Would Marvin destroy Burley or Charley beat Marvin by a good margin?
Would Marvin destroy Burley or Charley beat Marvin by a good margin?
Hagler was great and so was Burley. Both had cast iron chins. Burley was never stopped nor knockdown and the same could be said for Hagler(discounting the punch/push down from Roldan). Both could punch but Burley had great boxing skill. Burley gave Archie Moore a good beating. I don't know who would win between these 2 but this fight would go the distance. Both would give Robinson, LaMotta, Graziano, Zale, or Cerdan hell. In a 15 round fight only the cuts would worry me about Hagler. This would be a 3-4 fight series. I will pick Hagler by decision, but Burley's power and speed could just as easily earn him the verdict. I think Burley would have beaten LaMotta, Zale, Cerdan, Ketchell, and many other great middleweights. Hell he even kayoed some heavyweights. Great match up. This really could go either way..... but I will go with Hagler.
I wonder . . . could this be the longest gap between question posed and first response in the history of the site?
Is blv30 still amongst us? PeteLeo.
This was my first time ever seeing this one. At least I have the record for something. LOL.
I believe both Ezzard Charles and Lloyd Marshall floored BurleyOriginally Posted by sr71ko
Yeah I had saw that on boxrecords too. But stuff that I had read over the years in Ring mag and other places said that he was never down. Boxrrecords also list Dempsey as getting knock down a lot more than he is officially listed as being decked. For example, 5-31-15, Dempsey was alleged to have been knocked down 9 time in the 1st round. I don't know. May be box records is right, but either way.... down 2 times but never stopped is still pretty good. Burley was a nightmare to fight. As much as I love Hagler..... Burley would have a solid chance to beat any middleweight ever. He could box and punch. Eddie Futch said he was the best all around fighter that he had ever seen and Archie Moore said that Burley was the toughest. Hagler vs. Burley would have been a great fight.
Last edited by sr71ko; 11-18-2009 at 02:52 PM.
Actually, I was going by the two Burley bios I've read.
I agree with you. Great fight to be sure. Hard to pick a winner.
Great fight ! Burley wins an exciting 15 rounder.
Box rec has my uncle - Renne Durelle's record all messed up. It credits him with three losses in 12 fights before he fought Al Sparks for the Lt Heavy championship of Canada. Rene inists he was undefeated at the time.For example, 5-31-15, Dempsey was alleged to have been knocked down 9 time in the 1st round. I don't know. May be box records is right, but either way.... down 2 times but never stopped is still pretty good.
It also says that they fought in Chatham Ontario and I know for a fact that it was in Chatham New Brunswick.
Burley was down on one knee V Charles (who apparantly hit him while down) and was down twice V Marshall - who is the only fighter to actually knock Burley off his feet.Originally Posted by Surf-Bat
Burley also touched down briefly against Mike Barto (knee touched the floor).
Still, 100 fights and no stoppage losses is pretty good going.
Personally I think Charley beats Marvin on points.
What is Burley's stlye?
From what I saw he did not look better than Marvin. He stuck and moved, he seemed quick. But, I don't see him outboxing Marvin. Marvin is a great boxer himself who at his best can turn up the heat on anyone.
I say the best Hagler keeps Burley moving away from him and wins a decision.
Burley wins monday thru saturday , twice on sunday !!!
I wouldn't go by that. What you saw was Burley against a very dangerous light-heavyweight named Oakland Billy Smith(the only film we have of Burley). Smith knocked out Lloyd Marshall, drew with Archie Moore and gave Ezzard Charles a tough fight.Originally Posted by JLP 6
Marvin would have been careful in his approach to fighting this guy too!LOL
What can I go by then? Records. Forget it. I want to see stlyes, so I can make an educated assumption.
The guy looks like he can box, but so can Marvin. I think the guy Burley was fighting look a little crude, swinging all crazy and missing by a mile.
Hagler is a ton more trouble than that. Right?
Firsthand fight reports are a good start. Or read one of the two books on Burley, which give pretty consistent firsthand accounts on his overall style. You can't make an educated assumption based on just one film of a fighter. What if all the film that existed of Hagler was the Hearns war? You would get the totally wrong impression. You'd think that THAT was Marvin's style all the time and all your dream bouts would be bombs-away Marv instead of what he really was in his career, which was a counterpuncher.Originally Posted by JLP 6
Burley, like most great fighters, had a style that allowed for him to make adjustments based upon who he was facing. He took a different approach to fighting Smith(a cautious one) than he did to fighting the smaller, less dangerous Billy Soose(an aggressive one).
By the way, Smith looked crude and was missing by miles because Burley MADE him look crude and MADE him miss by miles. He was that good. Ask Archie Moore.
And just for the record, both Mustafa Hamsho and Juan Roldan were crude as well. Yet they were HITTING Hagler, not missing by a mile.Originally Posted by JLP 6
Burley is a ton more trouble than that, right?
Last edited by Surf-Bat; 11-20-2009 at 08:34 PM.
Hall of famer Fritzie Zivic bought Burleys contract to avoid facing him !!! This guy could do it all ,slug , slip ,counter ,box. The fact of having one film of this phenom is sad.Man,I can only imagine seeing this all time great ,at his prime
I wonder if other films of Burley exist that just haven't surfaced yet....
They HAD to have filmed more. Too many battles against too many great fighters.
What are we saying then. We have more film on Hagler. We have seen him box with success, brawl with success.
We have one piece of film with Burley in with a guy that is on the level of Hagler's Hamsho.
This means that we go with Burley? If so, why? Because he beat Moore? Moore was beatable. I say if Burley could beat the middleweight Moore so could Hagler. Hagler IMO is greater than Moore and Burley at middleweight.
Hagler has a better style than Burley and more power.
Last edited by JLP 6; 11-23-2009 at 02:44 PM.
"On the level of Hagler's Hamsho"?? A guy who knocked out Harold Johnson, Lloyd Marshall and Walter "Popeye" Woods, beat Jack Chase, took a prime Ezzard Charles and HEAVYWEIGHT Jimmy Bivins the distance is, in your opinion, no better than Mustafa Hamsho? I must stridently disagree with you. The weight of evidence is heavily in the favor of Oakland Billy being the much more dangerous(and accomplished) opponent. Hamsho is nowhere near in his league. What wins on Mustafa's record, in your opinion, compare with those I just mentioned above?Originally Posted by JLP 6
"Better style"? I'm not sure exactly what you mean by this. Explain?
More power? Based upon what? Burley's opposition FAR outstrips Haglers in the toughness department, yet he still manages 50 knockouts in 83 wins. Keep in mind that he was often fighting opponents who had a sizable weight advantage over him(you can't say that about Hagler). Heck, he even knocked out HEAVYWEIGHTS!
He stopped a prime Holman Williams, who had never been stopped in 114 bouts and would only be stopped 2 more times in his 188 bout career(once to a prime Archie Moore and another on a cut to Jose Basora). He stopped a prime Jack Chase twice and also Shorty Hogue. Both were top men and had iron jaws. He also dropped Archie Moore 4 times.
I don't know who had more power between Hagler and Burley, but if you want to go by what they PROVED IN THE RING, you would have to say that Burley had more power, right?
Last edited by Surf-Bat; 11-27-2009 at 05:44 AM.
From what I saw, the guy looked like a can. He must have had better nights. Because Burley was jumping away from punches like he was playing tag with some kid. And I did not compare these guys first. I was just repeating a comparision that someone else made on this thread.
Now I don't know much about Burley. Just watching him tells me he would have a tough time with Hagler. I don't care who he KO'ed, he ain't stopping Halger, he ain't outboxing a prime Hagler.
Hagler is better than everyone that Burley fought other than Charles. I say that Burley has his hands full with Duran and Hearns.
I find it fascinating when two people can look at film and come to completly different conclusions. JPL seems to be rather unimpressed with the Burley film vs Smith.
To me, he looks flat-out spectacular. Incredible timing, movement-including fantastic slipping and sidesteps, pinpoint counterpunching and he keeps up a remarkable pace for the whole fight.
[QUOTE=JLP 6]"From what I saw, the guy looked like a can."
"Because Burley was jumping away from punches like he was playing tag with some kid."
AND THOSE TWO COMMENTS PRETTY MUCH UNDERSCORE MY WHOLE POINT. BURLEY'S GREATNESS WAS IN THAT HE COULD TAKE TOP FIGHTERS LIKE THIS(WHO OUTWEIGHED HIM CONSIDERABLY) AND MAKE THEM LOOK LIKE "CANS". BURLEY MADE ARCHIE MOORE FEEL LIKE A KID TOO. NO EASY FEAT.
Now I don't know much about Burley.
NOT A GOOD THING IF YOU'RE GOING TO TRY AND DEBATE THIS. ESPECIALLY WITH SOMEONE WHO KNOWS ABOUT BOTH MEN
Just watching him tells me he would have a tough time with Hagler.
WATCHING BURLEY WITH A HARD-PUNCHING LIGHT HEAVYWEIGHT TELLS YOU HOW HE WOULD HAVE DONE AGAINST HAGLER? I DUNNO. WHAT IF I CAME AT YOU AND SAID WATCHING HAGLER AGAINST DURAN OR ANTUOFERMO I TELLS ME HE WOULD HAVE A HARD TIME WITH BURLEY? I MEAN, IF DURAN COULD MAKE HIM MISS.....
I don't care who he KO'ed, he ain't stopping Halger,
AGREED. NO MIDDLEWEIGHT IN HISTORY STOPS HAGS. BUT HAGS SURE AS HELL AINT GONNA STOP BURLEY.
he ain't outboxing a prime Hagler.
WHY NOT? HAGS WAS A COUNTERPUNCHER IN HIS PRIME. HE SHINED AGAINST GUYS WHO CAME AT HIM AND WANTED TO SLUG. BUT WHEN THEY LAID BACK AND BOXED(MONROE, WATTS) OR COUNTERPUNCHED(DURAN) HE DIDN'T LOOK SO EFFECTIVE.
BURLEY HAD THE EXACT KIND OF STYLE TO GIVE HAGLER FITS.
Hagler is better than everyone that Burley fought other than Charles.
THAT IS VERY ARGUABLE MY FRIEND. BETTER THAN THE ENTIRE MURDERER'S ROW? BETTER THAN ARCHIE MOORE? HAVEN'T SEEN TO MANY GREATEST FIGHTERS LISTS WITH HAGLER RATED ABOVE MOORE.
BETTER THAN HOLMAN WILLIAMS? BETTER THAN LLOYD MARSHALL? BETTER THAN JIMMY BIVINS? MAYBE SO. LIKE I SAID, IT'S HIGHLY DEBATABLE. WHAT IS NOT DEBATABLE IS THAT BURLEY AND MOORE ARE BY FAR GREATER THAN ANY FIGHTER HAGLER EVER BEAT. MAYBE WILLIAMS, MARSHALL AND BIVINS TOO.
"I say that Burley has his hands full with Duran and Hearns."
EVERYONE WOULD HAVE TROUBLE WITH HEARNS. HE WAS A DANGEROUS FIGHTER. FAST, SKILLED AND HARD HITTING. BUT I'M CONFIDENT THAT THE FISTS OF BURLEY- WHICH SHATTERED HEAVYWEIGHT CHINS- WOULD HAVE LITTLE TROUBLE SHATTERING TOMMY'S SHAKY CHIN ONCE THEY LANDED. AND THEY WOULD LAND, BELIEVE ME.
ROBERTO WOULD DO WELL AGAINST THE MIDDLEWEIGHT SLUGGERS OF HISTORY BECAUSE THEIR WADING-IN WOULD ALLOW HIM TO UTILIZE HIS OUTSTANDING BOXING, COUNTERING AND DEFENSIVE ABILITIES. BURLEY IS THE ABSOLUTE WRONG FIGHTER FOR DURAN. HORRIBLE MATCHUP. THOSE SHORT, STUBBY ARMS WOULD COME NOWHERE NEAR BURLEY'S CHIN. CHARLEY WOULD PICK HIM TO PIECES FROM THE OUTSIDE. HE WOULD DANCE RINGS AROUND ROBERTO. OR GO INSIDE AND OVERPOWER HIM. WHICHEVER WAY HE CHOSE. AN ABSOLUTE SHUTOUT FOR BURLEY THERE. MAYBE EVEN A TKO STOPPAGE.
(pardon the caps. easier that way:-) )
Last edited by Surf-Bat; 11-28-2009 at 04:43 AM.
Just for the record, I'm not saying Burley would for sure beat Hags. I see a great fight that could go either way. Hard to envision a definitive ending.
Surf: I have a real problem with picking a fight based primarily on what I've read. In your defense, we have the post above and I think that is an honest assessment. That said, I don't trust anyone to accurately describe someone's style, let alone their greatness.
My two favorite examples are Henry Armstrong and Oscar DeLaHoya. I read, for years, that Hammerin' Hank was the messiah in boxing trunks, arguably the greatest fighter who'd ever lived. Then I saw tape. Truly extraordinary boxer, undeniably great and still, due to hyperbole, the biggest disappointment I've ever had re.: the subject. Best ever? Man, I don't see it.
Then after watching DLH, I'd read about it. There are several articles out there, that without the benefit of having seen it on HBO your own self, you'd think DLH was Henry Armstrong. I think Oscar was very good, but quite possibly the most over-hyped fighter of my lifetime. In fact, definitely.
The only guy I've conceded on this topic is Harry Greb. I've seen enough of the guys he beat and in addition to not once heard anything less than awed praise, that grudgingly I tow the line. But I'd give a pinkie just to see Greb-Walker myself, just once. Or Loughran, Tunney, Norfolk...take your pick.
I see what you're saying, Husker. I'm rather hesitant in most cases to take too strong a stance on fighters we have no film on in regards to how they would do in dream fights too(Greb being my exception as well). For instance, I would never say how Jack McAuliffe would have done vs. Pernell Whitaker(other than he would have gotten slaughtered) or Nonpareil Dempsey vs. Carlos Monzon.
You can however, make some definite conclusions about Burley from the one film we have, as Hagler04 pointed out: Incredible timing, movement-including fantastic slipping and sidesteps, pinpoint counterpunching and he keeps up a remarkable pace for the whole fight.
The film is congruent with much of what we've read about Burley from opponents, fans, sportswriters, trainers, etc. The timing, movement, slipping, countering, stamina....all of it was discussed ad infinitum over the years and we can see an example of it here.
Now if only we had footage of Burley in one of his more EXCITING fights......
Last edited by Surf-Bat; 11-29-2009 at 04:28 PM.
Folks ,we have no film on dozens if not hundreds of past GREATS !!! Do we need to look back to justify all the past fighters or go by all documentation,records ,interviews from boxings past to make some judgement ! Please share with us !!!
Does the opinions of George Gainsford , Jack Case ,Eddie Booker, Archie Moore or Eddie futch hold any MUD ! Men who have more knowledge in the great sport of OURS than most so-called experts past or present!!!
He was missing because Burley made him miss. His technique was right by the book.Originally Posted by JLP 6
Very few fighters in haglers era possed the uncanny ability to counter ,slip all while being in complete balance as Burley . This guy had it all !!! ON top of having the wiskers to tussle W/ LH's.I suppose with some luck ,we'll soon hear of some never before seen footage of Charley Peter Jackson, Jack Dillon,and other past greats.