Why were Murderers Row ducked so much?
I don't really understand it, they got ducked a lot but the people who ducked them went on to fight the Jake LaMottas and Archie Moores and Rocky Marcianos of the time, who are in my book just as, if not more tough.
It seems in my ignorance towards the Murderers Row as a whole, focusing only on the fighters individually I have missed the politics of it, as I assume race had a part to play, considering Charley Burley only ever held the World Coloured Middleweight Championship, a title thats name seems embarrassing today, and shows how ludicrous the whole race thing was.
Re: Why were Murderers Row ducked so much?
It's the whole risk vs reward thing. Why fight a guy when it presents a big risk (due to skill) and little reward (due to lack of name value/recognition).
Of the people they claim ducked Burley (Lamotta, Ray Robinson, Conn, ect), you can't tell me they were afraid of this guy. Billy Conn fought Joe Louis twice, you can't tell me he was afraid physically of Charley Burley. But I guess they all could make more money fighting other guys, most of whom weren't nearly the fighter Burley was.
That's one of the reasons why I hate this respect the old timer's get because they fought a lot more, as if boxing was "pure" back then and nobody ducked anyone. Guys got ducked all the time, guys never got shots because they weren't tied in with the mob, guys agreed to throw fights to get shots, and if you look at the records the records are saturated with bums anyway
Re: Why were Murderers Row ducked so much?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Beanflicker
It's the whole risk vs reward thing. Why fight a guy when it presents a big risk (due to skill) and little reward (due to lack of name value/recognition).
Of the people they claim ducked Burley (Lamotta, Ray Robinson, Conn, ect), you can't tell me they were afraid of this guy. Billy Conn fought Joe Louis twice, you can't tell me he was afraid physically of Charley Burley. But I guess they all could make more money fighting other guys, most of whom weren't nearly the fighter Burley was.
That's one of the reasons why I hate this respect the old timer's get because they fought a lot more, as if boxing was "pure" back then and nobody ducked anyone. Guys got ducked all the time, guys never got shots because they weren't tied in with the mob, guys agreed to throw fights to get shots, and if you look at the records the records are saturated with bums anyway
It seems like it stained boxing a bit. Nowadays we know so much about it they we KNOW when someone ducks someone and it can hurt their overall legacy.
Didn't seem to affect the old timers much though.
Re: Why were Murderers Row ducked so much?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Vendettos
It seems like it stained boxing a bit. Nowadays we know so much about it they we KNOW when someone ducks someone and it can hurt their overall legacy.
Didn't seem to affect the old timers much though.
Definitely. We're living in the information age now; info is shared so efficiently in an uncensored manner. I never heard of Govolkin until someone here made a thread about him.
Re: Why were Murderers Row ducked so much?
The guy that ducked Burley was Ray Robinson; he was a black guy, too. I'm curious as to which white fighters, specifically, ducked these guys? Check the records of guys like LaMotta, Zivic, Soose, Overlin, and Teddy Yarosz, just off the top of my head and tell me who they ducked?
Re: Why were Murderers Row ducked so much?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Vendettos
I don't really understand it, they got ducked a lot but the people who ducked them went on to fight the Jake LaMottas and Archie Moores and Rocky Marcianos of the time, who are in my book just as, if not more tough.
It seems in my ignorance towards the Murderers Row as a whole, focusing only on the fighters individually I have missed the politics of it, as I assume race had a part to play, considering Charley Burley only ever held the World Coloured Middleweight Championship, a title thats name seems embarrassing today, and shows how ludicrous the whole race thing was.
They were ducked and there is no question about it. Just a s Langford and others were before them. Dempsey trembled at the thought. When Robinson was asked why he would not fight Burley his answer was, "I'm to pretty to fight this man"
Moore was part of the Murderers row btw. Archie fought 160 times before he got his shot against Maxim and had to settle for an 800 dollar purse to Maxims 100 grand.
Here is a quote from Kearns who st the time was Maxims manager: “We ducked Moore just like everybody else was doing,” “He was too smart, too skillful, too experienced, and carried too many blockbusters in his arsenal to take him on before we were forced into it.”
After the fight he became Moores manager lol.
The only guy Robinson ever fought out of the group was Aaron Wade and that was after he had retired for 2 years and had lost to a journeymen.
Re: Why were Murderers Row ducked so much?
If you fancy doing some research then check out this info in these articles -
It wasn’t so much Charley Burley’s color… by Joe Rein (sweetscience)
Also checkout charleyburley.com &
this piece on fightbeat site - The Apprentice:Archie Moore vs. Charley Burley
Springs Toledo also from sweetscience (Google him) has written some in depth pieces on some of these fighters. Here's a list of articles to read:
The Beast of Stillman's Gym - 8 parts
Shadow Boxing at the Golden Gate - 2 parts
Chasing Jack Chase - 5 parts
15 Seconds
Just Watch Mah Smoke
A Crown For Cocoa Kid
Re: Why were Murderers Row ducked so much?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
greynotsoold
Check the records of guys like LaMotta, Zivic, Soose, Overlin, and Teddy Yarosz, just off the top of my head and tell me who they ducked?
That's the problem: most of the guys who got ducked back then were never given enough opportunity to build up a name so we'd know who they are and know they were ducked.
Jake Lamotta talked a lot about it in his book Raging Bull (essential reading for any true boxing nut). He said that there were a ton of colored fighters that no one heard of fighting on small shows that the top guys wouldn't go near but who, in his opinion, would have chased the top guys and champs (including Robinson) out of the ring. They didn't have mob connections so they never went anywhere, and because Jake refused to get in with the mob, he was forced to fight a bunch of these killers on small shows for peanuts. In doing this he earned the title of a "policeman" (a term given to the guys who fought and beat the tough no names that the top guys wanted nothing to do with).
Re: Why were Murderers Row ducked so much?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Beanflicker
Quote:
Originally Posted by
greynotsoold
Check the records of guys like LaMotta, Zivic, Soose, Overlin, and Teddy Yarosz, just off the top of my head and tell me who they ducked?
That's the problem: most of the guys who got ducked back then were never given enough opportunity to build up a name so we'd know who they are and know they were ducked.
Jake Lamotta talked a lot about it in his book Raging Bull (essential reading for any true boxing nut). He said that there were a ton of colored fighters that no one heard of fighting on small shows that the top guys wouldn't go near but who, in his opinion, would have chased the top guys and champs (including Robinson) out of the ring. They didn't have mob connections so they never went anywhere, and because Jake refused to get in with the mob, he was forced to fight a bunch of these killers on small shows for peanuts. In doing this he earned the title of a "policeman" (a term given to the guys who fought and beat the tough no names that the top guys wanted nothing to do with).
Guys like Jimmy Edgar? He was a tough guy and I know this isn't the paramount aim for a boxer but he doesn't even have a wiki page.
P.s. I've never heard the saying policemen before. Nice info.
Re: Why were Murderers Row ducked so much?
I know for a fact I've never had the most popular opinion in regards to Murders Row and the likes of Charley Burley but here are my thoughts.
To me Charley is like "snowball" story as the years pass it get's bigger and bigger...
Was he any good? Sure he does have some solid wins.
Was he as good as people claim? I personally don't think so.
Was he avoided like the "plague"? Again I don't agree.
Re: Why were Murderers Row ducked so much?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Vendettos
Guys like Jimmy Edgar? He was a tough guy and I know this isn't the paramount aim for a boxer but he doesn't even have a wiki page.
P.s. I've never heard the saying policemen before. Nice info.
Probably one of them. It's so hard given it was so long ago and very little footage is available, so basically we're going on second, third, twenty-fifth, ect, -hand info. And like Mick said, the snowball effect is always a concern.
Re: Why were Murderers Row ducked so much?
I think risk-reward just about sums it up. The risk was real while the reward wasn't immediate, only to come later as people appreciated and respected how good they actually were. I believe just facing a Wills by Dempsey aka Rickard would be looked back with more respect then resting on his arse after the Firpo demolition. Every generation has tons of guys who never get a shot...politics, money, fans with tunnel vision on only only one or two "known" guys :-X or the fact the camp knows there is a solid chance they get an ass whooping.
Re: Why were Murderers Row ducked so much?
Re: Why were Murderers Row ducked so much?
I just don't see the "greatness" in him...
Correct me if I'm missing any but he defeated: Zivic, Cocoa Kid, Holman & Moore.
On a lower level: Billy Smith, Lytell, Chase & Wade.
Out of that bunch Moore & Zivic are the only I can without a doubt say they are great.
Cocoa Kid has a solid arguement on it. The rest no...
Re: Why were Murderers Row ducked so much?
I do not know about their history thought it was a rap thing. :-\
Re: Why were Murderers Row ducked so much?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CutMeMick
I just don't see the "greatness" in him...
Correct me if I'm missing any but he defeated: Zivic, Cocoa Kid, Holman & Moore.
On a lower level: Billy Smith, Lytell, Chase & Wade.
Out of that bunch Moore & Zivic are the only I can without a doubt say they are great.
Cocoa Kid has a solid arguement on it. The rest no...
Interesting. I think he's in the top 5 middleweights that ever lived. Based on the footage I have been able to watch and what I have read by many accomplished historians.
He's a perfect example of why records need to be scrutinized. In some cases they are full of "names" but short on quality because of when those names appear.
In Burleys case he has a shortage of recognizable names because nobody would fight him. Not just the white establishment either. Its why he and the rest of the row had to fight each other. Just like Moore he probably fought his fellow crew about 20 or more times. Moore was the only one to have broken out of obscurity and it took him 160 fights to do it.
Re: Why were Murderers Row ducked so much?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CutMeMick
I just don't see the "greatness" in him...
Correct me if I'm missing any but he defeated: Zivic, Cocoa Kid, Holman & Moore.
On a lower level: Billy Smith, Lytell, Chase & Wade.
Out of that bunch Moore & Zivic are the only I can without a doubt say they are great.
Cocoa Kid has a solid arguement on it. The rest no...
Well Cocoa was in murderers row.
I heard about 3 of them as individuals and though they were ok. Then I found out they were a group type thing.
If I'm honest I've yet to see or hear anything that solidifies them as very good fighters.
Excluding Burley, as its obvious to see his skill set.
Re: Why were Murderers Row ducked so much?
Actually, the question is the answer!
