Charley Burley vs Thomas Hearns

[Cojimar 1946]

who wins and who was greater in a historical sense?

[Ambling Alp II]

Hearns at welterweight; Burley would have a better chance at middleweight.
Rate Hearns a little higher all time, but it's arguable.

[DrDuke]

Burley was a very talented and elusive boxer, but Hearns was too good in his text-book style, that he would have been too much for Burley. Even Leonard was struggling with Hearns. Prime Hearns gave only one chance to his opponents, that was his shaky chin. But Burley wasn't a big puncher, so I definitely favour Hearns.

And historically I also rate Hearns higher.

[Sidney Carton]

Burley was a very talented and elusive boxer, but Hearns was too good in his text-book style, that he would have been too much for Burley. Even Leonard was struggling with Hearns. Prime Hearns gave only one chance to his opponents, that was his shaky chin. But Burley wasn't a big puncher, so I definitely favour Hearns.

And historically I also rate Hearns higher.

Archie Moore didn't know as much about boxing or Charley Burley as the geniuses who post on boxing websites.

A Few Pearls of Wisdom from My Interview with the Great Archie Moore
By Mike Silver
http://www.boxingoverbroadway.com/categ ... nterviews/

On February 26, 1983 I had the great good fortune to meet and interview the legendary Archie Moore. The former light heavyweight champion (1952-1962) had amassed one of the greatest records in boxing history. It is safe to say his extraordinary number of knockout victories—131—will never be eclipsed.
Archie was in New York City to present an award to one of his former opponents, Charley Burley. Burley was just one of at least a score of genuinely great boxers that Moore fought during his career. Many of the names in that record read like an entire HOF roster:,

MS: Archie, you are in New York to honor one of your former opponents, the great Charley Burley. So I think it’s appropriate to begin with him. You lost a unanimous 10 round decision to Burley and were knocked down four times. What happened?

AM: Charley Burley had a very deceptive style of fighting. He just tricked me.
He tricked me because we both boxed similar but whereas mine was an apparent forward movement Burley’s was a continuous serpentine movement. He was like a threshing machine going back and forth.
His body would sometimes lean over towards you and he’d pull it back just in time.
Hitting him solid was almost impossible.
But what made him so dangerous was that he could punch from any angle.
He was never off balance although he appeared to be off balance on many occasions.

Charley Burley was a terrific puncher, although to look at him you would not know it. His build fooled everybody. Burley’s legs were skinny, he was not extra wide of shoulder, he was small in weight and his height was the same as mine. But that man could get more leverage into a punch than anyone I ever fought.

[DrDuke]

Burley was a very talented and elusive boxer, but Hearns was too good in his text-book style, that he would have been too much for Burley. Even Leonard was struggling with Hearns. Prime Hearns gave only one chance to his opponents, that was his shaky chin. But Burley wasn't a big puncher, so I definitely favour Hearns.

And historically I also rate Hearns higher.

Archie Moore didn't know as much about boxing or Charley Burley as the geniuses who post on boxing websites.

So, with that you're trying to say, that you find some dissimilarities of my opinion with Archie Moore's one, and those somehow offend you?