Charley Burley Or Thomas Hearns?

[wmute]

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 completely agree that Burley not getting his shots, makes him hard to gauge.

However in that era is particularly clear to me that some MW were fighting future MWs to LHWs champions and beating them. Those are not Zale and Graziano, but rather Burley, Williams, Moore, Marshall. I would pick Burley in an instant over Zale or Graziano (and I am Italian). Due to the frozen titles, race and so on, it is my opinion -induced by the results of actual fights- that the true top of the chain at 160 and around were the one not getting the title shots.

Going back to the comparison at hand, if we want to rank Hearns at 160. He went 3-2 in fights at the weight. Both losses coming by quick stoppage. He stayed at 160 from the Hagler (85) to the Barkley (88) fight, with a couple of ventures up and down. The division with the exception of Hagler was not exactly spectacular as it would be a couple of years later (McCallum, Benn, Eubank, Nunn, Kalambay, Toney). Burley had tougher competition (minus Hagler), and in his losses he always saw the final bell.

At 147 Hearns was very impressive to watch, but he did not beat the champ (Leonard), and has good (Cuevas), but not great wins. Burley went 2-1 with the champ (Zivic).

It is unclear to me wether Hearns' 154 run should be lumped for comparison to the one at 147 or to the one at 160. Afterall his two best wins came against fighters who did their best work at 47 and below.

All in all, I am perfectly conscious of the limits of ranking a fighter who never received a world title shot, but by looking at who beat who and how (which is my favorite way of judging fighters), I don't really hesitate in ranking Burley higher than Hearns.