Can you call this fight?

[The Old LefHook]

It is a tough one between two of the greatest but relatively unknown middleweights.

Can you provide any detail to Burley vs Cerdan?

[Rusty Tromboni]

It is a tough one between two of the greatest but relatively unknown middleweights.

Can you provide any detail to Burley vs Cerdan?

You, sir, are on a roll. Lots of great threads/posts.

Basically, we cannot call this fight.

However, examing the little footage we have, and their records. I do think Burley is able to effectively counter Cerdan's charges. I just don't know for how long.

Burley is ridiculously hyped because he gives us a good story. But his record isn't great. It's good, but it's not exceptional. We're talking All-Time, of course, but given the hype he has received, we need to be critical.

What really sells the hype are the reports of those who dodged him: Armstrong, Zivic (after the 3rd encounter), Conn, Robinson, Cerdan, Zale... and I think some others. But basically if some of the ABSOLUTE best guys ever don't want to fight you, you must be the absolute best, too; potentially, not just their equal, but their superior.

I would really scrutinize those claims, though. They're easy to make, are they easy to defend? (spoiler: most definitely are NOT).

Jones didn't wanna fight that promising young Pollock. Mayweather made Pac and MArquez jump through hoops to fight him. Sullivan had no interest in fighting Jackson. Tunney wouldn't rematch Loughran, nor fight Stribling. Leonard wouldn't fight Pryor. Wilder and Fury wanted each other, not Joshua. We can go on, and on about fighters not wanting to meet someone in the ring for some particular reason, when it clearly doesn't matter. Many guys will turn down "inferior" competition, not out of fear, but because they can. Or maybe it's just the timing doesn't work out.

I think it's a travesty that Burley didn't fight all those guys, and others. But we're left with a lot of rumors.

Mostly his career is built off of what did NOT happen, rather than what he did: which wasn't much, again, on the scale by which we evaluate All-Time Greats.

Cerdan's record is largley superfuous, I get that, but his consistency and dominance speak volumes. The limited footage supports that he was a tough, commited fighter. Kinda like a more refined, if less powerful, Mickey Walker. I cannot believe that the guys that beat Burley were better than that.

Holman Williams surely had more than just blazing hand speed, but that's what he beat Burley with. If Cerdan didn't quite have that speed, he had more power. Bert Lytell and young Charles were really better pressure fighters than Cerdan? Cerdan is definitely a better pressure fighter than Zivic, and trickier than Middleweight Moore.

I don't doubt that Burley makes it ugly. He probably makes Cerdan work really hard, and punishes him frequently for that effort. But I am not expecting Mayweather-Canelo here. Probably that era's analog to Mayweather-Castillo I.... or two?

Neither guy can be a sure favorite. But I do believe that Cerdan's legacy has been downgraded over the years, while Burley's has been exaggerated.

[The Old LefHook]

ell that is an excellent response. Not quite enough career information available for me to commit hard to either contestant. Like yourself, I would expect a tight match up but possibly a bum fight from the standpoint of entertainment value. When you stand in with Lamotta you have actually done something big and significant and not easy.

[QueensburyRules]

It is a tough one between two of the greatest but relatively unknown middleweights.

Can you provide any detail to Burley vs Cerdan?

- -Burley a mystery man and Cerdan one of the few French fighting legends and he died in a plane crash like Rocky.

Burley turned down an Olympic spot in Hitlers games for socialist games in Spain only to be chased out by the Spanish revolution.

[billeau2]

A lot of the praise for Burley came from Archie Moore. He beat Moore all times I believe... 2 or 3? Here is the quote from Moore:

Archie Moore, the light-heavyweight champion who was defeated by Burley in a 1944 middleweight bout, was one of several fighters who called Burley "the greatest fighter ever."

I mean that is pretty conclusive and coming from a guy who is no Palooka!

Here is some footage: This is an analysis of the footage.



And we have some of his fight with "Oakland Billy Smith" with no commentary:




My own feelings about this? The footage is no joke. There is not a lot of it, but damn if Charley's sense of distance, his footwork and his timing are not a rare set of qualities. From many accounts he fought to the level of his competition, but the subtle hints about his skills are like bloody prints on a murder scene they tell us a lot about the guy. Here are some incidentals:

1) The guy is QUICK, really really quick...Not unrefined speed, but there is no telegraph to his punches, and he is relaxed. Burley does not even need to lead with a jab he is so quick on the cross. Remember that the cross is generally a weak punch from a combat perspective because you have to punch across your body, your reach is s h i t, and you have to do something immediately afterwards not to get clobbered! burley never has a problem with it.

2) Defensively Burley makes you look bad. He was described by many as being unhittable. While I do not like to encourage hyperbole, the footage of this fight is convincing regarding this claim. And Burley does it with subtle, small movements, not by ambling across the ring...So he is always cutting the ring off, like a good boxer puncher does.

3) his sense of when to tie up, when to dip versus when to doo...looks like he was breast fed in the square circle. This is a guy who outfoxed Moore badly and it makes sense watching him work.

4) counter punching, when he does use the jab, etc... But that cross of his is lighting in a bottle. When a guy is that good with the cross he can set up the hook easily, he can catch the guy with a jab reversing the order: throwing the jab after the cross as the opponent tries to create distance.

I hate to hype fighters based on limited faculties, but I have to be honest with my own faculties which scream at me that this guy was as good as the legends proclaim. He never fought the comp to put him on those rarafied lists people like, but I would put Burley head to head with some of the best...allegedlly sugar Ray (at least his management) wanted nothing to do with Burley perhaps because they knew how slick he was. I could see Burley fighting a contest with Sugar Ray and making it a very competative fight.

Sugar Ray was quicker in all punches, but Burley has one of the fastest crosses I have ever seen. Defensively Burley might actually carry the advantage, both guys had great feet...Suger had that athletic ability which Burley could not eclipse...for all his abilities Charley was not a particularly athletic fighter. Sugar Ray had the advantage with power of course.

Cedan was not on the level of Burley. Not that I could see. Now some will say that watching Burley fight one fight is nothing much to see. But lets remember that there were fighters who believed that Charlie was literally the best, not only Moore.

For ****s and giggles take out a piece of paper and list the things one can see Burley do in the footage: He parries punches with the gloves, he uses angles with the upper body and torso, footwork with distancing making opponent just miss, all punches thrown, fights at all distances, accurate punching, quick punching, cuts the ring off, counters punches, uses the ring properly, sets traps (with the cross usually)... I guarantee that a thought out list would be an interesting proposition.

[QueensburyRules]

- -The footage of Smith I viewed was like watching the fight thru two 1950s coke bottles.

Not much to be derived.

[Zaroku]

A lot of the praise for Burley came from Archie Moore. He beat Moore all times I believe... 2 or 3? Here is the quote from Moore:

Archie Moore, the light-heavyweight champion who was defeated by Burley in a 1944 middleweight bout, was one of several fighters who called Burley "the greatest fighter ever."

I mean that is pretty conclusive and coming from a guy who is no Palooka!

Here is some footage: This is an analysis of the footage.



And we have some of his fight with "Oakland Billy Smith" with no commentary:




My own feelings about this? The footage is no joke. There is not a lot of it, but damn if Charley's sense of distance, his footwork and his timing are not a rare set of qualities. From many accounts he fought to the level of his competition, but the subtle hints about his skills are like bloody prints on a murder scene they tell us a lot about the guy. Here are some incidentals:

1) The guy is QUICK, really really quick...Not unrefined speed, but there is no telegraph to his punches, and he is relaxed. Burley does not even need to lead with a jab he is so quick on the cross. Remember that the cross is generally a weak punch from a combat perspective because you have to punch across your body, your reach is s h i t, and you have to do something immediately afterwards not to get clobbered! burley never has a problem with it.

2) Defensively Burley makes you look bad. He was described by many as being unhittable. While I do not like to encourage hyperbole, the footage of this fight is convincing regarding this claim. And Burley does it with subtle, small movements, not by ambling across the ring...So he is always cutting the ring off, like a good boxer puncher does.

3) his sense of when to tie up, when to dip versus when to doo...looks like he was breast fed in the square circle. This is a guy who outfoxed Moore badly and it makes sense watching him work.

4) counter punching, when he does use the jab, etc... But that cross of his is lighting in a bottle. When a guy is that good with the cross he can set up the hook easily, he can catch the guy with a jab reversing the order: throwing the jab after the cross as the opponent tries to create distance.

I hate to hype fighters based on limited faculties, but I have to be honest with my own faculties which scream at me that this guy was as good as the legends proclaim. He never fought the comp to put him on those rarafied lists people like, but I would put Burley head to head with some of the best...allegedlly sugar Ray (at least his management) wanted nothing to do with Burley perhaps because they knew how slick he was. I could see Burley fighting a contest with Sugar Ray and making it a very competative fight.

Sugar Ray was quicker in all punches, but Burley has one of the fastest crosses I have ever seen. Defensively Burley might actually carry the advantage, both guys had great feet...Suger had that athletic ability which Burley could not eclipse...for all his abilities Charley was not a particularly athletic fighter. Sugar Ray had the advantage with power of course.

Cedan was not on the level of Burley. Not that I could see. Now some will say that watching Burley fight one fight is nothing much to see. But lets remember that there were fighters who believed that Charlie was literally the best, not only Moore.

For ****s and giggles take out a piece of paper and list the things one can see Burley do in the footage: He parries punches with the gloves, he uses angles with the upper body and torso, footwork with distancing making opponent just miss, all punches thrown, fights at all distances, accurate punching, quick punching, cuts the ring off, counters punches, uses the ring properly, sets traps (with the cross usually)... I guarantee that a thought out list would be an interesting proposition.

excellent post, thanks brother.

[The Old LefHook]

Strong cases made for both fighters.

[Rusty Tromboni]

A lot of the praise for Burley came from Archie Moore. He beat Moore all times I believe... 2 or 3? Here is the quote from Moore:

Archie Moore, the light-heavyweight champion who was defeated by Burley in a 1944 middleweight bout, was one of several fighters who called Burley "the greatest fighter ever."

I mean that is pretty conclusive and coming from a guy who is no Palooka!

Here is some footage: This is an analysis of the footage.



And we have some of his fight with "Oakland Billy Smith" with no commentary:




My own feelings about this? The footage is no joke. There is not a lot of it, but damn if Charley's sense of distance, his footwork and his timing are not a rare set of qualities. From many accounts he fought to the level of his competition, but the subtle hints about his skills are like bloody prints on a murder scene they tell us a lot about the guy. Here are some incidentals:

1) The guy is QUICK, really really quick...Not unrefined speed, but there is no telegraph to his punches, and he is relaxed. Burley does not even need to lead with a jab he is so quick on the cross. Remember that the cross is generally a weak punch from a combat perspective because you have to punch across your body, your reach is s h i t, and you have to do something immediately afterwards not to get clobbered! burley never has a problem with it.

2) Defensively Burley makes you look bad. He was described by many as being unhittable. While I do not like to encourage hyperbole, the footage of this fight is convincing regarding this claim. And Burley does it with subtle, small movements, not by ambling across the ring...So he is always cutting the ring off, like a good boxer puncher does.

3) his sense of when to tie up, when to dip versus when to doo...looks like he was breast fed in the square circle. This is a guy who outfoxed Moore badly and it makes sense watching him work.

4) counter punching, when he does use the jab, etc... But that cross of his is lighting in a bottle. When a guy is that good with the cross he can set up the hook easily, he can catch the guy with a jab reversing the order: throwing the jab after the cross as the opponent tries to create distance.

I hate to hype fighters based on limited faculties, but I have to be honest with my own faculties which scream at me that this guy was as good as the legends proclaim. He never fought the comp to put him on those rarafied lists people like, but I would put Burley head to head with some of the best...allegedlly sugar Ray (at least his management) wanted nothing to do with Burley perhaps because they knew how slick he was. I could see Burley fighting a contest with Sugar Ray and making it a very competative fight.

Sugar Ray was quicker in all punches, but Burley has one of the fastest crosses I have ever seen. Defensively Burley might actually carry the advantage, both guys had great feet...Suger had that athletic ability which Burley could not eclipse...for all his abilities Charley was not a particularly athletic fighter. Sugar Ray had the advantage with power of course.

Cedan was not on the level of Burley. Not that I could see. Now some will say that watching Burley fight one fight is nothing much to see. But lets remember that there were fighters who believed that Charlie was literally the best, not only Moore.

For ****s and giggles take out a piece of paper and list the things one can see Burley do in the footage: He parries punches with the gloves, he uses angles with the upper body and torso, footwork with distancing making opponent just miss, all punches thrown, fights at all distances, accurate punching, quick punching, cuts the ring off, counters punches, uses the ring properly, sets traps (with the cross usually)... I guarantee that a thought out list would be an interesting proposition.

A beautiful post laced with decadent pearls.

Unfortunately, it neglects one thing: this is all based off of him fighting Oakland Billy Smith. Definitely not the same as fighting Tony Zale.

Sure, Tony Zale wasn't a LHw, and his best years were behind him, but would you call Toney better than Jones based on his post-LHw career? How about Hopkins if we only had the Trinidad and Pavlik fights to work from?

I am not saying it's an unimpressive performance, nor was Smith some hack. But he was clearly still green - he'd lost 25% of his fights going into that match, and hadn't developed his now-famous punching repertoire.

Smith gets lots of love as a member of the Black Murderer's Row because of his epic KO of Harold Johnson; and, like Maxim, he fought everybody else (no one really pays attention to the results). But he's a clear example of how these guys were learning as they went; and while there was much to be achieved from experience, they really suffered for not having amateur careers or coming up on the East Coast.

Which leads me to Moore. Moore would prove better than Smith, but he wasn't much better when he met Burley. Moore's best years were still yet in the far distance. (Actually, I do believe he was still at his best, or only just past it, when he met Marciano).

Which leads me to the rumors regarding those who"dodged/ducked" Burley: A lot of it was timing:
- Armstrong really does appeared to have avoided all Ww contenders with a pulse. His career under Jolson was a giant publicity stunt. Not that he doesn't look stellar on film, but he, more than Louis, was fighting the bum-on-the-month club.
- Robinson might be guilty, but really it just seems that the timing wasn't right. THere certainly was no incentive for them to fight. If you want to argue that Robinson dodged opponents (such as members of the Black Murderer's Row), you probably have a strong argument, but Burley doesn't look like the guy you're after.
- Conn and Burley had very different trajectories: Conn hit the ground running, Burley took the scenic route through the amateurs. Burley seems to have peaked early, while Conn was a constant work in progress. Conn not wanting a fight w/ Burley (so long as he lacked a title) before hitting his stride at Light Heavyweight makes sense. But you can't really believe that people saw Conn bring it to Louis and thought Burley then had any business sharing the ring w/ Conn. For perspective: Aaron Pryor was a terrifying guy for amateurs like Leonard and Hearns, but you know they KILL him in their Professional prime.

[Rusty Tromboni]

Strong cases made for both fighters.

I wouldn't be surprised by any out-come.


And I do appreciate the oppotunity to evaluate Burley's career honestly, separating fact from myth. Being from Pittsburgh, I'll always err in his favor, but railing against baseless Boxing myth is my big thing these days.