Charley Burley Analysis

[url=https://youtu.be/81non05aKX4]https://youtu.be/81non05aKX4[/url]

Your link's not working Haz but guess the link is for this one

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81non05aKX4&feature=player_embedded

I was wondering how someone gets 96000 views for a burley vid, when you can't get double figures for an article on him rowls. 

Then I realised that, 95000 of those views will have been you watching it, and the other thousand were by people from burley in hampshire trying to google their local cocaine dealer.

How dare you Milky, not more than 50,000 of those views are mine

Excellent video - riveted everytime I watch it.

Rowley wrote:How dare you Milky, not more than 50,000 of those views are mine

Looks like burley in Hampshire has a bigger drug problem than I realised... Is it because shah's moved there?

Genuine pity there is so little footage of Burley available, however in comparison to Holman Williams the footage of Burley looks positively exhaustive. For this that have not seen it or care to this is I believe the only footage left of Williams in action

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zje1xxmDrdA

ShahenshahG wrote:Excellent video - riveted everytime I watch it.

Agree

Rowley wrote:Genuine pity there is so little footage of Burley available, however in comparison to Holman Williams the footage of Burley looks positively exhaustive. For this that have not seen it or care to this is I believe the only footage left of Williams in action

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zje1xxmDrdA

For the guy Eddie futch would prefer to see shadow box, than see most other boxers actually fight... That video's perhaps not the greatest reflection of his talents. But I guess 1 brief vid is better than none, thanks fur the link

I loved Herb Boyd's book on Ray, but it's amazing to think that even though it's largely a warts 'n' all biography of Robinson, Burley (and Robinson's subsequent shady 'offer' of a three-fight series between them) never gets a single mention throughout. Not one.

I wonder how Armstrong-Burley might have gone had Fritzie's team not basically bought Burley's number one contender spot at 147 lb in 1940 (I've no reason to believe that Armstrong would have ducked the challenge had they not done so, but then again you never know!). In general, outstanding pressure fighters cause counter-punchers all sorts of problems and have them under the cosh early on, maybe even for a whole first fight, as the counter-puncher isn't used to not having that time to pick their openings and evaluate their opponent. The pattern of the first three Pacquiao-Marquez fights is a good example.

Generally, when the counter-puncher has cracked the aggressor's code they begin to take over, but it would have been interesting to see if Burley could have managed it within fifteen rounds or less against Hank. It may have taken a series of fights between the pair for Burley to really show his hand, as Charley's record shows that he had a decent knack of improving in return bouts.

As well as being avoided by a number of Welter and Middle champions, I think you' have to say that plain old fashioned bad luck (as well as his skin tone, naturally) hampered Burley too, as he probably hit his absolute peak during the War during which title fights, understandably, became much less frequent and made his chances of securing one all the more difficult. In those tough, lean post-War years, making as much money as possible was always going to take high importance over anything else for the fighters of the time, certainly above fulfilling any moral obligations such as throwing a deserving fighter a few crumbs, and Burley's face just didn't fit in that respect, sadly.

Anyhow, it's a great video above. It half links Burley's style with Whitaker's and there are definitely hints of Burley in Pea's famous defence. Pea a bit more of a freakish mover whereas Burley was more concerned with economy of movement. Whitaker a bigger volume puncher, but Burley the bigger, more hurtful one. But both had that knack of showing the opponent enough to make them unleash shots, and both had that crucial ability to make them miss while staying within scoring range to make them pay.

All-round great boxer.

Think Burley would have beaten Armstrong Chris. Managed to get hold of a copy of Armstrong’s excellent autobiography recently and he openly acknowledges he was starting to slow half a step when Zivic wrestled the title for him. Think when you add into this the fact Armstrong was not a natural welter by any stretch and think turning over an all time great welter in his absolute prime becomes a big ask.

As you have alluded to Armstrong is going to cause anyone problems but think Charley works him out and pulls away after the opening few rounds. Would also not rule out the stoppage because on the rare occasions he got chance to fight at welter Charley could be a pretty spiteful puncher.

I agree that Hank was starting to wind down by 1940, Jeff, and you may well be right in making Burley the favourite in a fight between the pair at that stage. Peak for peak, I still think that Charley may have needed more than one attempt to best the scorching version of Armstrong who hammered Ross (though there'd be precious little in it), but Burley's chances would have been better a couple of years later, for sure.

I've not read Armstrong's autobiography (I'm still trying to get over how brilliant David Margolick's book on Schmeling and Louis is) but I'd love to. Does Hank touch upon Burley as a fighter in it at all, and say what he thought of him and the possibility of fighting him?

Armstrong does not mention Burley Chris, to be honest as enjoyable as his book is he does zip through his career to some extent. Perhaps an inevitability in regard to the number of fights he had. Still highly recommended though. The Margolick book is in my local library, suspect I will check it out on your recommendation. Funnily enough I caught a documentary called The Fight on some obscure sky channel the other night which was the story of Louis Schmeling. Margolick was one of the talking heads on it. In the book did he seem quite negative towards Maxie, as he certainly did on the documentary.

I think you'd enjoy it, mate. I'm yet to see a bad review for it and I really was impressed throughout. Outstanding stuff.

I kind of think that it does get overplayed now and then how much Schmeling was supposedly against all Nazi ideologies and policies (although he was certainly against the most widely-known and condemned ones) and I think Margolick perhaps felt it important to show that. I didn't find the book particularly biased in Louis' favour, all things considered, but even if he is a little harsh on Max I'd still recommend it to anyone.

Feel it is always hard to criticize guys for stuff like how they acted during the nazi reign or the colour line era from the comfort of the 21st century Chris and am loath to do so with Max. As almost goes without saying they were very different times and places, as the documentary says there were folk who were overly critical of the regime who regularly disappeared, never to be seen again. In such circumstances can any of us honestly say we would have been more vocal a critic than Maxie was. Also worth remembering that even with the limited resistance Max showed such as retaining the Jewish Jacobs as his manager Max still managed to find himself conscripted to the front line at an age when he should have been exempt.

One person who did appear on the documentary was one of the children Max sheltered on Kristallnacht. He pretty much said he owes his life to Schmelling. A small gesture of resistance on Max’s part and obviously not on a par with the sacrifice or risk made by many during the era but no small act of kindness or bravery either.

Agreed. I think most of us would recall that you couldn't even breathe without someone grassing you up to the ss so for him to have helped some small amount of people suggests both his opposition to the regime and the extent of his courage.

Anyone see any weaknesses to burleys style?

Don't get me wrong Jeff, I'm not in any doubt about Max's character and he was clearly and implicitly against the most noteworthy of Nazi policies. I also agree that it would have been nigh-on impossible for him to have done any more than he did, given the huge pressures placed upon his shoulders and the brutality of the regime.

I guess Margolick's points (going from the book, as I've not seen the documentary you refer to) is that Schmeling's misgivings over the regime probably came on over time rather than always being there from the start - but then again, he'd be no different to millions of Germans in that respect.

Stuff like that is quite normal chris I imagine a lot of people didnt quite know what they were getting into until it was too late and his thugs had firm control.

I agree, Shah, but there were also those who hadn't forgotten Munich 1923, and due to it were unshakably against Hitler from the off, with Schmeling not amongst them. That said, that's no cause for shame or reproach and I have no doubt that Max was a great man in his own right. I should have worded that above post a little better so that it didn't come across as Schmeling-bashing!

As for weaknesses in Burley's style, I guess the only thing you could possibly advance is that it wasn't the best for impressing judges which is maybe demonstrated by a couple of the verdicts he dropped, like the one against Zivic first time out.

It's a rough stick to beat him with, because most of the time the fault lies with the judges rather than the fighter, but counter-punchers of Burley's ilk (such as Whitaker, Marquez, Winky etc) have all similarly suffered in fights where their good, effective defensive work has been overlooked because a) short-sighted judges have somehow deemed that what they do is 'running', and / or b) they sometimes fall a little too far on the quality, rather than quantity, side.

Apart from that, it'd be hard to pick any holes in Burley's arsenal, and his exceptional record pretty much bears that out as well.

Ranking the black murderers row, there is a thread/tedious overlong series in there somewhere.

I can't think of a better man for it, Jeff. Go get 'em, tiger.

will you have a reference to Khan being the only man who can beat Burley?


How did Burley fare against southpaws? I imagine that having the body vulnerable to his right hook caused some problems at least.

Holman Williams.

No others off the top of my head, Jeff. Lytell, Booker and Chase tend to be the most easily forgotten or obscure ones and you've got them down. That makes it a nice even ten, although there are a couple of 'are they, aren't they?' peripheral names you could maybe add to make it a dozen.

Aye Williams has to be in there. Ranking those is going to be a tricky old affair. Am reasonably happy on the top two, after that who bleeding knows.

Great thread to read; the BMB comparison would also have to include Tiger Wade, I'd think. Think Bivins wins this one, with Burley's struggles against Holman Williams and Williams' difficulties with Cocoa Kid relegating them to second and third.

Sorry Jeff! Heresy, I know. Still think you should have a bash, mind.

On the fringes, now I think about it, although a bit late to the party, would be someone like Len Morrow, who beat Bivins (admittedly three or four years past Jimmy's prime), Lytell and Moore, starching the latter in 1. Think manos may have told me that he got a rating as high as 2 or 3 in the light-heavyweight picture, but with Lesnevich and Mills squatting on the crown and refusing to fight anyone likely to beat them, he never really had a hope of getting a title shot.

Isn't 'Tiger' wade normally in the mix?

A group of guys... most fought each other, often several times with varying results. All slightly different ages, sizes etc, mob links. Take quite an algorithm to rank them... Or a rowley.

I don't go for anything as sophisticated as algorithms or the like Milky, do a bit of reading, put the names in a hat and keep drawing them till Burley comes out on top.

Rowley wrote:I don't go for anything as sophisticated as algorithms or the like Milky, do a bit of reading, put the names in a hat and keep drawing them till Burley comes out on top.

Like the WBO do with Warren fighters.

Apologies for the wade repetition, only just spotted the first of your posts, captain.

Making a random selection repeatedly until a certain result is achieved, is an algorithm in my book , rowley. You can now mathematically prove that burley is number 1.

I'm encouraged that you saw it at all, milky! Just think - none of these poor sods got a shot at a bona fide title - and Freddie Mills was champ for two years. Anyone who bleats about rough justice today should be required to write a 1000 word essay on the BMR, Archie Moore and Ezzard Charles. I'd quite enjoy seeing that sort of penance from someone like az, I must say.

There is footage of an ageing Lloyd Marshall fighting Mills on youtube captain. If you were to ask anyone to watch that footage and then say who would go on to recieve the world title shot not a one would say Mills. Marshall absolutely toys with him. Always think in getting an understanding of the lot of black fighters back then that footage is not a bad starting point.

I tend to leave Charles and Moore out simply because they won world titles Huw, albeit later in their career. Also from a slightly more selfish perspective if I do include Charles even I would find it tricky to have Burley at the top of the pile.

Charles fought Bivins, Marshall, Burley and Ray, of the fighters that Jeff mentions, huw, going 9-3 in contests against them. However, he is generally regarded as distinct from the BMR. Like them, Charles couldn't get a title shot for years, but he did eventually move to heavy, of course, where he duly claimed his official place in history. Archie Moore also fought plenty of the BMR, but eventually got his shot at the title and reigned for ages. You could say that ultimately, Charles and Moore separated themselves from the group, none of whom were granted the title fights that they all so richly deserved.

Can't say I've begun to do nearly enough reading on the BMR (still haven't got round to buying the Burley book) and this may appear to be an obvious question.

Where did the title "Black Murderers' Row come from?  Was it coined during their careers or did it come after?  Who gave them the title?

I only ask, because if such an ominous name was used during their careers, it wouldn't have made it any easier for them to get a fair crack of the whip.

The most common telling is the phrase was coined by Budd Schulberg super, when I am not too sure of, believe it was whilst they were still active but this may be drivel.

He even had time to manage Ipswich and Scotland as well..

and provide rubbish analysis of games on ESPN.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4E2BEE8Ce70 This is a decent vid as well