Welter Robinson vs Mayweather

[The Old LefHook]

I would say around 1944.

That would be not long after the exciting Burley had a fight with Holman Williams stopped for lack of action. That does not place him high on the list of hot prospects.

Weight-wise, they were always a near match and could have fought anytime. As I said earlier, the only duckage I would be concerned with is one where I felt Robinson was too intimidated to fight Burley or was not responding to significant public pressure. Not only was there no money in Burley, a win over him would have done little for Robinson's chances at the welterweight crown, which he was in hot pursuit of.

Not much in the way of common opponents. Robinson did a bit better against Zivic, even managing to knock him out once. Burley won two decisions over Zivic and lost one. Burley's draw with Abrams (a guy Robinson handled twice) comes with a footnote explaining Burley could have been awarded the decision.

It would be great to know how Burley would have fared against Jose Basora, or how Robinson would have done against a 161 lbs. Archie Moore or the 160 lbs. version of Ezzard Charles. I think Ray might have handled that version of slow Arch, too, if not any version. Ezzard is another matter. I know that Charles was a rabid tiger at the lower weights and he might have handled Ray the way he handled Burley. We will never know.

Was Burley as great as some say? We will never know that either. Papa smurf called him the finest fighter he ever saw. Really? So what? Smurf also claimed Mosely was already one of the greats of all time, comparing to anyone. This was right before Mosely had his butt handed to him twice by Forrest and the likes of van Winky Wright. Back to the drawing board, smurf, you were dead wrong. Mosely was not an all time great. He has no seat at first table in the Hall Of The Greats. I believe Burley or Robinson would have beaten poor Mosley to jelly. Shane was a good fighter for his era.

A fight between Robinson and Burley was feasible I suppose. I fail to see what Robinson's compelling reasons for making that fight would have been. Not money and not advancement in the rankings, not as a response to a large contingency (which did not exist) calling for a Burley fight, and not because Burley had smashed anyone Robinson had barely gotten by. A smashing of Jose Basora at the right time would have been a big move in the chess game.

If Burley was chasing Robinson why did he not seek out opponents Robinson had a hard time with, why did he not in a timely manner hunt down Ray's tougher opponents and do better against them, to press his case? Was it because he could not get a fight with them either? Maybe. The era was still racist. Basora was a black Puerto Rican, he probably would have fought Burley. Why not fight him right after he held Robinson to a draw to get attention and cause some talk of avoidance?

Avoiding what? Robinson was not even close to a champion yet in 1944. He did not become a champion until 11 days before 1947! This would have to be a case of a contender avoiding a non-contender, unless Burley was ranked as a welterweight too. I don't know if he was or not. But it might make the case for avoidance a little stronger if he was.

Now the big question. Was Burley even chasing the mere contender Robinson? Only magazine articles from the time in question have a chance of answering the query. Any article written in say 1967 would have been written 20-25 years after the fact. An article from that period might be nothing more than historical revisionism.

I do not know how far back Sonny's big collection goes. But here is the assurance ol' Lefhook can give you: if Sonny has something, he will use it to try and mash ol' Hook. He might say: Why, that ol' Lefhook is not important enough to me to even look through my massive archives. But don't you believe that. He wants me in the woodshed if not on a train platform, and this would be his perfect opportunity.

Is Robinson Afraid of Burley? What a cover that would make, and what an *ss whipping for ol' Hook. Notice, though, that the operative word is is, not was. Right now like a mole he is tunneling through old stacks of boxing mags, dusty and piled dangerously high. If one falls, we may never hear from him again. I saw an episode of Hoarders where even cadaver dogs twice failed to locate the body of the homeowner, whose shoe tips were eventually spotted under a wanton stack of haphazard miscellany.

I write extensively of this avoidance issue again because I am always willing to be corrected by the right evidence. Anytime is the best time for dispelling myths or affirming their reality. Maybe this one isn't over yet. Sonny is not the sole archivist on this site. Joeandthebums seems to have some kind of access, among others. We have been here before, so if any of these boys have hard evidence, they sure are reluctant to draw their guns.

The guys Burely was beating were not legends at the time. When he beat Moore in 1944, Moore was years removed from becoming a legend. Moore was nothing but Shinola in 1944. That wouldn't make anyone call for a fight with the young contender Robinson. The press and public normally call out champions on this issue, not contenders who are actively knocking off good fighters left and right.

Proof is impossible, but if someone supplies the good, hard evidence I have suggested, then I will take my *ss whipping gracefully.

Over and out.

[Caught Square]

That would be not long after the exciting Burley had a fight with Holman Williams stopped for lack of action. That does not place him high on the list of hot prospects.

Weight-wise, they were always a near match and could have fought anytime. As I said earlier, the only duckage I would be concerned with is one where I felt Robinson was too intimidated to fight Burley or was not responding to significant public pressure. Not only was there no money in Burley, a win over him would have done little for Robinson's chances at the welterweight crown, which he was in hot pursuit of.

Not much in the way of common opponents. Robinson did a bit better against Zivic, even managing to knock him out once. Burley won two decisions over Zivic and lost one. Burley's draw with Abrams (a guy Robinson handled twice) comes with a footnote explaining Burley could have been awarded the decision.

It would be great to know how Burley would have fared against Jose Basora, or how Robinson would have done against a 161 lbs. Archie Moore or the 160 lbs. version of Ezzard Charles. I think Ray might have handled that version of slow Arch, too, if not any version. Ezzard is another matter. I know that Charles was a rabid tiger at the lower weights and he might have handled Ray the way he handled Burley. We will never know.

Was Burley as great as some say? We will never know that either. Papa smurf called him the finest fighter he ever saw. Really? So what? Smurf also claimed Mosely was already one of the greats of all time, comparing to anyone. This was right before Mosely had his butt handed to him twice by Forrest and the likes of van Winky Wright. Back to the drawing board, smurf, you were dead wrong. Mosely was not an all time great. He has no seat at first table in the Hall Of The Greats. I believe Burley or Robinson would have beaten poor Mosley to jelly. Shane was a good fighter for his era.

A fight between Robinson and Burley was feasible I suppose. I fail to see what Robinson's compelling reasons for making that fight would have been. Not money and not advancement in the rankings, not as a response to a large contingency (which did not exist) calling for a Burley fight, and not because Burley had smashed anyone Robinson had barely gotten by. A smashing of Jose Basora at the right time would have been a big move in the chess game.

If Burley was chasing Robinson why did he not seek out opponents Robinson had a hard time with, why did he not in a timely manner hunt down Ray's tougher opponents and do better against them, to press his case? Was it because he could not get a fight with them either? Maybe. The era was still racist. Basora was a black Puerto Rican, he probably would have fought Burley. Why not fight him right after he held Robinson to a draw to get attention and cause some talk of avoidance?

Avoiding what? Robinson was not even close to a champion yet in 1944. He did not become a champion until 11 days before 1947! This would have to be a case of a contender avoiding a non-contender, unless Burley was ranked as a welterweight too. I don't know if he was or not. But it might make the case for avoidance a little stronger if he was.

Now the big question. Was Burley even chasing the mere contender Robinson? Only magazine articles from the time in question have a chance of answering the query. Any article written in say 1967 would have been written 20-25 years after the fact. An article from that period might be nothing more than historical revisionism.

I do not know how far back Sonny's big collection goes. But here is the assurance ol' Lefhook can give you: if Sonny has something, he will use it to try and mash ol' Hook. He might say: Why, that ol' Lefhook is not important enough to me to even look through my massive archives. But don't you believe that. He wants me in the woodshed if not on a train platform, and this would be his perfect opportunity.

Is Robinson Afraid of Burley? What a cover that would make, and what an *ss whipping for ol' Hook. Notice, though, that the operative word is is, not was. Right now like a mole he is tunneling through old stacks of boxing mags, dusty and piled dangerously high. If one falls, we may never hear from him again. I saw an episode of Hoarders where even cadaver dogs twice failed to locate the body of the homeowner, whose shoe tips were eventually spotted under a wanton stack of haphazard miscellany.

I write extensively of this avoidance issue again because I am always willing to be corrected by the right evidence. Anytime is the best time for dispelling myths or affirming their reality. Maybe this one isn't over yet. Sonny is not the sole archivist on this site. Joeandthebums seems to have some kind of access, among others. We have been here before, so if any of these boys have hard evidence, they sure are reluctant to draw their guns.

The guys Burely was beating were not legends at the time. When he beat Moore in 1944, Moore was years removed from becoming a legend. Moore was nothing but Shinola in 1944. That wouldn't make anyone call for a fight with the young contender Robinson. The press and public normally call out champions on this issue, not contenders who are actively knocking off good fighters left and right.

Proof is impossible, but if someone supplies the good, hard evidence I have suggested, then I will take my *ss whipping gracefully.

Over and out.

Funny how the goalposts are slowly moving over now. At first it was just the weight but now all these other excuses are flowing in:

1)Burley wasn't exciting enough... sounds almost like when fighters duck/fans make excuses not to fight a guy like Rigo or Lara.

2)He should of fought common Ray opponents

3)Beating Burley wouldn't have helped his chances at the welterweight crown.

The first two will just be back and fourth but the third excuse is very interesting. You also mentioned about how Burley wasn't ranked at welterweight at the time, which is true but also a hilarious backfire at defending Robinson. Once again, it exposes the CLEAR DOUBLE STANDARD.

First of all as you said Robinson didn't win the welterweight crown until nearly 1947 anyway so beating Burley in 1944 wouldn't exactly of harmed his pursuit of the title. Even more importantly....

Robinson fought Dellicurti in 1944, who was ranked top 10 at middleweight but NOT at welterweight ... so beating Burley would have done little for his chances at the welterweight crown but beating a guy who is ranked lower than Burley at middleweight will give him a better chance at winning the Welterweight crown (which he didn't win for another 2 years), ah I see.

This is pretty much the main reason I consider it a duck, you can fight guys weighing as middleweights like Lamotta and Dellicurti but not Burley? C'mon man. Money may well have been partly the issue (or another convinient excuse) as I acknowledged in a previous response to someone else but my reason for replying to you was because I simply don't buy that the weight was the key issue. Funnily enough you're now using these different reasons and saying they were near weight-wise whereas before it came across differently.

One last thing, I do consider Robinson the GOAT and I understand almost everyone has at least one or two fights that should've happened but didn't. That said, I don't think a fighter should be given a pass for a duck regardless of how great their career was.

In other words: 'no one is above criticism, no one is below praise'.

[The Old LefHook]

Funny how the goalposts are slowly moving over now. At first it was just the weight but now all these other excuses are flowing in:

1)Burley wasn't exciting enough... sounds almost like when fighters duck/fans make excuses not to fight a guy like Rigo or Lara.

2)He should of fought common Ray opponents

3)Beating Burley wouldn't have helped his chances at the welterweight crown.

The first two will just be back and fourth but the third excuse is very interesting. You also mentioned about how Burley wasn't ranked at welterweight at the time, which is true but also a hilarious backfire at defending Robinson. Once again, it exposes the CLEAR DOUBLE STANDARD.

First of all as you said Robinson didn't win the welterweight crown until nearly 1947 anyway so beating Burley in 1944 wouldn't exactly of harmed his pursuit of the title. Even more importantly....

Robinson fought Dellicurti in 1944, who was ranked top 10 at middleweight but NOT at welterweight ... so beating Burley would have done little for his chances at the welterweight crown but beating a guy who is ranked lower than Burley at middleweight will give him a better chance at winning the Welterweight crown (which he didn't win for another 2 years), ah I see.

This is pretty much the main reason I consider it a duck, you can fight guys weighing as middleweights like Lamotta and Dellicurti but not Burley? C'mon man. Money may well have been partly the issue (or another convinient excuse) as I acknowledged in a previous response to someone else but my reason for replying to you was because I simply don't buy that the weight was the key issue. Funnily enough you're now using these different reasons and saying they were near weight-wise whereas before it came across differently.

One last thing, I do consider Robinson the GOAT and I understand almost everyone has at least one or two fights that should've happened but didn't. That said, I don't think a fighter should be given a pass for a duck regardless of how great their career was.

In other words: 'no one is above criticism, no one is below praise'.

But you have nothing in the way of evidence, mister, that is the problem here. I may as well be the one to tell you. And, yes, you are still insisting that since Robinson fought over-the-limit matches with some, he must now fight them with all or be guilty of avoidance. Despite your protestations, there is no other way to interpret this.

Besides not even being champion yet, you insist he was ducking Burley. Besides there being no call for the fight that anyone can provide, he was ducking Burley. Besides Burely not even being rated or recognized widely at the time as a great fighter, you insist Robinson was ducking him. Such information is treated by you as "excuses."

What I can't figure out is why you are not including Holman and the rest of so called murderers row in your prosecution, since exactly the same applies to them. Or is it just Burley that you represent? Hmmm...curious.

Weight was not the key issue. You know why? Because there was no issue, friend, until people made one up years later..

I am becoming more convinced that this avoidance argument is a latter day invention of creative journalists.

Oh, wait, I get it. You have hard evidence but want me to commit further to my proposition before lowering the boom. Okay, son, lower the boom. I am ready. Kill me now.

[billeau2]

That would be not long after the exciting Burley had a fight with Holman Williams stopped for lack of action. That does not place him high on the list of hot prospects.

Weight-wise, they were always a near match and could have fought anytime. As I said earlier, the only duckage I would be concerned with is one where I felt Robinson was too intimidated to fight Burley or was not responding to significant public pressure. Not only was there no money in Burley, a win over him would have done little for Robinson's chances at the welterweight crown, which he was in hot pursuit of.

Not much in the way of common opponents. Robinson did a bit better against Zivic, even managing to knock him out once. Burley won two decisions over Zivic and lost one. Burley's draw with Abrams (a guy Robinson handled twice) comes with a footnote explaining Burley could have been awarded the decision.

It would be great to know how Burley would have fared against Jose Basora, or how Robinson would have done against a 161 lbs. Archie Moore or the 160 lbs. version of Ezzard Charles. I think Ray might have handled that version of slow Arch, too, if not any version. Ezzard is another matter. I know that Charles was a rabid tiger at the lower weights and he might have handled Ray the way he handled Burley. We will never know.

Was Burley as great as some say? We will never know that either. Papa smurf called him the finest fighter he ever saw. Really? So what? Smurf also claimed Mosely was already one of the greats of all time, comparing to anyone. This was right before Mosely had his butt handed to him twice by Forrest and the likes of van Winky Wright. Back to the drawing board, smurf, you were dead wrong. Mosely was not an all time great. He has no seat at first table in the Hall Of The Greats. I believe Burley or Robinson would have beaten poor Mosley to jelly. Shane was a good fighter for his era.

A fight between Robinson and Burley was feasible I suppose. I fail to see what Robinson's compelling reasons for making that fight would have been. Not money and not advancement in the rankings, not as a response to a large contingency (which did not exist) calling for a Burley fight, and not because Burley had smashed anyone Robinson had barely gotten by. A smashing of Jose Basora at the right time would have been a big move in the chess game.

If Burley was chasing Robinson why did he not seek out opponents Robinson had a hard time with, why did he not in a timely manner hunt down Ray's tougher opponents and do better against them, to press his case? Was it because he could not get a fight with them either? Maybe. The era was still racist. Basora was a black Puerto Rican, he probably would have fought Burley. Why not fight him right after he held Robinson to a draw to get attention and cause some talk of avoidance?

Avoiding what? Robinson was not even close to a champion yet in 1944. He did not become a champion until 11 days before 1947! This would have to be a case of a contender avoiding a non-contender, unless Burley was ranked as a welterweight too. I don't know if he was or not. But it might make the case for avoidance a little stronger if he was.

Now the big question. Was Burley even chasing the mere contender Robinson? Only magazine articles from the time in question have a chance of answering the query. Any article written in say 1967 would have been written 20-25 years after the fact. An article from that period might be nothing more than historical revisionism.

I do not know how far back Sonny's big collection goes. But here is the assurance ol' Lefhook can give you: if Sonny has something, he will use it to try and mash ol' Hook. He might say: Why, that ol' Lefhook is not important enough to me to even look through my massive archives. But don't you believe that. He wants me in the woodshed if not on a train platform, and this would be his perfect opportunity.

Is Robinson Afraid of Burley? What a cover that would make, and what an *ss whipping for ol' Hook. Notice, though, that the operative word is is, not was. Right now like a mole he is tunneling through old stacks of boxing mags, dusty and piled dangerously high. If one falls, we may never hear from him again. I saw an episode of Hoarders where even cadaver dogs twice failed to locate the body of the homeowner, whose shoe tips were eventually spotted under a wanton stack of haphazard miscellany.

I write extensively of this avoidance issue again because I am always willing to be corrected by the right evidence. Anytime is the best time for dispelling myths or affirming their reality. Maybe this one isn't over yet. Sonny is not the sole archivist on this site. Joeandthebums seems to have some kind of access, among others. We have been here before, so if any of these boys have hard evidence, they sure are reluctant to draw their guns.

The guys Burely was beating were not legends at the time. When he beat Moore in 1944, Moore was years removed from becoming a legend. Moore was nothing but Shinola in 1944. That wouldn't make anyone call for a fight with the young contender Robinson. The press and public normally call out champions on this issue, not contenders who are actively knocking off good fighters left and right.

Proof is impossible, but if someone supplies the good, hard evidence I have suggested, then I will take my *ss whipping gracefully.

Over and out.

Great post...for what it is worth....probably not train fare these days, your understanding of the Burley Robinson scenerio trumped mine, and if there is one thing I never want to do, it is to repeat things that are unsubstantiated. Yes light will be shed on this and it should be because both guys were incredible fighters.

[billeau2]

Funny how the goalposts are slowly moving over now. At first it was just the weight but now all these other excuses are flowing in:

1)Burley wasn't exciting enough... sounds almost like when fighters duck/fans make excuses not to fight a guy like Rigo or Lara.

2)He should of fought common Ray opponents

3)Beating Burley wouldn't have helped his chances at the welterweight crown.

The first two will just be back and fourth but the third excuse is very interesting. You also mentioned about how Burley wasn't ranked at welterweight at the time, which is true but also a hilarious backfire at defending Robinson. Once again, it exposes the CLEAR DOUBLE STANDARD.

First of all as you said Robinson didn't win the welterweight crown until nearly 1947 anyway so beating Burley in 1944 wouldn't exactly of harmed his pursuit of the title. Even more importantly....

Robinson fought Dellicurti in 1944, who was ranked top 10 at middleweight but NOT at welterweight ... so beating Burley would have done little for his chances at the welterweight crown but beating a guy who is ranked lower than Burley at middleweight will give him a better chance at winning the Welterweight crown (which he didn't win for another 2 years), ah I see.

This is pretty much the main reason I consider it a duck, you can fight guys weighing as middleweights like Lamotta and Dellicurti but not Burley? C'mon man. Money may well have been partly the issue (or another convinient excuse) as I acknowledged in a previous response to someone else but my reason for replying to you was because I simply don't buy that the weight was the key issue. Funnily enough you're now using these different reasons and saying they were near weight-wise whereas before it came across differently.

One last thing, I do consider Robinson the GOAT and I understand almost everyone has at least one or two fights that should've happened but didn't. That said, I don't think a fighter should be given a pass for a duck regardless of how great their career was.

In other words: 'no one is above criticism, no one is below praise'.

I don't know....it seems that Lefty was giving you reasons why avoiding this fight wouldn't be a duck and under those conditions the more "excuses" the better. I imagine at some point Robinson's management came up with these reasons why Burley was not a good opponent. I wouldn't consider this ducking, just reasons why a particular opponent was not a good idea.

The point you make about who Robinson fought instead is a good one, but a lot of things determine a fight, and there may well have been logistical reasons why another opponent was picked.

I had heard that when Burley was proposed to Robinson's people they had made it clear that Burley was to be avoided....but evidence is the best indicator and when we say a fighter "ducked" someone there should be fairly compelling reasons for such an assertion.

Burley was definitely avoided by a lot of fighters...he made so many guys look like amateurs and was talented enough to always be a live wire...just ask the ghost of Archie Moore!

[Caught Square]

But you have nothing in the way of evidence, mister, that is the problem here. I may as well be the one to tell you. And, yes, you are still insisting that since Robinson fought over-the-limit matches with some, he must now fight them with all or be guilty of avoidance. Despite your protestations, there is no other way to interpret this.

Besides not even being champion yet, you insist he was ducking Burley. Besides there being no call for the fight that anyone can provide, he was ducking Burley. Besides Burely not even being rated or recognized widely at the time as a great fighter, you insist Robinson was ducking him. Such information is treated by you as "excuses."

What I can't figure out is why you are not including Holman and the rest of so called murderers row in your prosecution, since exactly the same applies to them. Or is it just Burley that you represent? Hmmm...curious.

Weight was not the key issue. You know why? Because there was no issue, friend, until people made one up years later..

I am becoming more convinced that this avoidance argument is a latter day invention of creative journalists.

Oh, wait, I get it. You have hard evidence but want me to commit further to my proposition before lowering the boom. Okay, son, lower the boom. I am ready. Kill me now.

I call them excuses because that's what they seem like to me. If the reasons such as money, lack of demand, boring style were key reasons then why didn't you mention that in your original reply to Billeau that I responded to? You only talked about weight in that but it's in the last few responses you've brought all this other stuff into it, had to dig deeper than you expected eh?

I didn't say he had to fight to fight every guy over the limit or be accused of avoidance. I said that it's a clear double standard to imply Robinson-Burley wasn't realistic due to the weight when he fought Lamotta in similar circumstances. The replies are there for everyone to see.

Why does Robinson not being champion mean it's not a duck? that's ridiculous. You don't have to be champ to duck someone.

It's not hard to figure out why I didn't bring up Williams and others, I responded to your post about Burley which didn't mention any others.

I truly believe Robinson gets a pass for this due to him being GOAT and people feeling like his legacy can't be questioned at all.

[Caught Square]

I don't know....it seems that Lefty was giving you reasons why avoiding this fight wouldn't be a duck and under those conditions the more "excuses" the better. I imagine at some point Robinson's management came up with these reasons why Burley was not a good opponent. I wouldn't consider this ducking, just reasons why a particular opponent was not a good idea.

The point you make about who Robinson fought instead is a good one, but a lot of things determine a fight, and there may well have been logistical reasons why another opponent was picked.

I had heard that when Burley was proposed to Robinson's people they had made it clear that Burley was to be avoided....but evidence is the best indicator and when we say a fighter "ducked" someone there should be fairly compelling reasons for such an assertion.

Burley was definitely avoided by a lot of fighters...he made so many guys look like amateurs and was talented enough to always be a live wire...just ask the ghost of Archie Moore!

I think the more excuses, the more chance it was a duck but hey.

To be honest reading this post makes me even more sure of my stance.

'Avoiding' or 'management reasons', those are phrases to sweeten it up.

[The Old LefHook]

I call them excuses because that's what they seem like to me. If the reasons such as money, lack of demand, boring style were key reasons then why didn't you mention that in your original reply to Billeau that I responded to? You only talked about weight in that but it's in the last few responses you've brought all this other stuff into it, had to dig deeper than you expected eh?

I didn't say he had to fight to fight every guy over the limit or be accused of avoidance. I said that it's a clear double standard to imply Robinson-Burley wasn't realistic due to the weight when he fought Lamotta in similar circumstances. The replies are there for everyone to see.

Why does Robinson not being champion mean it's not a duck? that's ridiculous. You don't have to be champ to duck someone.

It's not hard to figure out why I didn't bring up Williams and others, I responded to your post about Burley which didn't mention any others.

I truly believe Robinson gets a pass for this due to him being GOAT and people feeling like his legacy can't be questioned at all.

Actually, you are right about something. My original post did seem to indicate that weights were a major obstacle. I had not slept for about thirty hours and may have temporarily confused Basora and Burley's weight progress, though Burley seldom made the welterweight limit.

No matter, for I surmise there was no issue and therefore no obstacle either.

Did Burley actually challenge Robinson? Or is it your feeling Robinson should have challenged Burley for some reason? Maybe you feel he should have been mad at Burley for billing himself as the colored middleweight champion.

If Robinson ignored significant press or public pressure, then he must have avoided Burley out of fear. Other than a few trainers and perhaps a rouge journalist, who had yet figured out that Burley was a supposed all time great who would make the hall of fame? Archie Moore had a long apprentice stage where he was inconsistent, losing and getting KO'd more than most ATG's. It was during that period that Burley beat him. No one in 1944 had yet figured out that Archie was an all time great either.

It has to be Robinson's sense of pride that makes you think he should have fought Burley, since he is one of the guys we can expect would have had to know that Burley was quite accomplished. Championship pride from a future champion, right, ticked off at the mere thought that someone might be able to beat him? Strictly an inner, a personal thing.

[joeandthebums]

I was originally going to enter this discussion through addressing directly many of the points made by The Old LefHook and Caught Square - but unfortunately my browser shut and I lost it.

So only address what can remember.

- 1944 is not a viable time period for Robinson and Burley to meet. The small window where this contest looks like it could be made according to their records paints a false picture of the situation.

- The fourth Burley-Williams contest which was halted by many accounts was a display of terrible and questionable refereeing by Abe Roth who chose to call it off "for the good of the game" in the final round.

[The Old LefHook]

I was originally going to enter this discussion through addressing directly many of the points made by The Old LefHook and Caught Square - but unfortunately my browser shut and I lost it.

So only address what can remember.

- 1944 is not a viable time period for Robinson and Burley to meet. The small window where this contest looks like it could be made according to their records paints a false picture of the situation.

- The fourth Burley-Williams contest which was halted by many accounts was a display of terrible and questionable refereeing by Abe Roth who chose to call it off "for the good of the game" in the final round.

The ref seems to insinuate the fight was so bad it might destroy boxing. If I don't call this thing off, you folks may never see another match. What will the nation think if I let it go on? Tomorrow it will be on everbody's lips: Did you see what Roth did last night? He let a fight go to a decision instead of saving boxing. No, I was not going to let that happen on my watch. Boxing will survive now, just you wait and see. That is my prediction.