Charley Burley Or Thomas Hearns?

[sonnyboyx2]

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.

Do you have a link or source for Moore saying Burley was the best he ever fought?.... if not, then a book page number where you read it..

[JAB5239]

Do you have a link or source for Moore saying Burley was the best he ever fought?.... if not, then a book page number where you read it..

Im not sure when Moore said it, but there is a bit on this in the book "Charley Burley and the black murderers row". The quote from Moore goes something to the effect, "People ask me who the greatest fighter I ever fought was. I tell them Rocky Marciano because that is what they want to hear. The truth is Charlet Burley gave me a boxing lesson when I was in my prime and he's the greatest fighter I ever fought". That isn't verbatim, but you get the gist of it.

[crold1]

Do you have a link or source for Moore saying Burley was the best he ever fought?.... if not, then a book page number where you read it..

I don't. I was answering to someone else who made the claim. I know Eddie Futch was quoted on it in Ring Magazine back in 91. It was in the issue previewing Mercer-Morrison with Foreman on the cover.

[GJC]

2 great fighters, i'd go with Hearns but I wouldn't put a huge amount of money on him head to head v Burley.
Burley was a great fighter but if you look at the murderers row and take Charles and Moore out as being a step above I don't neccessarily think that Burley stands out above Bivins, Marshall and Williams. Hearns I think could be in the mix as the best ever 154 and in his era only Leonard and Hagler could be said to be better at WW and MW and those 2 would be on many's top 20 p4p atg's.

[Poet682006]

2 great fighters, i'd go with Hearns but I wouldn't put a huge amount of money on him head to head v Burley.
Burley was a great fighter but if you look at the murderers row and take Charles and Moore out as being a step above I don't neccessarily think that Burley stands out above Bivins, Marshall and Williams. Hearns I think could be in the mix as the best ever 154 and in his era only Leonard and Hagler could be said to be better at WW and MW and those 2 would be on many's top 20 p4p atg's.

Honestly I'd favor Williams over Hearns.

Poet

[GJC]

Honestly I'd favor Williams over Hearns.

Poet

Hearns always did terrify me when I had a wager on him as he never looked comfortable taking a punch, only thing against Williams is did he had the power to keep Hearns honest. Lovely skill Williams but then Hearns was a skilled boxer, Hearns more power but Williams had a good chin. Be some fight for sure.
I do kind of lump those 4 together (Burley,Bivins,Williams,Marshall) as apart from one having an indian sign on another there wasn't much between them IMO.

[wmute]

2 great fighters, i'd go with Hearns but I wouldn't put a huge amount of money on him head to head v Burley.
Burley was a great fighter but if you look at the murderers row and take Charles and Moore out as being a step above I don't neccessarily think that Burley stands out above Bivins, Marshall and Williams. Hearns I think could be in the mix as the best ever 154 and in his era only Leonard and Hagler could be said to be better at WW and MW and those 2 would be on many's top 20 p4p atg's.

I slightly disagree with the statement. I think Burley and Williams deserve a little extra love, because they were hanging in with all those guys, while being smaller than them.

Hearns is one of the best ever at 154. However 154 did not exist back then. Too bad, because Burley or Williams might have gotten a shot if there was a less glamorous division around. You could apply similar arguments to Burley for 147 and 160. With the exception of Robinson, who could one decisevely rank ahead of Burley?

[GJC]

With the exception of Robinson, who could one decisevely rank ahead of Burley?

You make good points wmute but to turn question around slightly, given the strength @ MW especially in that era I couldn't decisively rank Burley above Cerdan, Williams, La Motta and Zale and Graziano would have good chance.
That said Hearns @ MW in that company would do well to keep his chin in.

I struggle with Burley a little, much as I respect the views of many who forward his case such as Futch, Archie Moore and you my friend, I have a niggling doubt that as good as he was his legend might have kept his lustre because he didn't get his shot?

Tricky one Burley, I do struggle with placing him and Harry Wills.

Not particularily arguing with you on Burley just more throwing a few thoughts into the mix.

[boxingbuff]

Talk about taking a fight on short notice.Burley was at work the day he was given notice he was fighting Archie Moore later that night.

Burley hops on a train and fights the great Archie Moore,dropping him twice and easily winning a UD.

[sonnyboyx2]

You make good points wmute but to turn question around slightly, given the strength @ MW especially in that era I couldn't decisively rank Burley above Cerdan, Williams, La Motta and Zale and Graziano would have good chance.
That said Hearns @ MW in that company would do well to keep his chin in.

I struggle with Burley a little, much as I respect the views of many who forward his case such as Futch, Archie Moore and you my friend, I have a niggling doubt that as good as he was his legend might have kept his lustre because he didn't get his shot?

Tricky one Burley, I do struggle with placing him and Harry Wills.

Not particularily arguing with you on Burley just more throwing a few thoughts into the mix.

i am of the same opinion as you are GJC from what i have seen of both Wills & Burley i cannot go along with this claim that they beat the likes of Robinson and Dempsey