4 Fantasy Fights

First topic message reminder :

Burly v Ward (12rds)

Ward v Hagler (12rds)

Ward v Hagler (15rds)

Hagler v Froch (15rds)


Long for the return of fifteen rounders, where the things that old time boxing fans used to cherish come into play - heart and stamina...

Imperial Ghosty wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Isn't it also hugely speculative to say Ward beats Calzaghe for instance, they have after all never fought eachother so it's largely guesswork right? Seems to be it's ok to speculate on modern fighters but not old timers.

Where have I said its not ok to speculate? You seem to draw conclusions where there are none.

As i've said nothing is fact but you seem to have a chip on your shoulder when it comes to the old timers, you never seem to jump in and accuse those of talking about modern fighters as passing opinion off as fact. I'm happy to listen to Moores opinion which leads me to the conclusion that Burley controlled distance better than Ward.

Chip on my shoulder? How exactly? I stated in my original post that I thought Burley had the style - based on the reports of others - to beat Ward but it would depend on how he handled the speed and the weight of Ward. You are the guy thats making "light years" ahead comments and resorting to petty posts when someone doesnt agree.

I never once argued that Burley is incapable of winning or doesnt win the fight, Ive been arguing that the lack of direct comparison between the two makes it decidely vague an issue regarding how the small nuances involved in head to head match ups measure up. Moore never witnessed Ward box so theres no basis two draw a direct comparison no matter how much he is cited as a reference. If he saw both fight and said Burley was better at x,y,z the fine, its a reference point. But he didnt so its impossible compare directly.

I'll break it down very simply for you then.

Archie Moore one of the greatest readers of the game had an impeccable sense of distance which was better than Wards. Now Moore himself didn't comment on fighters unless it was worth saying so his opinion counts for a fair bit maintained that Burley controlled distance better than he.

So for that one attribute it becomes quite clear that if Burley controlled distance better than Moore and Moore controlled it better than Ward therefore Burley controlled it better than Ward, really very simple.

Ward in light of winning the super six has been massively over rated and at the moment isn't anywhere near the level of guys like Burley or Moore, not even in the same stratosphere yet.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:I'll break it down very simply for you then.

Archie Moore one of the greatest readers of the game had an impeccable sense of distance which was better than Wards. Now Moore himself didn't comment on fighters unless it was worth saying so his opinion counts for a fair bit maintained that Burley controlled distance better than he.

So for that one attribute it becomes quite clear that if Burley controlled distance better than Moore and Moore controlled it better than Ward therefore Burley controlled it better than Ward, really very simple.

Ward in light of winning the super six has been massively over rated and at the moment isn't anywhere near the level of guys like Burley or Moore, not even in the same stratosphere yet.

Where has Moore said Burley controls distance better than him? How is this relevant to Ward who he never saw?

You may feel that Ward is overrated, I think hes a top fighter that few fighters in history would beat easily in his own weight class, not to mention fighters below him who would be fighting several weight classes above their best.

Manos, you're jumping the gun a fair bit here. Ward is still a young gun yet you're lauding him with praise that "few" fighters would beat him easily. It's not easy to say who'd beat him and who wouldn't as Ward's legacy is still in the making, he has Froch and Kessler as his two notable wins - that for me doesn't suddenly qualify him for being able to live with the great middleweights or recent super middleweights such as JC, Toney, RJJ etc etc.

Lets just see how he fares in his next few/five fights then start making comments that he could've lived with the likes of BHop and every other highly rated middleweight in history yeah? I know he's a modern day fighter and you have AzSyndrome when it comes to old fighters.

Moore not seeing Ward really isn't relevant to the point, if we take Moores word and I do that Burley controlled distance better than him (quote in a Burley biography) and Moore controlled distance better than Ward its safe to say Burely controlled distance better than Ward.

Ward may be a top class fighter but he's yet to prove it, good as they are, you don't prove greatness against Kessler and Froch.

Think people have to be sensible about this though, Burley weighed in on the day of the fight and according to most reports did not weigh more than 150, certainly not at his best. Ward weighs in on the day before and makes 168, pretty much accepted most fighters rehydrate and put a decent amount on before the fight, if we low ball this figure we can work on the theory he puts 5 pound on which puts him at 173, if we go to the other end he perhaps puts another 10 on which puts him at 178, all of which means Burley could be spotting him anywhere between 23 and 28 pounds.

Am not sure Manos is saying Burley cannot win this but more taking issue with people suggesting or inferring it is a cakewalk because when you spot a decent fighter nearly two stone, and over rated or not Ward is clearly a decent fighter, it is going to be a very hard nights work for him, to suggest that will be the case hardly means you have a downer on old timers.

coxy0001 wrote:Manos, you're jumping the gun a fair bit here. Ward is still a young gun yet you're lauding him with praise that "few" fighters would beat him easily. It's not easy to say who'd beat him and who wouldn't as Ward's legacy is still in the making, he has Froch and Kessler as his two notable wins - that for me doesn't suddenly qualify him for being able to live with the great middleweights or recent super middleweights such as JC, Toney, RJJ etc etc.

Lets just see how he fares in his next few/five fights then start making comments that he could've lived with the likes of BHop and every other highly rated middleweight in history yeah? I know he's a modern day fighter and you have AzSyndrome when it comes to old fighters.

I dont see Ward as a young gun. I think hes a firmly established fighter - top fighter at that with a record at the weight second only to Calzaghe really. The manner in which he won the Super 6, the performances he put on and the variation he displayed has lead me to think that there are not a great deal of MW/SMWs in history that would have an easy time beating him. Thats not at all saying that he beats all these guys, its just saying he would be a tough fight for most fighters in those weight classes in history.

You are right his legacy is still in the making but I would have to say that I now consider him in the SMW bracket along with Jones and Calzaghe and possibly Toney even at this stage. He could go on to lose to Bute or Dirrell or Dawson or some stage in the fututre of course and if so I would re-evaluate but Im judging him on what I have seen of him so far and what he has acheived, as opposed to what he might not be capable of or might not acheive. At this point in time I think hes one of the top 5 fighters in the world with a legacy at SMW that only Calzaghe can argue is better. I dont consider it boxing sacrilage to suggest that a smaller fighter like Burley may not score some kind of easy shut out or stoppage win over him. And I think the lack of footage available on Burley makes trying visualise a head to head match between the two very difficult. There are so many unknown variables and quantatites. Did Burley fight a different way against bigger men, how would he handle extra weight, would he come in heavier? Would this reduce his speed? was he prone to x,y,z? How did he deal with fighters up close in his face?, what was his inside game like? Theres countless questions which cant be answered by a few Archie Moore quotes and theres no way of establishing a direct comparison.

Going off record and historical standings it not too difficult to side with Burley. If someone put a gun to my head I would go with Burley, but I would be sweating pretty heavily I can telll you.

And Burley beat the beast who was Archie Moore who in turn put on a career best performancy against a certain HW champ. He lost to a welterweight.

Puts that HW's win certainly into context.

Rowley, i don't want to be a stickler and appreciate you probably saw Burley weigh in.. But didn't he come in at mid 150s for Moore and generally be around the 155 mark around that point in his career?

And he dealt with naturally bigger opponents with ease, which is why the great middles never went near him.

I'm waiting until Ward fights a slickster or someone with a bit of nouse, i'm wondering if he doesn't want BHop for a reason.. Reason maybe being he'd be able to time Wards lead left hook with his favourite punch the right hand down the shute.

rowley wrote:Think people have to be sensible about this though, Burley weighed in on the day of the fight and according to most reports did not weigh more than 150, certainly not at his best. Ward weighs in on the day before and makes 168, pretty much accepted most fighters rehydrate and put a decent amount on before the fight, if we low ball this figure we can work on the theory he puts 5 pound on which puts him at 173, if we go to the other end he perhaps puts another 10 on which puts him at 178, all of which means Burley could be spotting him anywhere between 23 and 28 pounds.

Am not sure Manos is saying Burley cannot win this but more taking issue with people suggesting or inferring it is a cakewalk because when you spot a decent fighter nearly two stone, and over rated or not Ward is clearly a decent fighter, it is going to be a very hard nights work for him, to suggest that will be the case hardly means you have a downer on old timers.

Tend to think it's the way he had his way with Archie Moore Jeff that leads me to think that Burley regardless of weight does a number on Ward, size does become an issue at some point but when you're talking about such a special talent it's not all that important. Beating the likes of Kessler and Froch to my mind does not indicate an ability to beat stylish fighters like Burley, Charles, Moore or modern guys like Hopkins, Toney, Jones or Calzaghe. Bit of a cop out to say but it's easier to look good against Froch or Kessler than it is to look good against Toney and Hopkins, i'm not even a big Jones fan and can appreciate his ability over that of Wards.

coxy0001 wrote:Rowley, i don't want to be a stickler and appreciate you probably saw Burley weigh in.. But didn't he come in at mid 150s for Moore and generally be around the 155 mark around that point in his career?

And he dealt with naturally bigger opponents with ease, which is why the great middles never went near him.

I'm waiting until Ward fights a slickster or someone with a bit of nouse, i'm wondering if he doesn't want BHop for a reason.. Reason maybe being he'd be able to time Wards lead left hook with his favourite punch the right hand down the shute.

His record with the good bigger guys was noticeably patchier though and with the weight its difficult to say how it affected him. Was he coming overly heavy? Was he not coming in heavy enough etc? Again very relevant questions in a head to head fight but very difficult to answer without really watching him at all. We do know he was a natural welterweight going on middleweight later. Ward is a natural super middleweight going on light heavyweight. So there is a distinct size advantage to Ward.

Burley lost to guys like Charles and Bivins at MW which is obviously forgiveable but also to guys like Lytell, Williams and MArshall who I wouldnt neccessarily say are a million times better than Ward and would suggest to me he doesnt beat Ward at a canter.

Thing is though Coxy whilst Charley certainly beat bigger opponents and guys of a similar size of Ward this idea he breezed through decent big guys without a bump in the road is simply not the case, manos posted this on the HOF thread and I hope he does not mind me reproducing it

Holman Williams 3-3-1 (NC)
Archie Moore 1-0
Ezzard Charles 0-2
Jimmy Bivins 0-1
Lloyd Marshall 0-1

All of those guys were natural light heavies or certainly on their way to becoming them when they fought Burley and most did enough to be considered better fighters than Ward but the figures do suggest Charley could be troubled when the weight gap was large enough and with day before weigh ins Ward would comfortably weigh as much as any of those guys. I picked Burley but disingenious to base it solely on the Moore fight and ignore the many times he was troubled against bigger guys, as apparently Charles beat him pretty clearly both times.

Doesn't beat Ward at a canter agreed, but think we should pass judgement on Ward for a good few fights. Bit too early to be saying he could cope with any of the greats, modern or old.

Sadly his refusal (apparently) to fight Bute or move up to fight BHop is deja vu of RJJ... Who i used to like and slowly over the years made... well you know my views on him now.

Hopefully Ward does keep stepping up to the challenges. And on challenges Burley's record is obviously frustrating due to most wanting zero part of him, think in itself it's an indication of how good he was.

azania wrote:And Burley beat the beast who was Archie Moore who in turn put on a career best performancy against a certain HW champ. He lost to a welterweight.

Puts that HW's win certainly into context.

If you actually believe that, I can think of no better place for you to spend your time than on here - as you clearly need to learn something about boxing.

Then again he also beat thos guys a few times in reverse, would have to consider Lytell, Williams and Marshall as better fighters than Ward at the current moment until he starts fighting and beating different styles of fighter it's hard to judge how he does against them.

oxring wrote:

azania wrote:And Burley beat the beast who was Archie Moore who in turn put on a career best performancy against a certain HW champ. He lost to a welterweight.

Puts that HW's win certainly into context.

If you actually believe that, I can think of no better place for you to spend your time than on here - as you clearly need to learn something about boxing.

Dont want to derail what is a fascinating thread with manos handling the sepia brigade handily, but the facts are that Burley beat Moore who lost to Rocky. If Burley had fought Rocky then god knows what you guys would have been saying about how Rocky beat the beast that is Burley without applying any context whatsoever.

rowley wrote:Thing is though Coxy whilst Charley certainly beat bigger opponents and guys of a similar size of Ward this idea he breezed through decent big guys without a bump in the road is simply not the case, manos posted this on the HOF thread and I hope he does not mind me reproducing it

Holman Williams 3-3-1 (NC)
Archie Moore 1-0
Ezzard Charles 0-2
Jimmy Bivins 0-1
Lloyd Marshall 0-1

All of those guys were natural light heavies or certainly on their way to becoming them when they fought Burley and most did enough to be considered better fighters than Ward but the figures do suggest Charley could be troubled when the weight gap was large enough and with day before weigh ins Ward would comfortably weigh as much as any of those guys. I picked Burley but disingenious to base it solely on the Moore fight and ignore the many times he was troubled against bigger guys, as apparently Charles beat him pretty clearly both times.

I think we can ignore the Charles fights as even in such a talent rich era he was head and shoulder above the rest, Burley couldn't cope with him, Moore couldn't cope with him and Ward certainly wouldn't cope with him.

I would personally Jeff consider those five men to be the best whom Burley faced but think Wards current level is somewhere closer to that of the Wade, Lytell and Chase's of the world rather than a quintet of the greatest fighters of any era. We know stylistically that Burley can beat and compete with bigger fighters who can counter punch, you know the boxer types while we know that Ward can beat the likes of Kessler and Froch. From what i've seen thus far there isn't anything to suggest Ward beats a smaller better fighter than himself while Burley could beat bigger lesser skilled fighters than himself. Ward may go on to prove his greatness but it's far too early for comparisons to Jones, Hopkins, Burley or Moore.

azania wrote:

Dont want to derail what is a fascinating thread

Then don't then.

coxy0001 wrote:Doesn't beat Ward at a canter agreed, but think we should pass judgement on Ward for a good few fights. Bit too early to be saying he could cope with any of the greats, modern or old.

Sadly his refusal (apparently) to fight Bute or move up to fight BHop is deja vu of RJJ... Who i used to like and slowly over the years made... well you know my views on him now.

Hopefully Ward does keep stepping up to the challenges. And on challenges Burley's record is obviously frustrating due to most wanting zero part of him, think in itself it's an indication of how good he was.

Well its a glass half full vs glass half empty scenario. If you look at what he has acheived to date and the manner in which he has done it I think its sufficient to put him up in the same bracket as Calzaghe. Even going back to his amateur days he has pedigree. Theres no real reason to be pessimistic so far. Its not like he just scraped through the Super Six with a few near misses. He went through unbeaten in pretty commanding fashion. I think hes earned his "hype" or whatever it is you want to call it. He may go on to lose to lesser fighters, his career could tail off etc but at this specific point in time it would seem harsh to judge him on the possibility of this.

If you think he doesnt lose to Burley easily then Im basically in agreement as my point was really that first off its exceedingly difficult to say without proper footage on Burley and secondly that I think given the circmstances its unlikely to be an easy victory one way or the other.

I'd be interested to know what exactly it would take from Ward to make his slightly sterner critics think that he could conceivably beat the likes of Burley. To me, the basis is already there to suggest that whoever came out on top between them in a series of, say, five fights, it wouldn't be by much of a margin.

I get the impression that even beating Bute and then Hopkins for a 175 lb wouldn't be enough, but would be interested to hear people's take on this.

azania wrote:

oxring wrote:

azania wrote:And Burley beat the beast who was Archie Moore who in turn put on a career best performancy against a certain HW champ. He lost to a welterweight.

Puts that HW's win certainly into context.

If you actually believe that, I can think of no better place for you to spend your time than on here - as you clearly need to learn something about boxing.

Dont want to derail what is a fascinating thread with manos handling the sepia brigade handily, but the facts are that Burley beat Moore who lost to Rocky. If Burley had fought Rocky then god knows what you guys would have been saying about how Rocky beat the beast that is Burley without applying any context whatsoever.

You're making a fair few assumptions there - in fact, you're frankly talking cobblers. Yes, Burley beat Moore who lost to Rocky. Pinckney beat Junior Jones. Junior Jones beat Barrera. So what?

I'm not sure Manos is "handling the sepia brigade handily".

He's objecting, reasonably enough, to passing opinions off as fact.

On this he has an excellent point. None of what I write on here is stated according to a 95% confidence interval.

However - read any historical novel and the opinions of the authors, based upon an analysis of first and second hand testimonies - are presented no differently.

I really don't see why boxing has to be different?

88Chris05 wrote:I'd be interested to know what exactly it would take from Ward to make his slightly sterner critics think that he could conceivably beat the likes of Burley. To me, the basis is already there to suggest that whoever came out on top between them in a series of, say, five fights, it wouldn't be by much of a margin.

I get the impression that even beating Bute and then Hopkins for a 175 lb wouldn't be enough, but would be interested to hear people's take on this.

15 or 20 defences against Tocker Pudwill maybe!

azania wrote:And Burley beat the beast who was Archie Moore who in turn put on a career best performancy against a certain HW champ. He lost to a welterweight.

Puts that HW's win certainly into context.

It does no such thing.

It is an idiotic comment entirely devoid of context. I'd wager that I could take any heavyweight champion in history who has lost more than a couple of fights and trace a lineage back to a flyweight.

Why don't you stick to talking about boxing rather than spewing out this nonsensical rhetoric?

88Chris05 wrote:I'd be interested to know what exactly it would take from Ward to make his slightly sterner critics think that he could conceivably beat the likes of Burley. To me, the basis is already there to suggest that whoever came out on top between them in a series of, say, five fights, it wouldn't be by much of a margin.

I get the impression that even beating Bute and then Hopkins for a 175 lb wouldn't be enough, but would be interested to hear people's take on this.

It's a style thing Chris, I hold the view that Burley wins with comfort due to how he coped with a better fighter than Ward in Moore, on the flipside we have yet to see how Ward copes against a stylist, he's done well beating Kessler and Froch but neither win indicates an ability to beat better fighters. For instance we know that Robinson copes with stylish fighters all day every day but ironically against brawlers he struggles while Leonard proved he could beat any type of boxer. Not seen a great deal of Bute so from a personal standpoint would like to see Ward in with either Dawson or Hopkins whom I think give him the toughest stylistic test out there. Calzaghes longevity proved he could cope with different styles especially the technical brilliance of Hopkins, the big punching of Lacy and the more modern european style of jab/right hand in Kessler (not sure how I would label him). Variation is the spice of life.

I'll quit whilst I'm behind.

manos de piedra wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:I'd be interested to know what exactly it would take from Ward to make his slightly sterner critics think that he could conceivably beat the likes of Burley. To me, the basis is already there to suggest that whoever came out on top between them in a series of, say, five fights, it wouldn't be by much of a margin.

I get the impression that even beating Bute and then Hopkins for a 175 lb wouldn't be enough, but would be interested to hear people's take on this.

15 or 20 defences against Tocker Pudwill maybe!

Based on Kessler and Froch - the 2 top level 168 operators he's faced - I do think its a bit premature before we start picking him over all time greats, (based on anything other than a size advantage over Burley). A few more top level wins and I'll re-evaluate. Bute would be good, Hopkins would also do.

oxring wrote:

azania wrote:

oxring wrote:

azania wrote:And Burley beat the beast who was Archie Moore who in turn put on a career best performancy against a certain HW champ. He lost to a welterweight.

Puts that HW's win certainly into context.

If you actually believe that, I can think of no better place for you to spend your time than on here - as you clearly need to learn something about boxing.

Dont want to derail what is a fascinating thread with manos handling the sepia brigade handily, but the facts are that Burley beat Moore who lost to Rocky. If Burley had fought Rocky then god knows what you guys would have been saying about how Rocky beat the beast that is Burley without applying any context whatsoever.

You're making a fair few assumptions there - in fact, you're frankly talking cobblers. Yes, Burley beat Moore who lost to Rocky. Pinckney beat Junior Jones. Junior Jones beat Barrera. So what?

I'm not sure Manos is "handling the sepia brigade handily".

He's objecting, reasonably enough, to passing opinions off as fact.

On this he has an excellent point. None of what I write on here is stated according to a 95% confidence interval.

However - read any historical novel and the opinions of the authors, based upon an analysis of first and second hand testimonies - are presented no differently.

I really don't see why boxing has to be different?

I agree with you on that. Im perfectly happy to the testimony, contempary opinion and record of a fighter to establish if hes great or not. I know Burley was a great fighter because of this. Where I dissent is using this to draw direct comparisons and forming a concrete opinion on them. I dont think it can ever effectively produce an accurate reflection.

Like I said above, I have expert testimony from respected fighters, trainers, journalists all of who would testify Jones had blinding speed and reflexes. But how do they compare with Burleys? Is it fair to just go ahead and assume they were quicker? Im sure you would object and point out theres no real way of knowing for sure. And equally Im sure you would be happy to accept that the testimony of the experts was true. But it doesnt answer the question satisfactorily.

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:And Burley beat the beast who was Archie Moore who in turn put on a career best performancy against a certain HW champ. He lost to a welterweight.

Puts that HW's win certainly into context.

It does no such thing.

It is an idiotic comment entirely devoid of context. I'd wager that I could take any heavyweight champion in history who has lost more than a couple of fights and trace a lineage back to a flyweight.

Why don't you stick to talking about boxing rather than spewing out this nonsensical rhetoric?

Lets go

Pacquiao beat Margarito
Margarito beat Martinez
Martinez beat Pavlik
Pavlik beat Taylor
Taylor beat Hopkins
Hopkins beat Jones
Jones beat Ruiz
Ruiz beat Holyfield

Therefore Pacquiao can beat almost every heavyweight in history, sure it can be done quicker.

We already knew Pacquiao could beat any heavyweight in history

To get from a flyweight to HW champion in 8 fights?

If Oscar had beaten Hopkins I'd do it in 5 - but I'm struggling otherwise.

88Chris05 wrote:I'd be interested to know what exactly it would take from Ward to make his slightly sterner critics think that he could conceivably beat the likes of Burley. To me, the basis is already there to suggest that whoever came out on top between them in a series of, say, five fights, it wouldn't be by much of a margin.

I get the impression that even beating Bute and then Hopkins for a 175 lb wouldn't be enough, but would be interested to hear people's take on this.

Bute will be dismissed as unproven and overrated. Ditto Anthony Dirrell and Ismail Sillakh.
Chad Dawson and Andre Dirrell have already been beaten/exposed.
And of course, B-Hop's age will be seen as the over-riding factor if he loses.

As Manos has pointed out, perhaps Ward needs to pad up his record with the Pudwill's of the world in order to get any credit.

oxring wrote:To get from a flyweight to HW champion in 8 fights?

If Oscar had beaten Hopkins I'd do it in 5 - but I'm struggling otherwise.

6 fights really Oxy, as remember Jones was a heavyweight champion but 8 to a lineal champion.

Here's one to work on which may be of relevance:



Burley's %age ratio of ko wins over Negroes compared to his %age ko wins over white(Caucasian or otherwise) fighters.


Also would like to see the same results for Ray Robinson(at welterweight), Charles, Moore, Holman Williams, LLoyd Marshall etc.

Probably higher against white fighters not that it has much relevance.

I'd wager you are correct. Would still like to see the results.

What relevance does that have?

Would be interesting.

Only thing I can say on this is Burley stopped Chase easily enough (twice) - the only other man to do that was Archie Moore (and Grevante - which could have been a fix).

Im not sure how much you could take from the survey. Burley was kept away from the top white fighters by and large and was generally pitted against the top black ones so I would guess his KO ratio was higher over the whites.

Thing is though the fighter who fought the top level white fighters didn't face the top level black fighters namely Robinson while the opposite is true of the rest, so how much you can draw from such a statistic is minimal.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:What relevance does that have?

I have no idea what relevance, if any it could throw up. That's why I said 'maybe.' Can you read what i said before responding please?


It was just something that came into my head while reading what has turned into an interesting thread. Nothing deep.

I would generally consider that the black fighters of the day were for the most part better than the white champions - hence they were isolated. Certainly Moore, Charles and Bivins were superior to the likes of Lesnevitch, Mills and Maxim.

Lloyd Marshall is decent benchmark. Hes probably a notch below Moore/Charles/Bivins. He holds a SD win over Burley but seemed to fight a good few of the white contenders in non title fights. He has wins over the likes of LaMotta (close fight by all reports), Mills (who won the title not long after), Brouillard (probably past it), Maxim, Yarosz, Hogue. A few losses but generally seemed to get the better of the white guys he faced.

Agree Manos, the best fighters of the era were black and when they fought there white counterparts tended to on the whole get the better of them but at the same time you get someone like LaMotta who was nigh on impossible to knockout.