BoxRec

I had first heard (only born in 1960, so never would've seen him fight) 8) of Charley Burley IIRC in the late 1980's. Burley was still alive at that time and a sportswriter (whose name I will not type here since it's not 100% certain in memory) for the "Village Voice" interviewed him. Basically, Burley and the writer accused (and obviously it's been repeated since then) Jake LaMotta and Sugar Ray Robinson of ducking him, Burley, during I guess the late 1940's/early 1950's (in other words, Burley's competitive years). There may have been other fighters Burley felt had ducked him but LaMotta and Robinson were the middleweight champs at that time and of course the best known to the general public then and since, so most of the "ducking" accusation falls on them (and Fritzie Zivic, as below).

Robinson was also still alive at that time, though was likely already seriously ill and would pass on before too long. So no reply from him re: Burley, the sportswriter and Burley seemed to think that Robinson benefited from a (supposed?) "color line" at that time in boxing, only one talented Black-American fighter at a time in a division would be permitted to fight for a title. As for LaMotta, alive then and now, he responded by saying he didn't "duck" anybody, the writer said not true cause Jake didn't fight Burley. And some other talented Black-American boxers of the time were mentioned, such as Jimmy Bivins, Holman Williams and Lloyd Marshall (Ezzard Charles and Archie Moore might also have been part of this group, though both of them eventually won titles in other divisions), all of whom IIRC fought Burley at one time or another.

Now, what is one to make of all this? Not just how LaMotta or Robinson would do against Burley, that's part of it, but were they and others actually ducking him? And, if so, was it because Burley was Black, because he had an overwhelming talent, or because he was a "spoiler" (made good fighters look bad, even he couldn't beat them or knock them out)? Or a bit of all three? Burley had an excellent 84-11-2 record and has made the Boxing Hall of Fame, no question there. I know from other threads there may be one here who saw him fight, or at least saw film, and Jaclem has commented with great knowledge. It was even said that it might be 50-50 whether Burley or Robinson would win a given fight between them, though Sugar Ray would probably win 2 out of 3.

Certainly Robinson wasn't totally against fighting other Black-Americans, he took on Henry Armstrong and Tommy Bell (as well as some lesser-known) besides Kid Gavilan (a Black-Cuban) and Randy Turpin (half Black-Briton). On the other hand, as has been said, there were some big names (not all of them Black, either) Robinson never got around to meeting in the ring.

With regard to LaMotta, the "color line" business might be even more dubious. Not only did Jake fight Robinson all those times, there were also fights vs. Jimmy Reeves, Tommy Bell, Lloyd Marshall and Billy Fox. The latter of which LaMotta threw (even though Fox was supposedly a good fighter), not Fox, so no fear-motivated color line there. Perhaps it was a matter of Jake fighting only those whom the gangsters controlling much of boxing told him to, and Charley Burley just wasn't "connected" enough to get the really big fights? LaMotta even fought (and beat) Holman Williams, who went an even 3-3-1 against Burley, so it's not as if Burley was an automatic knockout winner against the "Raging Bull." Hard to see him running from anyone, has anybody else asked him about this?

Even Zivic, if he was ducking Burley after their third fight, might well have been doing it out of concern for Burley's talent rather than color. He did fight Burley the three times, losing twice, though none of them were knockouts. And of course he also fought Robinson (losing both times, once by knockout, which Burley couldn't do), Armstrong, Tommy Bell, Beau Jack, Bob Montgomery, Billy Arnold and Charlie Bell...some great fighters there (even LaMotta), no "color line" in evidence. But I'd be very interested in what others here think, hopefully based on the record(s) and not the likes of "Old Uncle Joe said..."

Anthony

I first heard of Charlie Burley when Eddie Futch picked him as the best fighter he had ever seen. Stories about Burley would appear from time to time, always with the theme that Burley had been ducked or color-lined out of a title shot. His record is impressive - many talented oppenents and I believe never KO'd. Last year, I was lucky enough to find and purchase a videotape of Burley's only filmed fight, a 1946 effort against a lt. heavy. Fighting a larger man, Burley showed great defense and landed some long right hands. It reminded me of the way Roy Jones fought Ruiz.
Was Burley good enough to beat Robinson? I'd give a slight edge to Sugar Ray based on speed and accuracy. LaMotta would have been tough, but he could be outboxed and Burley was skilled enough and crafty enough to do that and win on points.
Was Burley ducked? Hard to say. Lots of circumstances conspired against him. He was all of the above - a spoiler, not an explosive puncher, not well connected, not enough of a "personality". In addition, World War II froze all titles and the war years were Burley's prime.
So, it's always interesting to play "what if", but what we know for sure is that it's a shame Burley never even got a chance to fight for a title.
Does anyone know where I can find interviews of Burley or magazine articles? Any chance there is a bio?

A bio on Burley: http://www.cyberboxingzone.com/boxing/burley-b.htm

There's only one film of Burely on tape that I know of, his second win over Billy Smith (a hard-hitting light-heavyweight contender, who later KO'd Harold Johnson in 2 rounds). I have it... he looks good, but it's hard to judge him, because the speed of the tape is slow, and also I'm not sure if he was still in his prime then. I think Robinson would've beat him, but it would've been a tough fight. LaMotta-Burley? That's a tough one... Burley might've had just the right stuff to beat him.

As for why these guys never fought... Burley was the top welterweight contender when Henry Armstrong was champ, but Armstrong avoided him and fought Zivic instead (who had already lost twice to Burley). After Zivic won, he bought Burley's contract, and so Burley was basically "frozen" out of a title shot there because Zivic wouldn't fight him again on the grounds that he was his manager. That's why Burley moved up to middle. Burley was the top middle contender while Robinson was still seeking the welter title. If you accuse Robby of ducking him, you're accusing a top welter contender (and nothing more, yet) of ducking the top middle contender ( ). The reason this match was ever proposed is because Robby was just so great and had just cleaned out his division so much (and also beaten a lot of middles as well) that this was basically the only fight left out there for Ray. (Ray couldn't get a title shot at welter, I believe, because the champ Freddie Cochrane was in the army.)

As for why LaMotta-Burley never happened, I just don't know.

Yes, the fight with Smith is the tape I have. It's priceless to have something of Burley recorded, but I do get the impression that he was not fighting his usual style because of the size and weight difference. He was aiming to score one punch at a time and then avoid counters, which he did.
Burley was a Ring magazine top-10 welterweight from '38 to '41. He's a top-10 middleweight in '42, '44, '45 and'46. Hard to believe no title shot. I think the war had much to do with it, and the Zivic situation you described sure didn't help. Plus, losses at crucial times to Holman Williams and Ezzard Charles could have kept him out.
I don't think Robinson or Armstrong ducked him, but now I wonder about Zale, Graziano and LaMotta. Burley was still top-10 after the war. Why no matches with other contenders? Mob stuff?

crooked nose wrote:Yes, the fight with Smith is the tape I have. It's priceless to have something of Burley recorded, but I do get the impression that he was not fighting his usual style because of the size and weight difference. He was aiming to score one punch at a time and then avoid counters, which he did.
Burley was a Ring magazine top-10 welterweight from '38 to '41. He's a top-10 middleweight in '42, '44, '45 and'46. Hard to believe no title shot. I think the war had much to do with it, and the Zivic situation you described sure didn't help. Plus, losses at crucial times to Holman Williams and Ezzard Charles could have kept him out.
I don't think Robinson or Armstrong ducked him, but now I wonder about Zale, Graziano and LaMotta. Burley was still top-10 after the war. Why no matches with other contenders? Mob stuff?

I was thinking the same thing too, about Burley not being able to fight his own fight against Smith.

Seems like all those problems you described contributed to Burley not getting a shot. Burley was supposedly told once that if he took a dive, he'd get a title shot, but he refused to do it.

BTW, Burley was never knocked DOWN in his career.

Interesting thread on a fighter who probably should be much more well-known than he is.

crooked nose wrote:I don't think Robinson or Armstrong ducked him

But Keed writes:

The Keed wrote:Burley was the top welterweight contender when Henry Armstrong was champ, but Armstrong avoided him and fought Zivic instead (who had already lost twice to Burley).

...which certainly could be interpreted as Armstrong "ducking" Burley. This is not to say Armstrong was anything but an all-time great fighter, but it does show that even the all-time great old-timers often picked and chose their opponents. (Which is perhaps more forgivable as they were generally fighting so much more frequently than the top guys nowadays.)

Eric the Viking wrote:Interesting thread on a fighter who probably should be much more well-known than he is.

crooked nose wrote:I don't think Robinson or Armstrong ducked him

But Keed writes:

The Keed wrote:Burley was the top welterweight contender when Henry Armstrong was champ, but Armstrong avoided him and fought Zivic instead (who had already lost twice to Burley).

...which certainly could be interpreted as Armstrong "ducking" Burley. This is not to say Armstrong was anything but an all-time great fighter, but it does show that even the all-time great old-timers often picked and chose their opponents. (Which is perhaps more forgivable as they were generally fighting so much more frequently than the top guys nowadays.)

Armstrong KO 1 Roy Jones

:P

Eric the Viking wrote:Interesting thread on a fighter who probably should be much more well-known than he is.

crooked nose wrote:I don't think Robinson or Armstrong ducked him

But Keed writes:

The Keed wrote:Burley was the top welterweight contender when Henry Armstrong was champ, but Armstrong avoided him and fought Zivic instead (who had already lost twice to Burley).

...which certainly could be interpreted as Armstrong "ducking" Burley. This is not to say Armstrong was anything but an all-time great fighter, but it does show that even the all-time great old-timers often picked and chose their opponents. (Which is perhaps more forgivable as they were generally fighting so much more frequently than the top guys nowadays.)

But on a serious note, that's one of the reasons I don't rank Henry Armstrong as one of the greatest welters of all time. He was great at feather and lightweight... but while welter champ he did indeed pick and choose his opponents. Only a handful of his 18 or so defenses were against ranked contenders, and fights with the absolute best welters in the division (ie: Burley, Marcel Cerdan) failed to come off, although in the case of Cerdan it may not have been Armstrong's faul (they were scheduled to fight, I think, but then Cerdan was drafted into the army).

As far as Eddie Futch goes, it's my personal opinion to take anything he said with the proverbial grain of salt. I mean I've got more respect for him as a trainer than, say, terap did (which was likely little to none). On the other hand Futch (especially in his later years) liked to run his mouth, trying to make it seem as if he, Futch, was in the ring alone fighting and winning Frazier's, Norton's etc. victories. He was not unique in this, other successful trainer/managers (i.e. Angelo Dundee, Yank Durham et al.) did the same thing, my point is it made it dubious when Futch tended to say, "So-and-so was the greatest fighter ever..."

Now there's certainly more than just Eddie Futch to recommend Charley Burley. Namely, the words of some of his opponents and his record. Surely it is good that Burley finally got some recognition and made the Hall of Fame. Robinson and Zivic, like Burley himself, are now long dead but has anyone attempted to ask Jake LaMotta about this? Granted, Jake might not give an (enlightening) answer...

Joey Giambra may deserve a thread of his own here, anyone have anything to say about him? In some ways he somewhat reminds me of Burley: never knocked out (was he even knocked down?), also has said (then and now) he wanted that fight vs. Sugar Ray Robinson that he never got. Giambra is still alive and believes that lack of effective management plus possible reputation as a "spoiler" and unwillingness to "take a dive" may have cost him that fight and others. Similar to Burley in those respects (and both lost fights at crucial times?). Giambra beat his archrival (and future champion) Joey Giardello (who himself beat SRR) two out of three, all were probably close yet two were in Giambra's and Giardello's respective hometowns (where each got the nod once) of Buffalo and NYC. What is certain is that Giambra won the third fight in neutral San Francisco.

Jake LaMotta of course was also ordered to take a dive if he wanted a title fight and, unlike Burley and Giambra, he took it. Also unlike Burley and Giambra, he actually got the title fight (vs. Cerdan) so there may be something to that theory. I don't entirely blame LaMotta for that, as he himself said, he looks like a saint next to some of these crooks in boxing. Frankie Carbo, Blinky Palermo, Owen Madden before, and others during and since as well as managers and promoters who worked with them...They're the ones who should have most raised the ire of fans and writers.

Anthony

Trajan wrote: Joey Giambra may deserve a thread of his own here, anyone have anything to say about him?

I heard Giambra was blatantly robbed in a non-title fight with middleweight champ Bobo Olson, and that's one of the reasons he was never given a title shot.