Sugar Ray Robinson's comments on Charley Burley

[goose 5]

I have to admit I have my doubts I could have licked him in my prime years. This quote from Sugar Ray is found on Burley's Facebook page and is from Boxing Illustrated magazine in 1967. I bet a lot of the guys on this site have seen this quote before but I reference it for those who haven't.

[elmersalsa]

The great Charley Burley was no joke. He reminds me of the great Roy Jones, Jr in his fighting style. I can't believe that he was one of the top contenders at Welterweight and middleweight rankings and still, he didn't receive a title shot. Another athlete that was screwed big time! He was a top contender for 10 years! Unbelievable!

To me, he is ranked at #32 pound per pound all time great boxers. He could have been higher if given a title shot and win it.

[klompton]

He didnt get screwed. His time as a top contender directly coincided with the war. Nobody got a title shot during that period. He wasnt screwed any more than any other fighter who didnt get a shot during WW2. After the war he had three fights against top contenders and lost two of them. The two guys he lost to jumped ahead of him in the ratings and he never again reclaimed that space. Its just a fact of life that Burley's lack of a title shot had more to do with bad timing than anything and his lack of big fights had more to do with the fact that he wasnt a big draw at the box office. He may have been a great fighter but people didnt want to pay to see him and thats what drives big fights.

[Controversial]

When Zivic was champ he bought Burleys contract. Burley had a highly disputed SD loss to Zivic and then Burley beat Zivic in their next two fights prior to Zivic winning the title.

[Cojimar 1946]

He didnt get screwed. His time as a top contender directly coincided with the war. Nobody got a title shot during that period. He wasnt screwed any more than any other fighter who didnt get a shot during WW2. After the war he had three fights against top contenders and lost two of them. The two guys he lost to jumped ahead of him in the ratings and he never again reclaimed that space. Its just a fact of life that Burley's lack of a title shot had more to do with bad timing than anything and his lack of big fights had more to do with the fact that he wasnt a big draw at the box office. He may have been a great fighter but people didnt want to pay to see him and thats what drives big fights.

Ratings also drive title shots and Burley was able to reach a high rating (higher than a lot of guys who actually did get title shots). America didn't enter the war until the end of 1941. Burley emerged as a top contender years before the war started. The war doesn't excuse Burley not getting a title shot in 1939, 1940, 1941, or 1946.

Holman Williams is another guy where the war excuse just doesn't add up: he was ranked years before America entered the war.

[Caractacus]

It would appear that he just didn't know the "Right People" at the "Right Time".
Archie Moore didn't get a title shot until he hooked up with a "right person" (Doc Kearns).

[elmersalsa]

He didnt get screwed. His time as a top contender directly coincided with the war. Nobody got a title shot during that period. He wasnt screwed any more than any other fighter who didnt get a shot during WW2. After the war he had three fights against top contenders and lost two of them. The two guys he lost to jumped ahead of him in the ratings and he never again reclaimed that space. Its just a fact of life that Burley's lack of a title shot had more to do with bad timing than anything and his lack of big fights had more to do with the fact that he wasnt a big draw at the box office. He may have been a great fighter but people didnt want to pay to see him and thats what drives big fights.

Ratings also drive title shots and Burley was able to reach a high rating (higher than a lot of guys who actually did get title shots). America didn't enter the war until the end of 1941. Burley emerged as a top contender years before the war started. The war doesn't excuse Burley not getting a title shot in 1939, 1940, 1941, or 1946.

Holman Williams is another guy where the war excuse just doesn't add up: he was ranked years before America entered the war.

[klompton]

Burley was never the top contender at welterweight during the period you mention. Milt Aron was the top contender for most of Zivic's reign. Zivic had a non title fight with him during this period and lost. Burley was such a minor player he fought the walkout bout and coverage of it was limited to one sentence in the Boston Globe. Burley was probably rated higher than Zivic when Zivic got the title shot but the Zivic-Armstrong fight was originally made by Pittsburgh promoters Rooney and McGinley to be held in Pittsburgh. They wanted the biggest local draw in the division to fight Armstrong and that was Zivic not Burley. The match was moved to New York because Armstrong had previously posted a forfeit to bind his next title shot in the city and he was forced to honor it. Immediately after Zivic won the fight Burley had a fight in Pittsburgh and it was noted in the local papers that Zivic was keeping an eye on the gate, the implication being that if Burley drew well they would stage a title fight. Burley's fight drew less than $400. It was the worst gate in Pittsburgh in recent memory. Zivic signed to fight Armstrong and I doubt anyone at the time would have preferred Burley to Armstrong. That means that essentially the title was on the shelf for a period of three months. During this time Burley got into a dispute with his manager which further hampered his ability to get fights. He blamed his manager for his lack of opportunities (not his boring performances). As a result his manager sold his contract to Irwin Silverman in March of 1941. Some have speculated that Silverman was a front for Zivic/Carney who supposedly purchased the contract to keep Zivic from having to fight Burley. Even if that's true the supposed conspiracy didn't have an opportunity to accomplish anything because Mike Jacobs had dibs on Zivics next defense and he had already signed Freddie Cochrane. Zivic signed two weeks after Burley's contract was sold and Zivic lost his title in that defense. So that entire theory is pretty bogus. The war started five months after Cochrane won the title and during that five months Cochrane had one non title fight against Jenkins who was a much bigger draw than Burley. So no, Burley wasn't screwed and he wasn't a victim of a conspiracy. He was a victim of bad timing, poor decision making, bad luck, and his own boring style. In a perfect world everybody would get a title shot immediately every day of the week but we don't live in a perfect world. Fans need to understand that matches aren't made by fighters. They are made by a promoter who is willing to put up the money because he thinks hes going to turn a profit. The two most critical fights here: Zivic-Armstrong 1 and Zivic-Cochrane 1, were put together by promoters who specifically wanted Zivic and then Cochrane as the challenger, Burley wasn't in the mix because he wasn't a draw. People have just taken all of the hyperbole around Burley's inability to get a title shot and run with it without ever really trying to look at the context in which all of this stuff went down.

And for the record Moore was managed by Charley Johnston when he got his title shot. He got the shot by essentially agreeing to give up his entire purse to Maxim and fight for nothing. This wasn't uncommon, Greb did the same thing.

[Cojimar 1946]

Burley was never the top contender at welterweight during the period you mention. Milt Aron was the top contender for most of Zivic's reign. Zivic had a non title fight with him during this period and lost. Burley was such a minor player he fought the walkout bout and coverage of it was limited to one sentence in the Boston Globe. Burley was probably rated higher than Zivic when Zivic got the title shot but the Zivic-Armstrong fight was originally made by Pittsburgh promoters Rooney and McGinley to be held in Pittsburgh. They wanted the biggest local draw in the division to fight Armstrong and that was Zivic not Burley. The match was moved to New York because Armstrong had previously posted a forfeit to bind his next title shot in the city and he was forced to honor it. Immediately after Zivic won the fight Burley had a fight in Pittsburgh and it was noted in the local papers that Zivic was keeping an eye on the gate, the implication being that if Burley drew well they would stage a title fight. Burley's fight drew less than $400. It was the worst gate in Pittsburgh in recent memory. Zivic signed to fight Armstrong and I doubt anyone at the time would have preferred Burley to Armstrong. That means that essentially the title was on the shelf for a period of three months. During this time Burley got into a dispute with his manager which further hampered his ability to get fights. He blamed his manager for his lack of opportunities (not his boring performances). As a result his manager sold his contract to Irwin Silverman in March of 1941. Some have speculated that Silverman was a front for Zivic/Carney who supposedly purchased the contract to keep Zivic from having to fight Burley. Even if that's true the supposed conspiracy didn't have an opportunity to accomplish anything because Mike Jacobs had dibs on Zivics next defense and he had already signed Freddie Cochrane. Zivic signed two weeks after Burley's contract was sold and Zivic lost his title in that defense. So that entire theory is pretty bogus. The war started five months after Cochrane won the title and during that five months Cochrane had one non title fight against Jenkins who was a much bigger draw than Burley. So no, Burley wasn't screwed and he wasn't a victim of a conspiracy. He was a victim of bad timing, poor decision making, bad luck, and his own boring style. In a perfect world everybody would get a title shot immediately every day of the week but we don't live in a perfect world. Fans need to understand that matches aren't made by fighters. They are made by a promoter who is willing to put up the money because he thinks hes going to turn a profit. The two most critical fights here: Zivic-Armstrong 1 and Zivic-Cochrane 1, were put together by promoters who specifically wanted Zivic and then Cochrane as the challenger, Burley wasn't in the mix because he wasn't a draw. People have just taken all of the hyperbole around Burley's inability to get a title shot and run with it without ever really trying to look at the context in which all of this stuff went down.

And for the record Moore was managed by Charley Johnston when he got his title shot. He got the shot by essentially agreeing to give up his entire purse to Maxim and fight for nothing. This wasn't uncommon, Greb did the same thing.

See the problem is plenty of fighters are able to bring themselves to fight the best regardless of whether the fight is the most lucrative fight on the market. Burley was pretty clearly better than Zivic and Cochrane and the reigning champs
could have opted to fight him instead. Were also talking a pretty wide time window for the fight to be made (late 1939, all of 1940, all of 1941). Fighters also have plenty of input in who they fight, they are free to suggest opponents to their managers and decline opponents if they feel there are better options.

The argument that promoters preferred a Zivic fight based on it being a bigger draw doesn't make it the right decision any more than promoters giving Graziano multiple shots at Zale based on him being a bigger draw than more worthy contenders. Tony Zale could have demanded a more worthy opponent.

Also, the whole argument is suspect to begin with. Ezzard Charles wasn't able to get a shot at the light heavyweight title despite being popular with fans.

[chrisjs1985]

Burley was never the top contender at welterweight during the period you mention. Milt Aron was the top contender for most of Zivic's reign. Zivic had a non title fight with him during this period and lost. Burley was such a minor player he fought the walkout bout and coverage of it was limited to one sentence in the Boston Globe. Burley was probably rated higher than Zivic when Zivic got the title shot but the Zivic-Armstrong fight was originally made by Pittsburgh promoters Rooney and McGinley to be held in Pittsburgh. They wanted the biggest local draw in the division to fight Armstrong and that was Zivic not Burley. The match was moved to New York because Armstrong had previously posted a forfeit to bind his next title shot in the city and he was forced to honor it. Immediately after Zivic won the fight Burley had a fight in Pittsburgh and it was noted in the local papers that Zivic was keeping an eye on the gate, the implication being that if Burley drew well they would stage a title fight. Burley's fight drew less than $400. It was the worst gate in Pittsburgh in recent memory. Zivic signed to fight Armstrong and I doubt anyone at the time would have preferred Burley to Armstrong. That means that essentially the title was on the shelf for a period of three months. During this time Burley got into a dispute with his manager which further hampered his ability to get fights. He blamed his manager for his lack of opportunities (not his boring performances). As a result his manager sold his contract to Irwin Silverman in March of 1941. Some have speculated that Silverman was a front for Zivic/Carney who supposedly purchased the contract to keep Zivic from having to fight Burley. Even if that's true the supposed conspiracy didn't have an opportunity to accomplish anything because Mike Jacobs had dibs on Zivics next defense and he had already signed Freddie Cochrane. Zivic signed two weeks after Burley's contract was sold and Zivic lost his title in that defense. So that entire theory is pretty bogus. The war started five months after Cochrane won the title and during that five months Cochrane had one non title fight against Jenkins who was a much bigger draw than Burley. So no, Burley wasn't screwed and he wasn't a victim of a conspiracy. He was a victim of bad timing, poor decision making, bad luck, and his own boring style. In a perfect world everybody would get a title shot immediately every day of the week but we don't live in a perfect world. Fans need to understand that matches aren't made by fighters. They are made by a promoter who is willing to put up the money because he thinks hes going to turn a profit. The two most critical fights here: Zivic-Armstrong 1 and Zivic-Cochrane 1, were put together by promoters who specifically wanted Zivic and then Cochrane as the challenger, Burley wasn't in the mix because he wasn't a draw. People have just taken all of the hyperbole around Burley's inability to get a title shot and run with it without ever really trying to look at the context in which all of this stuff went down.

And for the record Moore was managed by Charley Johnston when he got his title shot. He got the shot by essentially agreeing to give up his entire purse to Maxim and fight for nothing. This wasn't uncommon, Greb did the same thing.

I don't believe he was a victim of conspiracy per se but based on merit, you don't think he was screwed? I don't disagree that comes from some dull performances, lack of drawing power compared to some others but to have faced the guys he faced and beat most of them and in comfortable fashion too, you wouldn't say he more than deserved a crack at a title? He held a high ranking longer than most if I'm not mistaken.

[Ambling Alp II]

He was never the #1 contender. If you aren't the number 1 contender you aren't getting screwed if you don't get a title shot.
He lost to Zivic in 1938. He lost Leto and Williams in 1939. He had a draw with Abrams and lost to Bivins in 1940.

If he fought now with 4 titles and a jr middleweight division, he would have gotton a shot and won a paper title. Maybe in 3 different weight classes. He was unlucky when he fought.

He obviously had some good wins as well. However, he clearly was not screwed out of a title shot.

[klompton]

Burley was never the top contender at welterweight during the period you mention. Milt Aron was the top contender for most of Zivic's reign. Zivic had a non title fight with him during this period and lost. Burley was such a minor player he fought the walkout bout and coverage of it was limited to one sentence in the Boston Globe. Burley was probably rated higher than Zivic when Zivic got the title shot but the Zivic-Armstrong fight was originally made by Pittsburgh promoters Rooney and McGinley to be held in Pittsburgh. They wanted the biggest local draw in the division to fight Armstrong and that was Zivic not Burley. The match was moved to New York because Armstrong had previously posted a forfeit to bind his next title shot in the city and he was forced to honor it. Immediately after Zivic won the fight Burley had a fight in Pittsburgh and it was noted in the local papers that Zivic was keeping an eye on the gate, the implication being that if Burley drew well they would stage a title fight. Burley's fight drew less than $400. It was the worst gate in Pittsburgh in recent memory. Zivic signed to fight Armstrong and I doubt anyone at the time would have preferred Burley to Armstrong. That means that essentially the title was on the shelf for a period of three months. During this time Burley got into a dispute with his manager which further hampered his ability to get fights. He blamed his manager for his lack of opportunities (not his boring performances). As a result his manager sold his contract to Irwin Silverman in March of 1941. Some have speculated that Silverman was a front for Zivic/Carney who supposedly purchased the contract to keep Zivic from having to fight Burley. Even if that's true the supposed conspiracy didn't have an opportunity to accomplish anything because Mike Jacobs had dibs on Zivics next defense and he had already signed Freddie Cochrane. Zivic signed two weeks after Burley's contract was sold and Zivic lost his title in that defense. So that entire theory is pretty bogus. The war started five months after Cochrane won the title and during that five months Cochrane had one non title fight against Jenkins who was a much bigger draw than Burley. So no, Burley wasn't screwed and he wasn't a victim of a conspiracy. He was a victim of bad timing, poor decision making, bad luck, and his own boring style. In a perfect world everybody would get a title shot immediately every day of the week but we don't live in a perfect world. Fans need to understand that matches aren't made by fighters. They are made by a promoter who is willing to put up the money because he thinks hes going to turn a profit. The two most critical fights here: Zivic-Armstrong 1 and Zivic-Cochrane 1, were put together by promoters who specifically wanted Zivic and then Cochrane as the challenger, Burley wasn't in the mix because he wasn't a draw. People have just taken all of the hyperbole around Burley's inability to get a title shot and run with it without ever really trying to look at the context in which all of this stuff went down.

And for the record Moore was managed by Charley Johnston when he got his title shot. He got the shot by essentially agreeing to give up his entire purse to Maxim and fight for nothing. This wasn't uncommon, Greb did the same thing.

See the problem is plenty of fighters are able to bring themselves to fight the best regardless of whether the fight is the most lucrative fight on the market. Burley was pretty clearly better than Zivic and Cochrane and the reigning champs
could have opted to fight him instead. Were also talking a pretty wide time window for the fight to be made (late 1939, all of 1940, all of 1941). Fighters also have plenty of input in who they fight, they are free to suggest opponents to their managers and decline opponents if they feel there are better options.

The argument that promoters preferred a Zivic fight based on it being a bigger draw doesn't make it the right decision any more than promoters giving Graziano multiple shots at Zale based on him being a bigger draw than more worthy contenders. Tony Zale could have demanded a more worthy opponent.

Also, the whole argument is suspect to begin with. Ezzard Charles wasn't able to get a shot at the light heavyweight title despite being popular with fans.

No the problem which you fail to grasp is that fighters dont bring themselves to fight anybody. Promoters do that. Promoters had almost no interest in Burley because the fans had almost no interest in Burley. That says something about Burley that his adherents dont care to admit. Burley may very well have been better than Zivic and Cochrane but the promoters who put those fights together (two of which were from Burley's hometown) WANTED Zivic and Cochrane in those title matches. Not Burley. It wasnt because Burley was too good, or black, or whatever you want to pretend. It was because he was box office poison. Fighters do or can have input into who they fight but show me where promoters offered Zivic or Armstrong a fight with Burley first and it was turned down in favor of someone weaker for the same amount of money. You cant. You say that the argument that promoters preferred a Zivic fight based on it being a bigger draw doesn't make it the right decision but it does make it the right decision for the promoter. The promoters entire job is to promote the fight that makes him the most money. That wasnt Burley. Burley wasnt even a headliner in his own hometown. So why was it wrong for promoters to have no interest in promoting him? Why was it wrong for fighters to fight highly ranked opponents who brought more money to the table? This isnt charity. The big difference between Zale and Graziano and Armstrong and Zivic is that there were big money alternatives to Graziano, he just happened to be the weakest opponent who was also biggest draw. Jake LaMotta-Tony Zale would have arguably drawn a monster gate as well. You cant begin to illustrate that with Burley, he simply never had the numbers to show he was solid alternative to the bigger names that brought more money and unlike Jake during the Zale-Graziano era, Burley wasnt the top contender and hadnt been for years when Armstrong and Zivic were champion.

Not all fighters are created equally in either talent, appeal, or circumstances so trying to draw a mutual equivalence between Burley and Charles simply doesnt work. Charles, like Burley, didnt fight in any of the major boxing centers in the country until 1947 and he lost that fight. It was the following year before he fought in another major venue and lo and behold he got a title shot the following year. After building himself up with the greater public. Nevermind that like Burley Charles wasnt the most exciting fighter in the world. But again, whats inescapable is that the majority of these guys best years were fought during the war and away from the major business centers of the sport.

The point is some of you guys pushing these bullshit conspiracy theories that everyone was ducking Burley or that so and so purchased his contract to avoid him etc just doesnt jive with the reality of Burley's career. Im sure it was easier for him to pretend everyone was scared of him rather than admit that nobody wanted to watch him. Most people agree Robinson was one of the greatest fighters ever. He didnt get a shot until after the war but he did get a shot and did get numerous big fights, why? Because people demanded his services. They wanted to see him fight. Burley fought on Robinson's cards more than once. At least once, early in Robinson's career when Burley was already in his prime it was noted that Robinson was the star and outshone everyone on the card. Another time they fought on the same card when Robinson fought Servo. The radio broadcast of that fight is preserved and in it you can hear the crowd booing Burley and his opponent because of the lack of action. The announcer mentions the crowd booing their disappointment to get the fighters to fight. Thats Burley on a showcase card where he could have made a statement and that was his approach. Im sorry but this idea that Burley was some badass superstar that everyone ducked is simply not reality. Im sure he was a talented fighter that those guys preferred not to fight but had he been a big money maker it would have been hard to avoid. He wasnt however, he wasnt even a modest money maker. His gates sucked and as a result he wasnt getting offers.

[Cojimar 1946]

See the problem is plenty of fighters are able to bring themselves to fight the best regardless of whether the fight is the most lucrative fight on the market. Burley was pretty clearly better than Zivic and Cochrane and the reigning champs
could have opted to fight him instead. Were also talking a pretty wide time window for the fight to be made (late 1939, all of 1940, all of 1941). Fighters also have plenty of input in who they fight, they are free to suggest opponents to their managers and decline opponents if they feel there are better options.

The argument that promoters preferred a Zivic fight based on it being a bigger draw doesn't make it the right decision any more than promoters giving Graziano multiple shots at Zale based on him being a bigger draw than more worthy contenders. Tony Zale could have demanded a more worthy opponent.

Also, the whole argument is suspect to begin with. Ezzard Charles wasn't able to get a shot at the light heavyweight title despite being popular with fans.

No the problem which you fail to grasp is that fighters dont bring themselves to fight anybody. Promoters do that. Promoters had almost no interest in Burley because the fans had almost no interest in Burley. That says something about Burley that his adherents dont care to admit. Burley may very well have been better than Zivic and Cochrane but the promoters who put those fights together (two of which were from Burley's hometown) WANTED Zivic and Cochrane in those title matches. Not Burley. It wasnt because Burley was too good, or black, or whatever you want to pretend. It was because he was box office poison. Fighters do or can have input into who they fight but show me where promoters offered Zivic or Armstrong a fight with Burley first and it was turned down in favor of someone weaker for the same amount of money. You cant. You say that the argument that promoters preferred a Zivic fight based on it being a bigger draw doesn't make it the right decision but it does make it the right decision for the promoter. The promoters entire job is to promote the fight that makes him the most money. That wasnt Burley. Burley wasnt even a headliner in his own hometown. So why was it wrong for promoters to have no interest in promoting him? Why was it wrong for fighters to fight highly ranked opponents who brought more money to the table? This isnt charity. The big difference between Zale and Graziano and Armstrong and Zivic is that there were big money alternatives to Graziano, he just happened to be the weakest opponent who was also biggest draw. Jake LaMotta-Tony Zale would have arguably drawn a monster gate as well. You cant begin to illustrate that with Burley, he simply never had the numbers to show he was solid alternative to the bigger names that brought more money and unlike Jake during the Zale-Graziano era, Burley wasnt the top contender and hadnt been for years when Armstrong and Zivic were champion.

Not all fighters are created equally in either talent, appeal, or circumstances so trying to draw a mutual equivalence between Burley and Charles simply doesnt work. Charles, like Burley, didnt fight in any of the major boxing centers in the country until 1947 and he lost that fight. It was the following year before he fought in another major venue and lo and behold he got a title shot the following year. After building himself up with the greater public. Nevermind that like Burley Charles wasnt the most exciting fighter in the world. But again, whats inescapable is that the majority of these guys best years were fought during the war and away from the major business centers of the sport.

The point is some of you guys pushing these bullshit conspiracy theories that everyone was ducking Burley or that so and so purchased his contract to avoid him etc just doesnt jive with the reality of Burley's career. Im sure it was easier for him to pretend everyone was scared of him rather than admit that nobody wanted to watch him. Most people agree Robinson was one of the greatest fighters ever. He didnt get a shot until after the war but he did get a shot and did get numerous big fights, why? Because people demanded his services. They wanted to see him fight. Burley fought on Robinson's cards more than once. At least once, early in Robinson's career when Burley was already in his prime it was noted that Robinson was the star and outshone everyone on the card. Another time they fought on the same card when Robinson fought Servo. The radio broadcast of that fight is preserved and in it you can hear the crowd booing Burley and his opponent because of the lack of action. The announcer mentions the crowd booing their disappointment to get the fighters to fight. Thats Burley on a showcase card where he could have made a statement and that was his approach. Im sorry but this idea that Burley was some badass superstar that everyone ducked is simply not reality. Im sure he was a talented fighter that those guys preferred not to fight but had he been a big money maker it would have been hard to avoid. He wasnt however, he wasnt even a modest money maker. His gates sucked and as a result he wasnt getting offers.

Graziano was still Zale's biggest potential payday. You now seem to be arguing that money should matter only up to a point and ability counts for something at least if you can make reasonable money fighting good opponents. But from purely a financial perspective Graziano clearly made the most sense. No doubt he could have made considerable money fighting other guys but not as much as if he fought Graziano. Do you disagree that purely from a financial perspective Graziano was the best choice?

[Controversial]

The point is some of you guys pushing these bullshit conspiracy theories that everyone was ducking Burley or that so and so purchased his contract to avoid him etc just doesnt jive with the reality of Burley's career.

The newspapers of the time said Zivic bought Burleys contract.

[klompton]

No the problem which you fail to grasp is that fighters dont bring themselves to fight anybody. Promoters do that. Promoters had almost no interest in Burley because the fans had almost no interest in Burley. That says something about Burley that his adherents dont care to admit. Burley may very well have been better than Zivic and Cochrane but the promoters who put those fights together (two of which were from Burley's hometown) WANTED Zivic and Cochrane in those title matches. Not Burley. It wasnt because Burley was too good, or black, or whatever you want to pretend. It was because he was box office poison. Fighters do or can have input into who they fight but show me where promoters offered Zivic or Armstrong a fight with Burley first and it was turned down in favor of someone weaker for the same amount of money. You cant. You say that the argument that promoters preferred a Zivic fight based on it being a bigger draw doesn't make it the right decision but it does make it the right decision for the promoter. The promoters entire job is to promote the fight that makes him the most money. That wasnt Burley. Burley wasnt even a headliner in his own hometown. So why was it wrong for promoters to have no interest in promoting him? Why was it wrong for fighters to fight highly ranked opponents who brought more money to the table? This isnt charity. The big difference between Zale and Graziano and Armstrong and Zivic is that there were big money alternatives to Graziano, he just happened to be the weakest opponent who was also biggest draw. Jake LaMotta-Tony Zale would have arguably drawn a monster gate as well. You cant begin to illustrate that with Burley, he simply never had the numbers to show he was solid alternative to the bigger names that brought more money and unlike Jake during the Zale-Graziano era, Burley wasnt the top contender and hadnt been for years when Armstrong and Zivic were champion.

Not all fighters are created equally in either talent, appeal, or circumstances so trying to draw a mutual equivalence between Burley and Charles simply doesnt work. Charles, like Burley, didnt fight in any of the major boxing centers in the country until 1947 and he lost that fight. It was the following year before he fought in another major venue and lo and behold he got a title shot the following year. After building himself up with the greater public. Nevermind that like Burley Charles wasnt the most exciting fighter in the world. But again, whats inescapable is that the majority of these guys best years were fought during the war and away from the major business centers of the sport.

The point is some of you guys pushing these bullshit conspiracy theories that everyone was ducking Burley or that so and so purchased his contract to avoid him etc just doesnt jive with the reality of Burley's career. Im sure it was easier for him to pretend everyone was scared of him rather than admit that nobody wanted to watch him. Most people agree Robinson was one of the greatest fighters ever. He didnt get a shot until after the war but he did get a shot and did get numerous big fights, why? Because people demanded his services. They wanted to see him fight. Burley fought on Robinson's cards more than once. At least once, early in Robinson's career when Burley was already in his prime it was noted that Robinson was the star and outshone everyone on the card. Another time they fought on the same card when Robinson fought Servo. The radio broadcast of that fight is preserved and in it you can hear the crowd booing Burley and his opponent because of the lack of action. The announcer mentions the crowd booing their disappointment to get the fighters to fight. Thats Burley on a showcase card where he could have made a statement and that was his approach. Im sorry but this idea that Burley was some badass superstar that everyone ducked is simply not reality. Im sure he was a talented fighter that those guys preferred not to fight but had he been a big money maker it would have been hard to avoid. He wasnt however, he wasnt even a modest money maker. His gates sucked and as a result he wasnt getting offers.

Graziano was still Zale's biggest potential payday. You now seem to be arguing that money should matter only up to a point and ability counts for something at least if you can make reasonable money fighting good opponents. But from purely a financial perspective Graziano clearly made the most sense. No doubt he could have made considerable money fighting other guys but not as much as if he fought Graziano. Do you disagree that purely from a financial perspective Graziano was the best choice?

Graziano was Zales biggest payday and I dont fault him for fighting Graziano, once. But what Zale did is far different than what happened to Burley. Comparing Burley and LaMotta is like comparing apples and oranges. Burley was not rated #1 during the events you describe, he was not popular, he didnt draw fans or money to the sport, and he didnt have promoters clamoring for his services. Jake LaMotta was the top contender and had been for four years off and on, he was one of the biggest draws in division, was extremely popular in several of boxings biggest centers both on the east coast and the midwest, he had appeared on national television, and was a headliner in New York. He was also an action fighter who typically gave the fans their moneys worth. He was basically the antithesis of Burley. More to the point promoters were interested in staging a fight between he and Zale AND he had the backing of the NBA which attempted to force both Graziano and Cerdan to fight him in eliminations before they got their title shots. Burley had literally NONE of this going for him. So yes, to fight Graziano once after the war and get a huge payout I have no fault with but they tied up the title for nearly three years by sidestepping a number one contender who had been the number one contender off and on for a couple of years who may not have drawn as much as Graziano but he certainly would have drawn Zale a payday worth fighting for. So no, there is no comparison. Look, I know you want to believe that Burley was the greatest fighter nobody ever heard of that didnt get a title shot because he was so good everybody was afraid to fight him but thats simply not the case. The truth is far more prosaic. He was a boring passionless fighter who the fans didnt care to see and as a result he brought now money to the table which meant promoters didnt care to use him. Its as simple as that. This entire sport begins with the money in the fans pocket. If the fans like a fighter enough to come out and pay to watch him fight promoters will get fights for that fighter so that they can get the money out of the fans pockets and into their own. Its called prizefighting for a reason, because the sport has always revolved around money. The guy who brings in the most of it gets the most opportunities and the most money. Burley was a pathetically low drawing fighter. It speaks volumes how weak his gate revenues were. Go add up his gates and compare them with LaMotta's over the same period. That tells you everything you need to know right there about why Burley didnt get the opportunities you seem to think he deserved.

[klompton]

The point is some of you guys pushing these bullshit conspiracy theories that everyone was ducking Burley or that so and so purchased his contract to avoid him etc just doesnt jive with the reality of Burley's career.

The newspapers of the time said Zivic bought Burleys contract.

https://flic.kr/p/2gYzMGB

This article is from The Pittsburgh Press March 13, 1941, two weeks before Mike Jacobs got Zivic to sign a contract to fight Freddie Cochrane, the fight in which Zivic lost the title. So even if Silverman was a front for Zivic it shows that purchasing Burley's contract, if it even happened, had zero effect on Burley not getting a fight with Zivic. Nevermind that Milt Aron was the top contender at this point, not Burley. Why arent we angry that Aron didnt get a title shot?

[Cojimar 1946]

Graziano was still Zale's biggest potential payday. You now seem to be arguing that money should matter only up to a point and ability counts for something at least if you can make reasonable money fighting good opponents. But from purely a financial perspective Graziano clearly made the most sense. No doubt he could have made considerable money fighting other guys but not as much as if he fought Graziano. Do you disagree that purely from a financial perspective Graziano was the best choice?

Graziano was Zales biggest payday and I dont fault him for fighting Graziano, once. But what Zale did is far different than what happened to Burley. Comparing Burley and LaMotta is like comparing apples and oranges. Burley was not rated #1 during the events you describe, he was not popular, he didnt draw fans or money to the sport, and he didnt have promoters clamoring for his services. Jake LaMotta was the top contender and had been for four years off and on, he was one of the biggest draws in division, was extremely popular in several of boxings biggest centers both on the east coast and the midwest, he had appeared on national television, and was a headliner in New York. He was also an action fighter who typically gave the fans their moneys worth. He was basically the antithesis of Burley. More to the point promoters were interested in staging a fight between he and Zale AND he had the backing of the NBA which attempted to force both Graziano and Cerdan to fight him in eliminations before they got their title shots. Burley had literally NONE of this going for him. So yes, to fight Graziano once after the war and get a huge payout I have no fault with but they tied up the title for nearly three years by sidestepping a number one contender who had been the number one contender off and on for a couple of years who may not have drawn as much as Graziano but he certainly would have drawn Zale a payday worth fighting for. So no, there is no comparison. Look, I know you want to believe that Burley was the greatest fighter nobody ever heard of that didnt get a title shot because he was so good everybody was afraid to fight him but thats simply not the case. The truth is far more prosaic. He was a boring passionless fighter who the fans didnt care to see and as a result he brought now money to the table which meant promoters didnt care to use him. Its as simple as that. This entire sport begins with the money in the fans pocket. If the fans like a fighter enough to come out and pay to watch him fight promoters will get fights for that fighter so that they can get the money out of the fans pockets and into their own. Its called prizefighting for a reason, because the sport has always revolved around money. The guy who brings in the most of it gets the most opportunities and the most money. Burley was a pathetically low drawing fighter. It speaks volumes how weak his gate revenues were. Go add up his gates and compare them with LaMotta's over the same period. That tells you everything you need to know right there about why Burley didnt get the opportunities you seem to think he deserved.

The sport has also always had some fighters who strive to fight the best regardless of revenue. By your logic no top fighter who was popular with fans should have ever fought Burley but we have examples of those who did like Georgie Abrams, Billy Soose, etc maybe because they felt they should fight the best competition available. Fighters are free to override the opinions of promoters and frequently do so.

Your point about the differences between Graziano-Zale and Burley are interesting and from a financial standpoint fighting him didn't make much sense. But ultimately it probably made financial sense for many fighters to hold on to their titles as long as possible by avoiding dangerous opponents and raking up many title defenses against easy opposition.

Wouldn't you agree that from a purely financial perspective it made sense for Jack Dempsey to duck Greb? If he defends against him and loses he stands to miss out on easy paydays against Gibbons, Miske, etc

[Cojimar 1946]

Anyway, I would agree that Burley not getting more opportunities while unfortunate is no worse than the plights of many other boxers.

Burley was no more deserving of a title shot than Holman Williams for example and I think Ezzard Charles not getting a shot at the light heavyweight title and Greb not getting a shot at Dempsey are much harder to justify than Burley not getting more opportunites.

I've heard it claimed Ezzard Charles gave Gus Lesnevich a shot at the heavyweight title just to get payback for Lesnevich ducking him but I don't know if that's true.

[Controversial]

The newspapers of the time said Zivic bought Burleys contract.

https://flic.kr/p/2gYzMGB

This article is from The Pittsburgh Press March 13, 1941, two weeks before Mike Jacobs got Zivic to sign a contract to fight Freddie Cochrane, the fight in which Zivic lost the title. So even if Silverman was a front for Zivic it shows that purchasing Burley's contract, if it even happened, had zero effect on Burley not getting a fight with Zivic. Nevermind that Milt Aron was the top contender at this point, not Burley. Why arent we angry that Aron didnt get a title shot?

There is a quote from Zivic in the press saying he once owned Burleys contract. I agree Burley probably wasn't everyones cup of tea to watch and he probably didn't help himself but I don't think he was so boring that no one wanted to watch him either. He went 20-0 (15KO) at one point so its not like all his fights were drab points wins. He also wasn't the only fighter to not get his shot but he was certainly the type of fighter that people would avoid. He was ranked in the top 10 for so many years, its not like he was a flash in the pan.

[goose 5]

According to Roy McHugh's book about the history of boxing in Pittsburgh, Burley rejected an offer from Zivic to fight him for the title in 1941 because Zivic wanted 50% of Burley's earnings as champion if Burley won the crown. Burley was only willing to give him a third of his earnings. I just got the book and was shocked to read this as I never heard that story before.

[Controversial]

According to Roy McHugh's book about the history of boxing in Pittsburgh, Burley rejected an offer from Zivic to fight him for the title in 1941 because Zivic wanted 50% of Burley's earnings as champion if Burley won the crown. Burley was only willing to give him a third of his earnings. I just got the book and was shocked to read this as I never heard that story before.

I haven't heard this before either, if true that kind of suggests Zivic did own Burleys contract.

[chrisjs1985]

According to Roy McHugh's book about the history of boxing in Pittsburgh, Burley rejected an offer from Zivic to fight him for the title in 1941 because Zivic wanted 50% of Burley's earnings as champion if Burley won the crown. Burley was only willing to give him a third of his earnings. I just got the book and was shocked to read this as I never heard that story before.

I’m going to get that book. I’ve heard great things.

[klompton]

Graziano was Zales biggest payday and I dont fault him for fighting Graziano, once. But what Zale did is far different than what happened to Burley. Comparing Burley and LaMotta is like comparing apples and oranges. Burley was not rated #1 during the events you describe, he was not popular, he didnt draw fans or money to the sport, and he didnt have promoters clamoring for his services. Jake LaMotta was the top contender and had been for four years off and on, he was one of the biggest draws in division, was extremely popular in several of boxings biggest centers both on the east coast and the midwest, he had appeared on national television, and was a headliner in New York. He was also an action fighter who typically gave the fans their moneys worth. He was basically the antithesis of Burley. More to the point promoters were interested in staging a fight between he and Zale AND he had the backing of the NBA which attempted to force both Graziano and Cerdan to fight him in eliminations before they got their title shots. Burley had literally NONE of this going for him. So yes, to fight Graziano once after the war and get a huge payout I have no fault with but they tied up the title for nearly three years by sidestepping a number one contender who had been the number one contender off and on for a couple of years who may not have drawn as much as Graziano but he certainly would have drawn Zale a payday worth fighting for. So no, there is no comparison. Look, I know you want to believe that Burley was the greatest fighter nobody ever heard of that didnt get a title shot because he was so good everybody was afraid to fight him but thats simply not the case. The truth is far more prosaic. He was a boring passionless fighter who the fans didnt care to see and as a result he brought now money to the table which meant promoters didnt care to use him. Its as simple as that. This entire sport begins with the money in the fans pocket. If the fans like a fighter enough to come out and pay to watch him fight promoters will get fights for that fighter so that they can get the money out of the fans pockets and into their own. Its called prizefighting for a reason, because the sport has always revolved around money. The guy who brings in the most of it gets the most opportunities and the most money. Burley was a pathetically low drawing fighter. It speaks volumes how weak his gate revenues were. Go add up his gates and compare them with LaMotta's over the same period. That tells you everything you need to know right there about why Burley didnt get the opportunities you seem to think he deserved.

The sport has also always had some fighters who strive to fight the best regardless of revenue. By your logic no top fighter who was popular with fans should have ever fought Burley but we have examples of those who did like Georgie Abrams, Billy Soose, etc maybe because they felt they should fight the best competition available. Fighters are free to override the opinions of promoters and frequently do so.

Your point about the differences between Graziano-Zale and Burley are interesting and from a financial standpoint fighting him didn't make much sense. But ultimately it probably made financial sense for many fighters to hold on to their titles as long as possible by avoiding dangerous opponents and raking up many title defenses against easy opposition.

Wouldn't you agree that from a purely financial perspective it made sense for Jack Dempsey to duck Greb? If he defends against him and loses he stands to miss out on easy paydays against Gibbons, Miske, etc

Ive said many times that Dempsey was in a no win situation with Greb. Period. Its indisputable that Greb was Dempsey's best white challenger. Had Dempsey fought Greb and won some segments of the population would have said "so what? he was just a middleweight. It was expected." Had Dempsey lost or looked bad, which was a strong possibility then the carefully crafted myth of his invincibility is completely shot. He just got beat by a light punching middleweight. So I see why Dempsey ducked Greb. However financially the money was there. Dempsey was offered three times as much to fight Greb as he was to fight Miske and almost as much to fight Greb as he made against Gibbons. Again, comparing Greb to Burley is ridiculous in that regard. Greb was one of the top draws of his era and was popular all over the country. Also unlike Burley Greb was considered the top contender in two divisions and had fought and won an elimination for Dempsey furthermore you had numerous promoters from New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and Michigan to name a few offering Dempsey good money to fight Greb. None of that ever happened for Burley.

Your point about Soose and Burley doesnt really hold water because both Soose and Burley were largely unknown at the time of that fight. Soose was an amateur standout from Penn State who had just turned pro fairly recently. He had more to gain than to lose by fighting Burley and wasnt making big purses at the time anyway. I dont know how the Abrams fight was made but I do know it did significantly less at the box office then anticipated which wouldnt have helped Burley get other big matches.

[klompton]

https://flic.kr/p/2gYzMGB

This article is from The Pittsburgh Press March 13, 1941, two weeks before Mike Jacobs got Zivic to sign a contract to fight Freddie Cochrane, the fight in which Zivic lost the title. So even if Silverman was a front for Zivic it shows that purchasing Burley's contract, if it even happened, had zero effect on Burley not getting a fight with Zivic. Nevermind that Milt Aron was the top contender at this point, not Burley. Why arent we angry that Aron didnt get a title shot?

There is a quote from Zivic in the press saying he once owned Burleys contract. I agree Burley probably wasn't everyones cup of tea to watch and he probably didn't help himself but I don't think he was so boring that no one wanted to watch him either. He went 20-0 (15KO) at one point so its not like all his fights were drab points wins. He also wasn't the only fighter to not get his shot but he was certainly the type of fighter that people would avoid. He was ranked in the top 10 for so many years, its not like he was a flash in the pan.

Like I said, Zivic may well have been behind Silverman purchasing Burley's contract but the old story that this is the reason Burley didnt get a title shot is bogus. Zivic lost his title before he could have used this as an opportunity to duck Burley. Moreover, owning Burley's contract clandestinely wouldnt have prevented the public from calling for that match or Burley from getting ranked in the top spot or from promoters asking for the bout. That didnt happen. If you want to believe Burley set the world on fire with his style go ahead, even his hometown papers would have disagreed with that notion. The dollars dont lie. If people really wanted to see Burley fight they would have put their money up at the box office. Burley's bouts were routinely low drawing bouts.

[klompton]

According to Roy McHugh's book about the history of boxing in Pittsburgh, Burley rejected an offer from Zivic to fight him for the title in 1941 because Zivic wanted 50% of Burley's earnings as champion if Burley won the crown. Burley was only willing to give him a third of his earnings. I just got the book and was shocked to read this as I never heard that story before.

I would have to know more details about this story before I believed it. I knew Roy and we discussed Burley several times. Most of what Roy knew about guys like Burley and Greb was anecdotal. He didnt move to Pittsburgh until Burley was nearly retired and well into the twilight of his career. Literally years after Zivic had lost his title. I dont doubt that this story bounced around like the story of Zivic buying Burley's contract two things dont add up here: 1. If Zivic owned Burley's contract he at least owned 30% of him outright. Its possible he owned much more because those contracts in those days were very favorable to managers. So it begs the questions why Zivic would have had to extort more money out of Burley? As Burley's manager or behind the scenes manager, he would have had a great deal of influence over any contracts Burley agreed to or not anyway. So this doesnt jive with reality for me. Besides, as Ive said before, when Burley's contract was sold Mike Jacobs already had Freddie Cochrane signed to fight Zivic and already had Zivic obliged to fight his next defense for Jacobs, the only thing missing was Zivic's signature which he got two weeks after Burley's contract was sold. Zivic lost his title in that defense so again, this totally contradicts the idea that Zivic possibly owning Burley's contract prevented Burley from a title shot. Mike Jacobs had zero interest in Burley, EVER, so that fight simply wasnt going to happen anywhere it would have made it worth it. When Zivic can draw down tens of thousands defending in New York do you think hes going to take a few thousand to defend against Burley in Pittsburgh? It simply wouldnt happen. Pittsburgh simply didnt have the means to make this fight worth the effort. Two years earlier Mike Jacobs promoted Conn-Bettina in an indoor fight in the Garden in New York and had a gate of $51000. Thats a good gate for an indoor summer fight. He was so happy he decided to stage the rematch in Pittsburgh at an outdoor ballpark and anticipated a gate of more than $100,000. The rematch did just over $60,000, far below what he anticipated and far below what it would have done in New York (and it still broke the record in Pittsburgh) and thats with two very popular well known fighters who were both being touted as future HW challengers in a fight promoted by the best promoter in the world. It just serves to show that these promoters drove the sport and they had to have two guys who could draw to make it worth their effort. Furthermore, Zivic isnt going to fight Burley without a sweetheart deal himself and hes justified in doing so. Zivic was the one bringing all of the juice to the fight, not Burley. Like I said before, this isnt a charity, you dont fight a guy who isnt your top contender and cant draw and then pay him his best purse for it. So Burley had so many strikes going against him that all of the nonsense thats been written about him is just that. Yes, he was a good fighter and capable of beating a lot of these guys but he didnt NOT get fights with them because they were scared of him. He didnt get fights with them because he didnt bring in money and nobody cared that much about his services as the B-side fighter.