How do you beat Charley Burley

YouTube - Charley Burley Fights Billy Smith the 2nd time
I just love how he fights. They say Ray Robinson didn't want to have anything to do with him. Not sure how true that is but I can see why he would think that. I'm just wondering how he could be beat. We already have a little help from Billy Smith here. We can see what Billy was doing was never going to work.

How did Burley nullify Billy Smith so resoundingly? Everything Smith did failed. What could have Smith done? Or could he have done anything at all?

What would you do?

Thomas, its the only fight of Burley on tape the sad thing is Burley carried him. They had Boxed before, where Charlie had put him over twice and really given him a beating. The guys that did beat him got him at the right time when he had bad hands and took the job for money excepting a young Ezzard Charles at 19 beat Charlie twice althougth they were close and Burley wasnt giving to much weight away 8lbs. Another who gave Charlie trouble was Holman Williams a slickster Good post cc in 24

Scrap, did you ever have the privalage of seeing any Len HArvey footage, if there is any?
I'd love to see some.
Must have been an amazing defensive and attacking fighter ,held most belts in every single weigt division over a twenty year period ,got the british version of the light heavy title eventually in 39 but lost it and the heavyweight title (which he inherited from a retirment).lost them both to Freddie Mills in 42, after the war with no legs left to get him out of trouble I read.

Oh yeah he fought 133 fights mostly twenty rounders in those days! Only got stopped twice and that was in the latter days; one with a cut eye, one put through the ropes by Mills in the second round in his last fight.

From what I've read of Burley it would have taken a fighter with amazing defensive skills.

Charles had a good defense so I think maybe we're on to something there.

Andre, Harvey was a great fighter seen a couple of him, leave it with me it might take a while, but I owe you one.

Oh thanks bro, no prob if you cant though.
Im mainly just wondering, was he as good as he sounds on paper?

I have this fight on tape and have seen it many times. What strikes me is hoe much of an angle Burley maintains with his body, towards his opponent. Why in the name of all that is holy ( Robinson, Moore, Charles, Burley, et al) do modern fighters think that they are doing better by squaring up so much? There is no valid argument to support that idea. You are easier to hit and cannot punch as hard. Personally I blame 2 people: Ali and Cus D'Amato.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greynotsoold

I have this fight on tape and have seen it many times. What strikes me is hoe much of an angle Burley maintains with his body, towards his opponent. Why in the name of all that is holy ( Robinson, Moore, Charles, Burley, et al) do modern fighters think that they are doing better by squaring up so much? There is no valid argument to support that idea. You are easier to hit and cannot punch as hard. Personally I blame 2 people: Ali and Cus D'Amato.

---

Im with that ,knowing when to square up knowing when to have your centre line facing out on an angle for real reasons that you know the outcomes of .So its a mixed focused deal instead of just swandering in there squared up just because you can hit with both hands equally.
I like the thoughts and set moves behind the benifits and the dangers of both so they can be used in the right time.
Also the squard fighter is more off balance ,so there that thought in reverse: to where you can land on someone so they are square to where you land etc during a combination so they get caught square at the wrong time.

I think whats so interesting about Burley is his upper body movement in combination with his footwork. He moves around the ring, but not so fast that he isn't always set. This means that, through this, he can use the ring while still maintaining an ability to move his upper body. Something you won't see Ray Robinson or Ali doing because they're moving too fast to be set enough to preform these movements.

Well that makes him infuriatingly hard to hit. Smith misses essentially all of his punches and not only just that, he misses them big. Sometimes by a few feet.

This is something that is only accomplishble with a stance like Burley's. There are fighters like Ricardo Lopez or Barrera who use the ring and are incredible defensively but are unable to preform the upperbody movement that Burley can. Thus they can't make an opponent miss as badly as Burley can.


and because of that, they can't make an opponent reach as hard as Burley can.


Thats because the harder you are to reach the more an opponent will commit into his punches. You can see the way Burley is "pulling" Smith into him. That is something a squared up fighter can never do.

The general idea behind Burley's strategy and stance seems to me that - and correct me if you see something else - to pull your opponent into you and thus force him to reach with his punches, making him vulnerable.



There is an episode of The Way We Were with Joe Walcott and Joe Louis. They show on the screen the Knock down Walcott gave Louis in their second fight and Walcott says that he was leaning away knowing that he would pull Louis' jab enough to able to throw his right hand over it.

Schmeling did the same thing to him.

Not surprsing that all of these fighters share the same type of stance and, with that, the ability to "pull" fighters into them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andre

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greynotsoold

I have this fight on tape and have seen it many times. What strikes me is hoe much of an angle Burley maintains with his body, towards his opponent. Why in the name of all that is holy ( Robinson, Moore, Charles, Burley, et al) do modern fighters think that they are doing better by squaring up so much? There is no valid argument to support that idea. You are easier to hit and cannot punch as hard. Personally I blame 2 people: Ali and Cus D'Amato.

---

Im with that ,knowing when to square up knowing when to have your centre line facing out on an angle for real reasons that you know the outcomes of .So its a mixed focused deal instead of just swandering in there squared up just because you can hit with both hands equally.
I like the thoughts and set moves behind the benifits and the dangers of both so they can be used in the right time.
Also the squard fighter is more off balance ,so there that thought in reverse: to where you can land on someone so they are square to where you land etc during a combination so they get caught square at the wrong time.

---

Andre I thought out of all the people here you would like the way Burley fights the most because he has a very Kung Fu looking style. Actually all the old fighters do.

I dont rate kung fu highly for in the ring at all really.
But it definatley has some moves that are over looked that should be utilized at the right time.

Today is this first time I have been able to view the footage of him!
(we just got our speed doubled so can watch all this stuff now )
Wow there was alot of flying jabs going down.
They really liked the exact same distance to fight at didnt they!

I know a fighter. I often wondered where he got his style, then I saw the footage of Burley.

I know Scrap and Thomas probably know all of this already but here's some general stuff on VBurley:
A Wickedpedia page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charley_Burley
An Official Website
http://charleyburley.com/
A write up by the IBHOF
http://www.ibhof.com/burley.htm
A Decent article from the sweet science
http://www.thesweetscience.com/boxin...-burley-color/
A bunch of pics on google
http://images.google.ie/images?q=Cha...-8&sa=N&tab=wi
A box rec write up.
http://www.boxrec.com/media/index.php/Charley_Burley
A final write up:
http://www.blackathlete.net/artman/p...cle_0412.shtml

Burley looks kind of like a freak the way he fights but his stance and style are completely identical to fighters from the 20's-30's like Canzoneri, Leonard, McLarnin and the like. These guys fight beautifully I think they were the most skilled fighters ever. Its kind of hard to convince people because they look so strange compared to the way people fight today but you can see why they are effective in watching Burley. You can also see some of that in Floyd Mayweather who is a throwback himself and as dominant as Floyd is he could not hold a candle to those fighters.

Hey Guys, I'm pretty interested in all of those old school stylists. Any idea of any footage of the other members of the black Murderers row?

Alos does anybody know where I could find some footage or Images of Jack "non-paraleil" Dempsey. (Not the Heavyweight obviously.)

It's a bit difficult to answer the thread question when there is only 1 fight of the guy. We have not seen any of his other losses,and I highly doubt there is an excuse for each and every single one of them.I am not denying how good he was,but merely pointing out that we have 1 fight of his,it's only going to tell us so much about him.

When you think the month before Smith Kod Loyd Marshall and was to Draw at that time with Archie Moore He certainly was no mug and Charlie was 18lbs lighter gives you a few clues just how good Burley was then in the period at that time and past his best. Just look at some of the little things he is doing, dont see it now

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scrap

When you think the month before Smith Kod Loyd Marshall and was to Draw at that time with Archie Moore He certainly was no mug and Charlie was 18lbs lighter gives you a few clues just how good Burley was then in the period at that time and past his best. Just look at some of the little things he is doing, dont see it now

---

a clever fighter from what I’ve seen in small clips. could gauge the moment , seize the opportunity all while evading incoming fire.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scrap

When you think the month before Smith Kod Loyd Marshall and was to Draw at that time with Archie Moore He certainly was no mug and Charlie was 18lbs lighter gives you a few clues just how good Burley was then in the period at that time and past his best. Just look at some of the little things he is doing, dont see it now

---

I would have loved to have seen Charley Burley vs Archie Moore, i heard Burley gave him a right pasting dropping him multiple times. What a shame there isn't more footage of Burley.

He wasnt mob controlled, If you were a Main eventer in those days the Mob had a control, yes it makes you think. ;D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ThomasTabin

Burley looks kind of like a freak the way he fights but his stance and style are completely identical to fighters from the 20's-30's like Canzoneri, Leonard, McLarnin and the like. These guys fight beautifully I think they were the most skilled fighters ever. Its kind of hard to convince people because they look so strange compared to the way people fight today but you can see why they are effective in watching Burley. You can also see some of that in Floyd Mayweather who is a throwback himself and as dominant as Floyd is he could not hold a candle to those fighters.

---

i love watching old school fighters for this exact reason. they each had style that i for some reason think is more refined then fighters nowadays. But the likes of Jersey Joe, SRR, Kid Gavilan. them pugilizing is a thing of beauty.

so what major differences do you guys see in the styles and stances of old generation fighters vs the new?

People forget one thing, it happened in 68. Rubber soles came in, which changed the concept of a technique called polishing the floor. With leather soles it was perfect, Rubber soles changed all that it couldnt be done to much Friction. ;D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scrap

People forget one thing, it happened in 68. Rubber soles came in, which changed the concept of a technique called polishing the floor. With leather soles it was perfect, Rubber soles changed all that it couldnt be done to much Friction. ;D

---

shittt...i bet ya thats how the old schoolers could create so much speed and momentum with their left hooks. no rubber soles to slow down the pivot. whats 'polishing the floor' exactly? is it the shoeshine short uppercuts to the guts with both hands kinda thing?

Its where you could shuffle without leaving the floor, the base was better, so reaction was sharper. Having worn both theres a lot to be said for Leathers, although rubber gives better friction for drive it does make it less natural for balance, it was the days when you used Resin on the soles for grip.

I mentioned in this thread I know a friend who based himself on Burley, he's a cracking amateur.

The only way to get the best of him is acute timing with the jab.

what if darchinyan actually fought this way

Burley was a great fighter: skill, balance, toughness ..... those guys had to have it all as they were fighting 4 or 5 times a month. Contenders earned their shots then rather than fattening up their records on tomato cans and then being found out at the big time.

Burley was a masterful boxer with a good chin, so a fast starter or a big puncher didn't faze him .... you needed to be a bigger technically sound and slick boxer to beat him (like Ezzard Charles).

How do you beat Charley Burley ....... invent a time machine and bring Sam Langford in to fight him !!!

They could fight for the World Championship of 'Black boxers who were too good to get to fight anyone'

When I said "what if Darchinyan actually fought this way" I didn't mean he'd beat this fighter I meant what if Vic actually fought with this kind of style.
Watching this footage I think Darchinyan would need to greatly improve his lead hand. Where Vic has to wait for his opponent to lunge in and walk into an uppercut this guy just snipes them with his lead hand.