Sugar Ray Robinson's comments on Charley Burley

[goose 5]

You guys may very well be correct about the 25 grand offer because Burley is quoted as saying something like "there was no money in us fighting each other." That statement also casts doubt on the allegation that Burley offered to fight Robinson for free.

'Ive tried to track down Robinson's son, Ray Jr., over the years but haven't had any success. I'd be very curious as to his thoughts on this subject. I did ask W.C. Heinz and Dave Anderson about this topic and they didn't know anything. Heinz said he never saw Burley fight.

[Controversial]

There were certainly articles in the press about offers made to SRR to fight and SRR fought many fighters in his career, numerous non-title fights too and not all were huge draws, so I get the argument that Burley didn't make the numbers but not all fights of SRR drew big gates either.

[klompton]

The $25,000 offer mentioned above came from Burley's manager, not a promoter. It was floated as "We'll offer Robinson X amount of dollars to fight Burley..." As any fan knows these offers come cheap and are designed to get their fighter, in this case Burley, some cheap publicity off the name of a better known fighter. Robinson was never floated an actual offer of $25,000 to fight Burley in Pittsburgh. That number would have been ridiculously high for a non title fight between two black fighters in the lower divisions in Pittsburgh at that time. Its simply pie in the sky. Any promoter in Pittsburgh would have known that you would basically have to get every other fighter on the card to fight for free and youd still likely lose money. It just wouldnt have happened. Like I said, Robinson set his price as $10,000 to fight Burley at a time when he could make $15,000 for fighting highly rated fighters. Burley and his manager admitted at that time that no promoter would put up the money.

[Cojimar 1946]

Ezzard Charles was far from being a nobody when he faced Burley. He was already highly ranked and had beaten some good fighters. He was 20, nearly 21, not 19.

[Controversial]

There was a thread about the best black fighter that SRR beat at middleweight a few years ago, triggered by a thread that Ray Arcel and Emmanuel Steward allegedly claimed that SRR was protected. I thought it was an interesting topic of debate, I believe Randy Turpin was the general consensus.

[goose 5]

Interesting. How about Gavilan and Tommy Bell ? I know many Cubans object to being called "black" so maybe Gavilan doesn't count. However, he was likely of African descent.

[Controversial]

Interesting. How about Gavilan and Tommy Bell ? I know many Cubans object to being called "black" so maybe Gavilan doesn't count. However, he was likely of African descent.

Sorry I meant at MW

[Chuck1052]

Jack Hurley, the great all-around boxing man, gave an interesting observation about Charley Burley when he and Milt Aron were interviewed by Havey Boyle for the latter's column that appeared in the September 11, 1941 edition of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Aron was a welterweight based in Chicago and had a rematch with Fritzie Zivic that took place on a big all-star boxing card at Forbes Field a few days later. In the rematch, Zivic would knock out Aron in the fifth round. The first bout between Aron and Zivic was an absolute thriller that Aron won by a knockout in the eighth round after being knocked down himself four times at the Coliseum in Chicago during late 1939.

When interviewed by Boyle, Aron stated that he was thinking about fighting middleweights such as Tony Zale, Georgie Abrams and Billy Soose in the future. He felt that his punching power would enable him to do it. When the name of Burley came up, Hurley "could see no real objection to such a fight," but then said that Burley is a hard fellow to make a showing with because he's "cute," Hurley added that Aron would rather fight punchers.

- Chuck Johnston

While being involved in staging boxing shows in Chicago with Irving Schoenwald and Jack Begun from 1938 to 1949, Jack Hurley did much of the matchmaking, succeeding Benny Ray, who died of a heart attack in 1938. Schoenwald, Begun and Ray staged weekly shows at the Marigold Gardens for several years until Ray's death. With Hurley on board, weekly boxing shows continued to be staged at Marigold Gardens, but the promotional group started staging their larger shows at the Chicago Coliseum in 1939. From 1942, to 1949, the promotional group staged large shows at Chicago Stadium with a great deal of success. This meant that the promotional group was one of the most important in the U.S. during the 1940s.

But Ray and Hurley had a strong preference for "action fighters" rather than for boxers who had a tendency to stink out the joint. In fact, Hurley repeatedly voiced his distain for boring boxers, often referring to them as "agony fighters." As a manager of boxers, Hurley also showed a strong preference for "action fighters." Yet Hurley was known for teaching his fighters boxing skills in a very painstaking manner. But he still insisted that his boxers be aggressive in the ring.

In his preference for "action fighters," Hurley probably had a similar attitude as most other major American boxing promoters or matchmakers of the 1940s, which included Mike Jacobs of New York City, Herman Taylor of Philadelphia, Larry Atkins of Cleveland, Nick Londos of Detroit, Jake Mintz of Pittsburgh, Babe McCoy at the Olympic Auditorium in Los Angeles, Charley MacDonald at the Olympic Auditorium in Los Angeles and Benny Ford at the Civic Auditorium in San Francisco. It is telling that Hurley, Atkins, Londos and McCoy never had Charley Burley fight on their shows.

- Chuck Johnston

[klompton]

Ezzard Charles was far from being a nobody when he faced Burley. He was already highly ranked and had beaten some good fighters. He was 20, nearly 21, not 19.

I have already laid this out but Charles had five fights against ranked opponents when he fought Burley and went 2-2-1 in thos fights. My point stands that Burley losing a fight he wasnt supposed to to a green Charles is nowhere near like losing to a prime Charles. Those losses have been totally twisted by Burley apologists as "well yeah, he lost to Charles but Charles was an all time great." THAT Charles was still a green fighter, still developing, and took the fight on short notice. Thats my point. As for him being 19 the press reported at the time of the fight that Charles was 19 and returning to Cincinnati that night to graduate high school. Whether thats true or not I could care less because the point was that he was a green, young fighter that Burley was expected to handle with relative ease and didnt. Yes, its a feather in Charles cap but if Burley was this unsung Sugar Ray Robinson he shouldnt have lost to THAT Charles, particularly not in their first fight in which he had every advantage except weight.

[klompton]

Jack Hurley, the great all-around boxing man, gave an interesting observation about Charley Burley when he and Milt Aron were interviewed by Havey Boyle for the latter's column that appeared in the September 11, 1941 edition of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Aron was a welterweight based in Chicago and had a rematch with Fritzie Zivic that took place on a big all-star boxing card at Forbes Field a few days later. In the rematch, Zivic would knock out Aron in the fifth round. The first bout between Aron and Zivic was an absolute thriller that Aron won by a knockout in the eighth round after being knocked down himself four times at the Coliseum in Chicago during late 1939.

When interviewed by Boyle, Aron stated that he was thinking about fighting middleweights such as Tony Zale, Georgie Abrams and Billy Soose in the future. He felt that his punching power would enable him to do it. When the name of Burley came up, Hurley "could see no real objection to such a fight," but then said that Burley is a hard fellow to make a showing with because he's "cute," Hurley added that Aron would rather fight punchers.

- Chuck Johnston

While being involved in staging boxing shows in Chicago with Irving Schoenwald and Jack Begun from 1938 to 1949, Jack Hurley did much of the matchmaking, succeeding Benny Ray, who died of a heart attack in 1938. Schoenwald, Begun and Ray staged weekly shows at the Marigold Gardens for several years until Ray's death. With Hurley on board, weekly boxing shows continued to be staged at Marigold Gardens, but the promotional group started staging their larger shows at the Chicago Coliseum in 1939. From 1942, to 1949, the promotional group staged large shows at Chicago Stadium with a great deal of success. This meant that the promotional group was one of the most important in the U.S. during the 1940s.

But Ray and Hurley had a strong preference for "action fighters" rather than for boxers who had a tendency to stink out the joint. In fact, Hurley repeatedly voiced his distain for boring boxers, often referring to them as "agony fighters." As a manager of boxers, Hurley also showed a strong preference for "action fighters." Yet Hurley was known for teaching his fighters boxing skills in a very painstaking manner. But he still insisted that his boxers be aggressive in the ring.

In his preference for "action fighters," Hurley probably had a similar attitude as most other major American boxing promoters or matchmakers of the 1940s, which included Mike Jacobs of New York City, Herman Taylor of Philadelphia, Larry Atkins of Cleveland, Nick Londos of Detroit, Jake Mintz of Pittsburgh, Babe McCoy at the Olympic Auditorium in Los Angeles, Charley MacDonald at the Olympic Auditorium in Los Angeles and Benny Ford at the Civic Auditorium in San Francisco. It is telling that Hurley, Atkins, Londos and McCoy never had Charley Burley fight on their shows.

- Chuck Johnston

Taylor only used him once. That was the Fernandez fight where Burley was booed on the undercard of Robinson-Servo and never had him back.

[Chuck1052]

While being involved in staging boxing shows in Chicago with Irving Schoenwald and Jack Begun from 1938 to 1949, Jack Hurley did much of the matchmaking, succeeding Benny Ray, who died of a heart attack in 1938. Schoenwald, Begun and Ray staged weekly shows at the Marigold Gardens for several years until Ray's death. With Hurley on board, weekly boxing shows continued to be staged at Marigold Gardens, but the promotional group started staging their larger shows at the Chicago Coliseum in 1939. From 1942, to 1949, the promotional group staged large shows at Chicago Stadium with a great deal of success. This meant that the promotional group was one of the most important in the U.S. during the 1940s.

But Ray and Hurley had a strong preference for "action fighters" rather than for boxers who had a tendency to stink out the joint. In fact, Hurley repeatedly voiced his distain for boring boxers, often referring to them as "agony fighters." As a manager of boxers, Hurley also showed a strong preference for "action fighters." Yet Hurley was known for teaching his fighters boxing skills in a very painstaking manner. But he still insisted that his boxers be aggressive in the ring.

In his preference for "action fighters," Hurley probably had a similar attitude as most other major American boxing promoters or matchmakers of the 1940s, which included Mike Jacobs of New York City, Herman Taylor of Philadelphia, Larry Atkins of Cleveland, Nick Londos of Detroit, Jake Mintz of Pittsburgh, Babe McCoy at the Olympic Auditorium in Los Angeles, Charley MacDonald at the Olympic Auditorium in Los Angeles and Benny Ford at the Civic Auditorium in San Francisco. It is telling that Hurley, Atkins, Londos and McCoy never had Charley Burley fight on their shows.

- Chuck Johnston

I

Taylor only used him once. That was the Fernandez fight where Burley was booed on the undercard of Robinson-Servo and never had him back.

I did notice that Burley never fought in Philadelphia after that fight with Fernandez. Moreover, that was the last fight that Burley had under the management of Irwin Silverman or Luke Carney. Silverman reportedly paid $1,400. for Burley's contract to Phil Goldstein early in 1941.. It appears that Silverman sold Burley's contract for a loss later in the same year. For what it's worth, Tommy O'Loughlin was quoted as saying that he paid $500. for the contract.

- Chuck Johnston

[Cojimar 1946]

Ezzard Charles was far from being a nobody when he faced Burley. He was already highly ranked and had beaten some good fighters. He was 20, nearly 21, not 19.

I have already laid this out but Charles had five fights against ranked opponents when he fought Burley and went 2-2-1 in thos fights. My point stands that Burley losing a fight he wasnt supposed to to a green Charles is nowhere near like losing to a prime Charles. Those losses have been totally twisted by Burley apologists as "well yeah, he lost to Charles but Charles was an all time great." THAT Charles was still a green fighter, still developing, and took the fight on short notice. Thats my point. As for him being 19 the press reported at the time of the fight that Charles was 19 and returning to Cincinnati that night to graduate high school. Whether thats true or not I could care less because the point was that he was a green, young fighter that Burley was expected to handle with relative ease and didnt. Yes, its a feather in Charles cap but if Burley was this unsung Sugar Ray Robinson he shouldnt have lost to THAT Charles, particularly not in their first fight in which he had every advantage except weight.

I'd say even that version of Ezzard Charles is arguably better than anyone Robinson beat at middleweight H2H. As far as Burley being expected to handle him easily, why would he? I'd pick even that version of Charles to beat Holman Williams who Burley struggled with. He'd already beaten guys like Christaforidis and Yarosz and shortly afterwards would beat Joey Maxim. It's true he lost to Marshall and Bivins but they both beat Burley as well.

[Cojimar 1946]

Anyway, I would agree that Burley is probably overrated to an extent today. People argue over the injustice of him not getting a title shot which I agree with but by the same token I would say Holman Williams and Lloyd Marshall were at least as deserving if not more and they seem to get less mention.

An overall lb for lb ranking of the black murderers row members along with Moore and Charles who fought some of them would probably be as follows.

(1)Ezzard Charles
(2)Eddie Booker
(3)Archie Moore
(4)Lloyd Marshall
(5)Jimmy Bivins
(6)Holman Williams
(7)Charley Burley
(8)Jack Chase
(9)Bert Lytell
(10)Cocoa Kid

[klompton]

I have already laid this out but Charles had five fights against ranked opponents when he fought Burley and went 2-2-1 in thos fights. My point stands that Burley losing a fight he wasnt supposed to to a green Charles is nowhere near like losing to a prime Charles. Those losses have been totally twisted by Burley apologists as "well yeah, he lost to Charles but Charles was an all time great." THAT Charles was still a green fighter, still developing, and took the fight on short notice. Thats my point. As for him being 19 the press reported at the time of the fight that Charles was 19 and returning to Cincinnati that night to graduate high school. Whether thats true or not I could care less because the point was that he was a green, young fighter that Burley was expected to handle with relative ease and didnt. Yes, its a feather in Charles cap but if Burley was this unsung Sugar Ray Robinson he shouldnt have lost to THAT Charles, particularly not in their first fight in which he had every advantage except weight.

I'd say even that version of Ezzard Charles is arguably better than anyone Robinson beat at middleweight H2H. As far as Burley being expected to handle him easily, why would he? I'd pick even that version of Charles to beat Holman Williams who Burley struggled with. He'd already beaten guys like Christaforidis and Yarosz and shortly afterwards would beat Joey Maxim. It's true he lost to Marshall and Bivins but they both beat Burley as well.

You can only say that with benefit of hindsight though and thats my point. People use Charles’ later accomplishments to illustrate how good he was when he beat Burley when in reality he still had a lot of development both physically and technically to go. At the time almost nobody would have agreed with any of your assertions. That didnt come until later, hence painting him as a green school boy, whether correct or not.

[Controversial]

Charles was clearly still a good fighter and naturally the bigger man. Was he as good as he ever was, no he only got bigger and better. No shame losing to Charles though, one of boxings greatest fighters and not on the slide like he was against Marciano. In his entire career Burley weighed between 145-166lbs and only weighed over 160lbs in 11 fights out of the 98 he fought in his career. Charles weighed from 157-204lbs and weighed under 160lbs in only 4 fights out of the 121 he fought in his career, that shows the natural size difference.

Burley fought Charles twice within a month and sandwiched Holman Williams in between beating him over 10 just 6 days before the Charles rematch. These things are unheard of these days.



.

[chrisjs1985]

Anyway, I would agree that Burley is probably overrated to an extent today. People argue over the injustice of him not getting a title shot which I agree with but by the same token I would say Holman Williams and Lloyd Marshall were at least as deserving if not more and they seem to get less mention.

An overall lb for lb ranking of the black murderers row members along with Moore and Charles who fought some of them would probably be as follows.

(1)Ezzard Charles
(2)Eddie Booker
(3)Archie Moore
(4)Lloyd Marshall
(5)Jimmy Bivins
(6)Holman Williams
(7)Charley Burley
(8)Jack Chase
(9)Bert Lytell
(10)Cocoa Kid

Burley should be above Williams. They were 3-3-1 nc but the nc Burley was ahead and it was an impulsive ref who just stopped the fight in the last round because he didn't like the action. Sure, Burley lost to Marshall (who he was also smaller than) but he washed Moore, who beat Marshall twice and beat a number of guys Marshall lost to as well. Chase was 1-1-1 vs. Marshall but 0-3 vs. Burley.

Of the fighters considered "Murderers Row" in Springs Toledo's book (Burley, Marshall, Booker, Williams, Wade, Lytell, Chase, Cocoa) I believe it was Burley who had the best head-to-head overall. Something like 11-5-2 whereas I think Marshall was something like 3-4-1 and Williams was something like 3-8-1 vs. Cocoa Kid. If I'm not mistaken I believe Lytell and Booker had the 2nd and 3rd best records.

Of those fighters Burley couldn't be any less than fourth IMO. I'd personally place him as the #1 of the fighters in Toledo's book and #3 of the fighters you mentioned.

[Ambling Alp II]

As far as ranking those guys, I would aslo have Burley third, though Booker, Marshall, Williams and Bivins aren't that far behind.

People have made a lot of comments about Burley I guess here is where I am at with them:

-Charles had not reached his prime when he beat Burley. However, he certainly wasn't green. He had 25 fights, 5 against contenders.
Ring had Charles as the #2 middleweight at the end of 1941. They only had Burley at #5 at welterweight. It was not an upset or a bad loss at all for Burley to lose to Charles, even at that stage in Charles' career. That's not hindsight.

-Burley did not get screwed out of a title shot. Today you have 4 "world titles" and a 154 pound weight class. That means 12 different titles. If he wouldn't have got a title shot under those circumstances, yes he would have been ripped off. However, there were only 2 titles. Considering the sheer depth at welterweight and middleweight at the time, it 's not surprising at all that he didn't get a title shot. As hard as it is to believe, he was never the #1 contender.


-As far as being underrated or overrated, he has to be close to the Top 50. If you don't have him at least close to that, you are underrating him. If you have him way higher than #50, you are overrating him.

-As far being a box office attraction, well he was no Ray Robinson. We can nitpick it to death and say why he didn't fight for this promoter or in that city. But if he was an absolute bore, he would not have had so many fights in big cities and against name opponents. There are just too many.

-Lastly, there is no way in hell that Ray Robinson was worried about losing to Burley.

[klompton]

-Charles had not reached his prime when he beat Burley. However, he certainly wasn't green. He had 25 fights, 5 against contenders.
Ring had Charles as the #2 middleweight at the end of 1941. They only had Burley at #5 at welterweight. It was not an upset or a bad loss at all for Burley to lose to Charles, even at that stage in Charles' career. That's not hindsight.

It absolutely is hindsight. Especially when people defending the loss say "and then he went on to beat..." That is the definition of hindsight. Yes, he fought five fights against contenders and went 2-2-1 in those fights. The people who defend Burley losing to Charles act like he beat a prime Charles. He didnt. He beat a Charles who wasnt mature physically or technically and who failed to win more than half of the fights he had against ranked opponents AND took the Burley fight on a weeks notice. Im not sure what the justification would have been for ranking him #2 at MW. It was an upset and the papers even characterized Burley losing to Charles as an upset. Its exactly why there was a quick rematch, to allow Burley to wipe the slate clean. You guys mischaracterizing this loss on Burley's record and again, you are doing it because of hindsight. Had Charles' career ended right before he beat Burley the first time would anyone remember him? No. Because he hadnt done shit in the sport. So why is it acceptable to Burley apologists that he lost that fight? Because of what Charles accomplished AFTER he beat Burley. Hindsight.

-As far being a box office attraction, well he was no Ray Robinson. We can nitpick it to death and say why he didn't fight for this promoter or in that city. But if he was an absolute bore, he would not have had so many fights in big cities and against name opponents. There are just too many.

This is another bit of revision that Ive pointed out above. Most of the "name" opponents that have been used as examples werent really big names or big draws. Guys like Williams, Marshall, Moore, etc are big names to some today. They basically have a cult following. But none of these guys were huge draws in the 1940s. Even a guy like Abrams wasnt a massive draw. There really is no disputing that Burley was an extremely poor draw. You can try to wring your hands over that but its a fact and the numbers dont lie. He had to be matched with the very best names to draw modest gates. His best gates were typically a fraction of someone like Robinson's worst gates. If you dispute this then rather than talking about who he fought and where he fought simply start posting the attendance numbers and gate receipts. My point will be proven in short order.

-Lastly, there is no way in hell that Ray Robinson was worried about losing to Burley.
[/quote]

[Chuck1052]

Charley Burley was on a twenty-bout winning streak at the time he fought Ezzard Charles for the first time. Meanwhile, Charles lost to Kid Tunero by a split-decision in a ten-round bout that took place twelve days before the first Charles-Burley bout. Also keep in mind that the first Charles-Burley bout was the first time that the Pittsburgh fans saw Charles in action. In other words, the Pittsburgh fans knew very little about Charles up to that time. So it was a surprise in Pittsburgh that Charles won that first bout.

I have looked at quite a few available ringside reports of Burley's main event bouts. Before doing that, I was aware that Burley wasn't much of a gate attraction. But I was absolutely stunned to find that the gate figures for many of those main event bouts were so pitiful, even for some of his bouts with good fighters. For instance, Burley had bouts with Holman Williams in Minneapolis and Cincinnati that had reported net gates of $1,500. and $1,558. respectively in 1942.

It seems that Burley drew his best gates in California, especially in San Francisco and for one bout in Oakland. But those relatively large gates appeared to have ranged from $12,000. to $15,000. The gates for his bouts at the highly successful Hollywood Legion Stadium probably were relatively good, Even in San Diego, Burley probably drawing some decent gates by his standards.

- Chuck Johnston

[Ambling Alp II]

I think we are all arguing in matters of degrees.
I don't think Charley Burley was a draw like Ray Robinson. However, he was not box office poison who nobody wanted to see either.

I don't think Charles was in his prime. However, he had already shown that he was an elite fighter. He had also recently beat Anton Christofordis, who was recently the WBA champ. Obviously not a legend, but he was someone anyone following boxing at the time would have known.
If you read the sports pages and/or Ring Magazine, you would have heard about Ezzard Charles and knew that at the very least he was very good.

The #5 welterweight losing to the #2 middleweight is not exactly a big upset.

Ezzard Charles was better than Charlie Burley. Not at this best, he still beat Burley. That's true. and it's true Charles had just fought 12 days earlier. (It also worth mentioning that this was Burley's 11 fight in 4 months.) That doesn't mean that Burley was not great.

[Chuck1052]

I don't deny that Charley Burley was great. When writing about Burley's first bout with Ezzard Charles , I was trying to do it without thinking about what Charles, nearly 21 years old at the time, did later on. The fact is that Charles took a huge step in his career and became quite popular in Pittsburgh when he beat Burley twice.

- Chuck Johnston

[Controversial]

That's true. and it's true Charles had just fought 12 days earlier. (It also worth mentioning that this was Burley's 11 fight in 4 months.) That doesn't mean that Burley was not great.

And Burley fought 6 days before fighting Charles in the rematch

[Chuck1052]

That's true. and it's true Charles had just fought 12 days earlier. (It also worth mentioning that this was Burley's 11 fight in 4 months.) That doesn't mean that Burley was not great.

And Burley fought 6 days before fighting Charles in the rematch

In regards to mentioning that Ezzard Charles fighting Kid Tunero twelve days before his first bout with Charley Burley, I was trying emphasize that Charles lost a split-decision to Tunero more than the twelve days before the first bout with Burley.

- Chuck Johnston

[Ambling Alp II]

I think something that we have to keep in mind with these guys back then that were fighting so often is that they are going to have an off night once in awhile. If you are fighting once a month or more, it's going to happen more often than if you are fighting 3 or 4 times a year. Burley, Charles, Robinson and many others of this time did this.

I guess I am in the middle with Burley. Some rate him higher than I do and others rate him lower. I just don't think the loss to Charles was a huge black mark against him. all the evidence points to Charles already being very good, just not as good he would eventually become. He beat Joey Maxim just 4 months after Burley.

[goose 5]

Futch, Arcel and Chargin raved about Burley; that tells me a lot cause they saw him fight. Robinson's comments as well as Moore's on Burley also carry huge weight. The man must have been one of the greatest ever.