try to talk about boxing too, and you tell me what you saw in Burley video which makes you think that Hearns catches him and sparks him? This I would be interested in.


4. Based on quality of opposition like Gatti-Ward?


5. No, for the 100th time, I use the Burley's losses to Charles to point out the fact that Hearns is not very likely to stop Burley.


6. Roberto Duran achieved a lot more than Burley at 135-147, was knocked down by lightweights, had quit in the middle of a fight, and was past his best weight and best days when he was stopped by Hearns.



7. No, like almost everyone else, he has less KOs because he was fighting bigger men.


8. LOL, you are the one doing a coulda woulda argument, the only clear fact is that when Hearns and Leonard fought in their primes, Hearns got KTFO


9. Then why were you making excuses for it?


10. You need to learn how to read. I said Robinson and other champs avoided black fighters. The rest of the black murderer's row fought at 60 in a time in which Robinson was at 47, so technically Robinson only had to make sure he did not fight Burley. Just look at the link I sent for other champs and names. (To partial excuse for some cases, titles were frozen during WW2)

Robinson did not want to fight Burley (I leave the word duck to people who know less about the sport), because he did not bring money. He was quoted as saying things like "I am too pretty to fight Burley", but I think that does not mean a thing. What I put some weight on is the more than one source agrees on Robinson pulling out during negotiations for the fight. Obviously for a fighter who was fighting 10 times a year against varying level of opposition, the issue was more the risk than the money.


11. "unlucky to get the nod." sorry, but this is more fanboy talk. Leonard knew he lost when the bell rang. Duran knew he won. If Leonard got the nod, it would have been a robbery.

Leonard got beat by Duran on the inside. Burley was beating Zivic, who was also one of the greatest inside fighters.


12. I did not start the topic. so it's not my question. That is what I refer to as "typing trash".


13. You would then be agreeing with the mass on NSB and disagreeing with the "experts" that you like to quote.

14. Except he would keep on getting worked while he continued his assault. There is a reason why no one assaulted Hagler. Duran had already been knocked down as a lightweight, so stopping old Duran does not imply you can stop a slightly past his absolute peak Hagler.

Facts say Hagler was never stopped or hurt in his career, and in their fight Hearns got sparked in 3.

You say that in your opinion explosive means,`fast, powerful. Basically anything that's not skills, smarts and dedication. ...... To claim that Thomas Hearns lacked those attributes is simply bordering in bazaar and not true.

you say that, "The top of ATG lists are mostly made of complete fighters who fought smart, and a had plan b. Fighters who could finish strong in championship rounds, whose chin would not let them down. Hearns is not one of those..... Yet on every list on the WWW you will never see Charley Burley ranked as "Greater than Thomas Hearns". so the answer to your Topic question must & should be that Thomas Hearns is the greater of the 2 fighters.

I might not have explained myself but what I meant is the following.

You can put fast or powerful instead of explosive in that sentence and it still hold true: Complete, smart fighters are the best, not the fastest most powerful or most explosive. Hearns was neither. Burley was both. Hearns game was not as well rounded. Talentwise he had great attributes (speed and power), a few relative shortcomings (stamina and chin). Skillwise it's the same. great outside game, not so great inside game. Most importantly, his ring generalship was not on par with the rest, he let himself go to place he did not want to be in.

you keep mentioning this WWW lists (which I noted never put Hearns at the top, but the reason you don't see Burley is because the person who wrote the list more often than not does not know Burley, or the list is based on "recognition", "belts won" and other stuff), yet you started your arguments a few post ago, saying we should not care that Eddie Futch ranks Burley as the best fighter he has ever seen. Why should I care more about Bert Sugar than about Eddie Futch?

Now, please, I really don't give a **** about your ranking of Burley in a division which did not exist when he was fighting or your fantasies about Hearns winning fights he lost. So drop it, and let's talk boxing. What in the footage makes you think Hearns sparks Burley? This is interesting and more worth discussing.

[wmute]

LOL, I just noticed you changed numbers in between your posts, dropping the points in which you had no reply (like the MW rankings of Moore and Charles). That's on the pathetic side of arguing...

[sonnyboyx2]

LOL, I just noticed you changed numbers in between your posts, dropping the points in which you had no reply (like the MW rankings of Moore and Charles). That's on the pathetic side of arguing...

if you insist on me numbering my points for you, i am cool with that..

[sonnyboyx2]

its pointless going back and forth with you over and over again because you have your opinion and i have mine and we are not going to alter eachothers opinion...so on the question you asked me, of what i seen by watching Burley fight that made me think Hearns would beat him... IMO Burley looked `nothing special`he looked slow and threw one punch at a time, he did not put combos together which is needed to beat Hearns, Burley certainly never had the speed of Ray Leonard and that speed that Leonard had is what is needed to beat Hearns.. sorry but Burley did not have it... Burley was more of a clubbing puncher than a fast snapping puncher and its easy to see how fighters with fast hands like Charles & Williams was able to beat him quite easily.

[B]Question for you - What footage of Charley Burley have you seen, who was Burley fighting and how long was that footage in minutes

[wmute]

its pointless going back and forth with you over and over again because you have your opinion and i have mine and we are not going to alter eachothers opinion...so on the question you asked me, of what i seen by watching Burley fight that made me think Hearns would beat him... IMO Burley looked `nothing special`he looked slow and threw one punch at a time, he did not put combos together which is needed to beat Hearns, Burley certainly never had the speed of Ray Leonard and that speed that Leonard had is what is needed to beat Hearns.. sorry but Burley did not have it... Burley was more of a clubbing puncher than a fast snapping puncher and its easy to see how fighters with fast hands like Charles & Williams was able to beat him quite easily.

[B]Question for you - What footage of Charley Burley have you seen, who was Burley fighting and how long was that footage in minutes

All this time my question was not what you saw which make you think Hearns beats Burley, that is of course possible, as Hearns stands some chance against basically any welter. My question was what makes you think he would stop him?

I have a long video, which is probably against oakland billy smith fight. cple gave me the link to download it a long while ago, so I don't remember, but I can check when I get home. The lack of audio and poor vid quality make it a not so enjoyable watch. I have more recently seen some nicely made highlights. I am pretty sure that a while ago the Smith fight was believede to be the only footage available.

From what I remember, the only point with which I agree is the lack of combination punching. I don't recall seeing a clubbing slow puncher. I think I see a fast handed, accurate counter puncher, with a slightly awkward style and some very smooth moves both in attack and defense. I think I remember very nice counterpunching to the body. The kind of blows Hearns did not appreciate. But let's say that the fight gets to a point in which Burley cannot get in range to do damage. He seemed to have all the savvy needed to stay out of trouble, and based on the first Charles fight I would say the whiskers to get up if something goes wrong. So I really don't see a how a potential Hearns W could come by a way of stoppage.

[boxingbuff]

Burley beat and knocked down Archie Moore twice.

Burley took this fight on short notice.

Archie Moore said Burley was the best fighter he ever fought.Hmmmmm.....That would include Muhammad Ali and Rocky Marciano.

[crold1]

Burley beat and knocked down Archie Moore twice.

Burley took this fight on short notice.

Archie Moore said Burley was the best fighter he ever fought.Hmmmmm.....That would include Muhammad Ali and Rocky Marciano.

Moore also took the fight on short notice. That was pretty much the norm then for lots of guys. Saying he was the best he fought is high praise...but it's not necessarily true. Charles was better than Moore or Burley (by quite a bit in his prime) but Moore may have been speaking from a perspective of who he struggled more with.

I'm also of the opinion Burley has become slightly overrated in some circles. Ring recently had him #4 All-Time at Welter which makes about no sense at all. Hearns stopping anyone from Welter to Middle is possible but given his range, and the methodical approach of Burley (in the limited video and accounts), victory by decision (if he could beat Burley at all) seems more likely.

Burley being avoided is a mixed bag. Robinson not fighting him, at Middleweight, while still a skinny Welter in his first couple years as a pro is not that big a deal. Zale and Cochrane froze the titles at 47 and 60 during the war so Burley wasn't the only one short on opportunity. He also was variably entertaining in a mass appeal way which mattered A LOT then.

Burley is a fighter who would have translated better today. He could hire Al Haymon, bore people, and get overpaid for selling empty seats on HBO in a split second.

[wmute]

Moore also took the fight on short notice. That was pretty much the norm then for lots of guys. Saying he was the best he fought is high praise...but it's not necessarily true. Charles was better than Moore or Burley (by quite a bit in his prime) but Moore may have been speaking from a perspective of who he struggled more with.

I'm also of the opinion Burley has become slightly overrated in some circles. Ring recently had him #4 All-Time at Welter which makes about no sense at all. Hearns stopping anyone from Welter to Middle is possible but given his range, and the methodical approach of Burley (in the limited video and accounts), victory by decision (if he could beat Burley at all) seems more likely.

Burley being avoided is a mixed bag. Robinson not fighting him, at Middleweight, while still a skinny Welter in his first couple years as a pro is not that big a deal. Zale and Cochrane froze the titles at 47 and 60 during the war so Burley wasn't the only one short on opportunity. He also was variably entertaining in a mass appeal way which mattered A LOT then.

Burley is a fighter who would have translated better today. He could hire Al Haymon, bore people, and get overpaid for selling empty seats on HBO in a split second.

Moore might have said that as a hyperbole to promote the image of then little known Burley, to push for him to get some of the credit he deserves. Or he might have meant the best considering size. I think it's the first one, though. As highly as I think of Burley it's hard to think that he could have been better than Charles and Ali.

Who rated Burley at #4 welter? That's too high IMO. It's true that some great welters were smaller men who moved up, and maybe the list was intended to include head to head matchups. In which case it's a bit more understandable to rank high a bigger welter who campaigned with large success at middle. Still #4 is to high.

wrt Robinson. Robinson systematically fought bigger guys, if they were bringing a large fanbase (La Motta, who was bigger than Burley), or if they posed no danger (the non-important fights everyone occasionally at the time). Burley was dangerous, could fight negative and did not bring much fans. Hence Robinson had no interest. I think it's incorrect to say that the fight could have happened only in Robinson's first two years as a pro. I think that it's more correct to say that the fight could have happened until Ray fought for the 147 title.

The champ who did a spectacular "avoiding" job of Burley is Zivic, who lost 2 in a series of 3 against a Burley, mysteriously being the one awarded the title shot, and whose manager bought Burley's contract and kept it all through Fritzie's reign.

I doubt Burley could be successful as you say in the modern age, because he did not talk any trash.