middleweight charley burley
-
dominicanthug
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 12
- Joined: 25 Feb 2003, 22:41
middleweight charley burley
I am a big memorabilia guy, i have pictures of charley burley, inluding his ko of holman williams, i think burley was one of the greatest skilled fighters never to win a title, would you put burley as a top 20 pound for pound fighter?I always wonder why this kid never got a chance to fight for a title.
I WOULD NOT PUT HIM AT TOP TWENTY POUND FOR POUND, BUT HE CERTAINLY WAS A FIRST RATE FIGHTER. THE ONLY FILM THAT EXISTS OF HIM -WITH OAKLAND B. SMITH- SHOWS HIM TO BE A VERY CAPABLE FIGHTER, TOUGH AND DIFFICULT. IN ANOTHER TIME WITH BETTER MANAGEMENT HE WOULD HAVE BEEN A CHAMP... BUT THE FACT IS THAT HE WASN'T AND LOST QUITE A FEW.
BACK TO BURLEY, THE MAN WAS A TOP GUN SPOILER. HE WAS DIFFICULT AND PLACED HIS PUNCHES WELL AS EVIDENCED IN THE ONLY KNOWN TAPE OF HIM....BUT IF ONE IS TO JUDGE ON ACHIEVEMENTS AND THE RECORD BOOK, HE DOES NOT QUALIFY AS AN ALL TWENTY TOP FIGHTER POUND FOR POUND.....THERE ARE PROBABLY HUNDREDS WITH BETTER CREDENTIALS. BURLEY BELONGS TO THAT SELECT CLUB OF LEGENDARY SPOILERS LIKE HOLLEY MIMS, KID TUNERO AND HOLMAN WILLIAMS...A GOOD CLUB OF VERY GOOD MEN BUT A SLIVER SHORT OF THE HALL OF FAME....
-
john garfield
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 95
- Joined: 29 Dec 2001, 20:00
Futch, Dundee & Burley
I disagree with terap on three different points: I think Sugar Ray Leonard was a helluva fighter, and though, if you had diabetes, he was tough to take at a press conference.
The other two issues are: I know first hand that Angelo Dundee is a terrific trainer. Does he fudge the truth? Does he not even remember the actual events any more? Maybe. But as a guy who knows the game, he’s more than solid.
Eddie Futch I cant say first hand, but through observation over 50 years, and through many stories from Freddie Roach, who swears by him, he is what most fight people think he is.
As for Dundee, I fought for his 5th St. Gym amateur team, and we traveled all over Florida, and Angelo was always there for me. His instructions in the corner more than once helped me to win. He showed me how to change a jab so I could get more length on it. Mostly he knew what he was talking about, and everybody on the team improved measurably from specific things he told them.
Has he and Futch been dead wrong, on a occasion? Does it rain? With 100% batting average, I wouldn’t work for a living; I’d spend all my time at the books in Vegas.
But on balance over a career, these guys know there stuff.
They are not just guys like you see in most every gym today who carry a towel and call themselves trainers. And all they do is say,“pick it up! you gotta punch more.”
It makes me want to throw up. This is not dodge ball, make a mistake and your kid gets hurt bad.
From your tone about Futch and Dundee, it sounds deeper than their competence as trainers. It sounds like some personal slight over the years.
For anybody on this thread who hasn’t seen my assessment of Burley based on the Billy Smith fight that terap saw (I have posted it elsewhere) here it is. And it includes how I think he would have fared with Robinson.
l'd like to preface this before I go on about Charley Burley; it was only one fight that I saw-- somewhere's between 44' and 46', at the tail end of Burley's career, so I don't know if it's the best indicator of how good he was... but it probably gives some sense of his style.
The guy Burley fought was "Oakland" Billy Smith... and I believe it was a light heavyweight fight. ( I do know Burley fought Smith twice, and won two decisions)
The tape was in black-&-white. There was no sound, just titles to indicate the round numbers. But, for a tape that was dubbed probably many times, it was pretty clear. And it didn't have that quick-stutter look that old-time footage has because it was shot at a silent camera speed.
First off, Burley didn't look more than a blown-up welter; not a very physically imposing guy, and certainly in comparison to Smith, who was a mountain of muscle, much taller, with a much longer reach, Burley looked dwarfed.
Burley was clearly from an earlier era. His hair was slicked down and parted in the middle, like all the pictures you've seen of Greb and Mickey Walker. And his stance could have come right off the front cover of the Police Gazette. The palms of Burley's hands almost faced him, not sideways, as we're used to seeing now. It had that John L. Sullivan look.
The only thing he was missing to complete the picture were those tight, knee-length trunks with the tied silk sash hanging down. Burley was almost an anachronism, because Smith looked no different than a modern fighter.
Burley moved well and circled in the pocket, but his stance almost resembled exactly Max Schmeling's against Joe Louis, with his head appearing to be forward, but all of his weight and body back on his right foot. He would sucker Smith into believing he was within range, to draw a right hand, than counter over the top..
Burley was pinpoint accurate...but threw few punches. In ten rounds, he never threw a combination--only one punch at a time... never fought inside or against the ropes. He darted in and punched and quickly held and smothered Smith.
Burley bided his time till he could fire that sniper of a right hand, and rarely followed it with a left. His right hand was straight-as-string, seemed to have some pop...and never missed.
But, what I was aware of after a few rounds-- and this was against a fighter that looked like he had pretty good skills--Burley appeared to be unhitable. He didn't even make elusive moves; he was just not touched by anything.
The only other guy I've ever seen who seemed to have that same radar was Marcel Cerdan. When Pep and Whittaker did it, you wanted to applaud their skill. With Burley, he just wasn't being hit...and he didn't avoid the punches( It was the damnedest thing), and Smith didn't appear to be a slouch.
Burley did everything he wanted to, and either he'd lost his zest for battle or he was such a consummate pro, he did what had to do to win and not much more.
Off this fight, I could see how Burley had the tools to win most all of his fights, but he'd certainly not be a crowd pleaser; he was strictly a tactician, and no fighter or manager would want any part of him.
It would be impossible to look good against Burley... even if you won, and Burley's style wouldn't bring fans out, so I can understand why it was tough for him to get fights. Promoters wouldn't book him.
After viewing this fight, I think it wasn't so much Burley's color that held him back, but, his lack of it in the ring.
Though I’m sure both Robinson and his people were leery of facing Burley, even in the twilight of his career; if I had to hazard a guess as to who would come out on top in their primes, I’d have say Robinson two out of three. In a single fight, it’s dicey. Burley was very very cagey and might have been a tough nut for Robinson to solve--the first time.
But Robinson was far more diversified offensively, his combinations were very flashy and explosive and would not only catch the eyes of the judges but excite the fans and affect the scoring.
Burley was sweet but “Sugar” was sweeter.
john garfield
The other two issues are: I know first hand that Angelo Dundee is a terrific trainer. Does he fudge the truth? Does he not even remember the actual events any more? Maybe. But as a guy who knows the game, he’s more than solid.
Eddie Futch I cant say first hand, but through observation over 50 years, and through many stories from Freddie Roach, who swears by him, he is what most fight people think he is.
As for Dundee, I fought for his 5th St. Gym amateur team, and we traveled all over Florida, and Angelo was always there for me. His instructions in the corner more than once helped me to win. He showed me how to change a jab so I could get more length on it. Mostly he knew what he was talking about, and everybody on the team improved measurably from specific things he told them.
Has he and Futch been dead wrong, on a occasion? Does it rain? With 100% batting average, I wouldn’t work for a living; I’d spend all my time at the books in Vegas.
But on balance over a career, these guys know there stuff.
They are not just guys like you see in most every gym today who carry a towel and call themselves trainers. And all they do is say,“pick it up! you gotta punch more.”
It makes me want to throw up. This is not dodge ball, make a mistake and your kid gets hurt bad.
From your tone about Futch and Dundee, it sounds deeper than their competence as trainers. It sounds like some personal slight over the years.
For anybody on this thread who hasn’t seen my assessment of Burley based on the Billy Smith fight that terap saw (I have posted it elsewhere) here it is. And it includes how I think he would have fared with Robinson.
l'd like to preface this before I go on about Charley Burley; it was only one fight that I saw-- somewhere's between 44' and 46', at the tail end of Burley's career, so I don't know if it's the best indicator of how good he was... but it probably gives some sense of his style.
The guy Burley fought was "Oakland" Billy Smith... and I believe it was a light heavyweight fight. ( I do know Burley fought Smith twice, and won two decisions)
The tape was in black-&-white. There was no sound, just titles to indicate the round numbers. But, for a tape that was dubbed probably many times, it was pretty clear. And it didn't have that quick-stutter look that old-time footage has because it was shot at a silent camera speed.
First off, Burley didn't look more than a blown-up welter; not a very physically imposing guy, and certainly in comparison to Smith, who was a mountain of muscle, much taller, with a much longer reach, Burley looked dwarfed.
Burley was clearly from an earlier era. His hair was slicked down and parted in the middle, like all the pictures you've seen of Greb and Mickey Walker. And his stance could have come right off the front cover of the Police Gazette. The palms of Burley's hands almost faced him, not sideways, as we're used to seeing now. It had that John L. Sullivan look.
The only thing he was missing to complete the picture were those tight, knee-length trunks with the tied silk sash hanging down. Burley was almost an anachronism, because Smith looked no different than a modern fighter.
Burley moved well and circled in the pocket, but his stance almost resembled exactly Max Schmeling's against Joe Louis, with his head appearing to be forward, but all of his weight and body back on his right foot. He would sucker Smith into believing he was within range, to draw a right hand, than counter over the top..
Burley was pinpoint accurate...but threw few punches. In ten rounds, he never threw a combination--only one punch at a time... never fought inside or against the ropes. He darted in and punched and quickly held and smothered Smith.
Burley bided his time till he could fire that sniper of a right hand, and rarely followed it with a left. His right hand was straight-as-string, seemed to have some pop...and never missed.
But, what I was aware of after a few rounds-- and this was against a fighter that looked like he had pretty good skills--Burley appeared to be unhitable. He didn't even make elusive moves; he was just not touched by anything.
The only other guy I've ever seen who seemed to have that same radar was Marcel Cerdan. When Pep and Whittaker did it, you wanted to applaud their skill. With Burley, he just wasn't being hit...and he didn't avoid the punches( It was the damnedest thing), and Smith didn't appear to be a slouch.
Burley did everything he wanted to, and either he'd lost his zest for battle or he was such a consummate pro, he did what had to do to win and not much more.
Off this fight, I could see how Burley had the tools to win most all of his fights, but he'd certainly not be a crowd pleaser; he was strictly a tactician, and no fighter or manager would want any part of him.
It would be impossible to look good against Burley... even if you won, and Burley's style wouldn't bring fans out, so I can understand why it was tough for him to get fights. Promoters wouldn't book him.
After viewing this fight, I think it wasn't so much Burley's color that held him back, but, his lack of it in the ring.
Though I’m sure both Robinson and his people were leery of facing Burley, even in the twilight of his career; if I had to hazard a guess as to who would come out on top in their primes, I’d have say Robinson two out of three. In a single fight, it’s dicey. Burley was very very cagey and might have been a tough nut for Robinson to solve--the first time.
But Robinson was far more diversified offensively, his combinations were very flashy and explosive and would not only catch the eyes of the judges but excite the fans and affect the scoring.
Burley was sweet but “Sugar” was sweeter.
john garfield
there is so much good information about burley here...terap and Garfield especially that I have nothing to add, and in fact learned so much more than I did before.
I did talk to Ezzard Charles about Burley, and to his handlers and what they said is all covered here.
now..for Oakland (later Boardwalk) Billy Smith. I'm drooling at the posibilty of getting that tape..can someone tell how?
Smith was one of the first fighters I saw in person. Against Moore..against Bert Lytell and others. He spent some time in Cincinnati and I followed his career closely. Quite a character. I'll do a thread on him when I can do justice to it.
For now..he was an erratic bit good light heavyweight in an era of great light heavyweights. Terrific puncher. (Said Ezzard...."snooks" as his friends called him) "hit so hard it should have been illegal.
Had a big resurgance toward the end of his career...but, as I say....I'll get to that in a thread.
in the meantime, thanks to you guys who have told the Charley Burley story so well.
And yes, Garfield..he WAS a small middle, as you observed. "Snooks" said he was so hard to hit because of his being a small target and knowing how to use that to his advantage.
I did talk to Ezzard Charles about Burley, and to his handlers and what they said is all covered here.
now..for Oakland (later Boardwalk) Billy Smith. I'm drooling at the posibilty of getting that tape..can someone tell how?
Smith was one of the first fighters I saw in person. Against Moore..against Bert Lytell and others. He spent some time in Cincinnati and I followed his career closely. Quite a character. I'll do a thread on him when I can do justice to it.
For now..he was an erratic bit good light heavyweight in an era of great light heavyweights. Terrific puncher. (Said Ezzard...."snooks" as his friends called him) "hit so hard it should have been illegal.
Had a big resurgance toward the end of his career...but, as I say....I'll get to that in a thread.
in the meantime, thanks to you guys who have told the Charley Burley story so well.
And yes, Garfield..he WAS a small middle, as you observed. "Snooks" said he was so hard to hit because of his being a small target and knowing how to use that to his advantage.
When I talked to Ezzard about his career it was well after he retired and it was years ago, and I was too dumb to make notes afterward and when we talked on my radio show there weren't any tapes made. It was hard to get Ezz to talk about the past....
....but....I'll do the best I can.
When he fought Burley it was only 12 days after his loss to Kid Tunero and he went into the fight as the underdog. It was in pittsburgh where they knew how good Burley was. Charles couldn't remember his weight for that one, but thought he was probably around 170....(Paraphrased).."I spent most of my career spotting weight to guys, and it was Burley who gave me more trouble than most of them. didn't punch to big, but was so clever." He recalled it as a technical fight..thought his fight with Tunero had taught him some things and helped him. Said Burley had a way of "moving around while he stood still. Hard to describe it. He kept that right foot planted but could hit you from different angles. He was hard to catch with combinations. could block a punch and then hit you with the same move."
Though often thnought of as a stick and move guy, Ezz was also an excellent in fighter, and that's where he thought he had the edge. Said Burley could control you with his jab.
He didn't remember the score but said it was close. It was a good fight and the rematch was just about a month later and Ezz thought he won more decisively.
Alas...I didn't know much about Charley Burley then,so didn't have enough sense to ask more about it. In fact, I wouldn't have asked the questions I did if someone in his party hadn't slipped me a note with Burley's name on it.
Not too many years ago I talked about Burley with a close friend of mine who was part of the family that first backed Charles. He said what you guys said...."Oh, was he cute. We thought Overlin was slick but Burley was the real trickster. And Snooks had weight on him too."
I am friends some of the people closest to Charles and have been trying to get information together while they...and I...am still around. the one I just quoted is the only member left of the family that managed him at that time of his career...and he thought Burley would have beaten most of the middleweights around if he had got a shot at them. He also said that Burley often was better against bigger guys than those of his own weight. Now that's a question to follow up on...isn't it?
....but....I'll do the best I can.
When he fought Burley it was only 12 days after his loss to Kid Tunero and he went into the fight as the underdog. It was in pittsburgh where they knew how good Burley was. Charles couldn't remember his weight for that one, but thought he was probably around 170....(Paraphrased).."I spent most of my career spotting weight to guys, and it was Burley who gave me more trouble than most of them. didn't punch to big, but was so clever." He recalled it as a technical fight..thought his fight with Tunero had taught him some things and helped him. Said Burley had a way of "moving around while he stood still. Hard to describe it. He kept that right foot planted but could hit you from different angles. He was hard to catch with combinations. could block a punch and then hit you with the same move."
Though often thnought of as a stick and move guy, Ezz was also an excellent in fighter, and that's where he thought he had the edge. Said Burley could control you with his jab.
He didn't remember the score but said it was close. It was a good fight and the rematch was just about a month later and Ezz thought he won more decisively.
Alas...I didn't know much about Charley Burley then,so didn't have enough sense to ask more about it. In fact, I wouldn't have asked the questions I did if someone in his party hadn't slipped me a note with Burley's name on it.
Not too many years ago I talked about Burley with a close friend of mine who was part of the family that first backed Charles. He said what you guys said...."Oh, was he cute. We thought Overlin was slick but Burley was the real trickster. And Snooks had weight on him too."
I am friends some of the people closest to Charles and have been trying to get information together while they...and I...am still around. the one I just quoted is the only member left of the family that managed him at that time of his career...and he thought Burley would have beaten most of the middleweights around if he had got a shot at them. He also said that Burley often was better against bigger guys than those of his own weight. Now that's a question to follow up on...isn't it?
terap...re: the block and counter from the same move. I thought of Harold Johnson as I typed that...as he was the best I ever saw at that...his 15 round lesson to Doug Jones shows it as an art form.
Plus..I know you're a big Johnson admirer too, and was sure you'd pick up on that.
This thread is about Burley...but....who else besides me thinks Johnson had a better chance of beating pattersson than those other guys he fought?
Plus..I know you're a big Johnson admirer too, and was sure you'd pick up on that.
This thread is about Burley...but....who else besides me thinks Johnson had a better chance of beating pattersson than those other guys he fought?