Charley Burley: Analyzing Genius

[Fenster]

Thanks for that! Some thoughts

I'm pretty sure that is the second fight with the fine 175 Oakland Billy Smith where Burley is giving up ten pounds and it is late in Burley's career...the placement of the head is so basic and yet so few fighters today get it right. That's why we see so many cuts coming from clashes of heads. They aren't accidents, they are functions of poor technique...Burley is a beautiful example of the highest form of boxing. The trick isn't wild, flashy movments, the trick is to do the LEAST one can to gain an advantage. It saves energy and leaves one in a position to counter. Never make a guy miss by a foot if you can make him miss by an inch and never move six inches when four will do. Benny Leonard was another guy who understood that...Burley's balance is a thing to behold as is his feinting...when you watch men like Burley you can see how boxing in it's highest form is a dance, not a slugfest.

Thanks again. Great stuff!

Oh yeah, one last thing. How good was Charley Burley? Once on three days notice (and only two weeks after he'd knocked out the formidable Jack Chase) Burley took a fight. On the day of the fight he worked all day in a factory in San Diego, took a three hour train to LA, took a cab to Legion Stadium and, while giving up six pounds, dropped his foe three times en route to a ten round decision. His opponent? Some guy named Archie Moore.

That's a great story. But how do you know it's true? It was probably the imagination of a journalist colouring his article.

Considering there is so little footage of the fossils, everyone can safely wear the old rose-tinted glasses.

[marbleheadmaui]

Thanks for that! Some thoughts

I'm pretty sure that is the second fight with the fine 175 Oakland Billy Smith where Burley is giving up ten pounds and it is late in Burley's career...the placement of the head is so basic and yet so few fighters today get it right. That's why we see so many cuts coming from clashes of heads. They aren't accidents, they are functions of poor technique...Burley is a beautiful example of the highest form of boxing. The trick isn't wild, flashy movments, the trick is to do the LEAST one can to gain an advantage. It saves energy and leaves one in a position to counter. Never make a guy miss by a foot if you can make him miss by an inch and never move six inches when four will do. Benny Leonard was another guy who understood that...Burley's balance is a thing to behold as is his feinting...when you watch men like Burley you can see how boxing in it's highest form is a dance, not a slugfest.

Thanks again. Great stuff!

Oh yeah, one last thing. How good was Charley Burley? Once on three days notice (and only two weeks after he'd knocked out the formidable Jack Chase) Burley took a fight. On the day of the fight he worked all day in a factory in San Diego, took a three hour train to LA, took a cab to Legion Stadium and, while giving up six pounds, dropped his foe three times en route to a ten round decision. His opponent? Some guy named Archie Moore.

That's a great story. But how do you know it's true? It was probably the imagination of a journalist colouring his article.

Considering there is so little footage of the fossils, everyone can safely wear the old rose-tinted glasses.

Same way I know other things from history are true. Multpile attestation, in this case including Archie Moore!

So little footage of the fossiles? You're kidding right? I've got 3000 fights in my collection and over half predate 1950.

[IamInuit]

Thanks for that! Some thoughts

I'm pretty sure that is the second fight with the fine 175 Oakland Billy Smith where Burley is giving up ten pounds and it is late in Burley's career...the placement of the head is so basic and yet so few fighters today get it right. That's why we see so many cuts coming from clashes of heads. They aren't accidents, they are functions of poor technique...Burley is a beautiful example of the highest form of boxing. The trick isn't wild, flashy movments, the trick is to do the LEAST one can to gain an advantage. It saves energy and leaves one in a position to counter. Never make a guy miss by a foot if you can make him miss by an inch and never move six inches when four will do. Benny Leonard was another guy who understood that...Burley's balance is a thing to behold as is his feinting...when you watch men like Burley you can see how boxing in it's highest form is a dance, not a slugfest.

Thanks again. Great stuff!

Oh yeah, one last thing. How good was Charley Burley? Once on three days notice (and only two weeks after he'd knocked out the formidable Jack Chase) Burley took a fight. On the day of the fight he worked all day in a factory in San Diego, took a three hour train to LA, took a cab to Legion Stadium and, while giving up six pounds, dropped his foe three times en route to a ten round decision. His opponent? Some guy named Archie Moore.

That's a great story. But how do you know it's true? It was probably the imagination of a journalist colouring his article.

Considering there is so little footage of the fossils, everyone can safely wear the old rose-tinted glasses.

I don't need the footage available to know about Nazi atrocities and I do not need the footage that is not available to say Robinson is perhaps the best welter that ever lived. You might be lucky to find two Robinson fights at 147.

[Fenster]

Two Robinson fights at 147? How many Burley fights are there on film?

I'm sure they are great fighters, but compared to todays standards, where you can easily analyse a fighters entire career, which readily shows up his worst moments as well as his best, you are clearly repeating the views of fossils that experienced those eras.

Maybe they are right, but with so little to go on you are putting a lot of faith in the old grey beards opinion. And a lot of those stories must be fantasy. Just saying like....

[IamInuit]

Not many. How many Greb fights are on film? Is he any less a middleweight for it? How about Gans or Benny Leonard? Just a couple of half assed lightweights I suppose. And what of Jimmy Wilde or say George Dixon?

[marbleheadmaui]

Not many. How many Greb fights are on film? Is he any less a middleweight for it? How about Gans or Benny Leonard? Just a couple of half assed lightweights I suppose. And what of Jimmy Wilde or say George Dixon?

Hey we don't have it on film so I guess Alexander never conquered Persia! It's all the imagination of some loaded up Babylonian Journalist!

[IamInuit]

Not many. How many Greb fights are on film? Is he any less a middleweight for it? How about Gans or Benny Leonard? Just a couple of half assed lightweights I suppose. And what of Jimmy Wilde or say George Dixon?

Hey we don't have it on film so I guess Alexander never conquered Persia! It's all the imagination of some loaded up Babylonian Journalist!

I've never seen a dinosaur on film therefore they never existed.

[marbleheadmaui]

Not many. How many Greb fights are on film? Is he any less a middleweight for it? How about Gans or Benny Leonard? Just a couple of half assed lightweights I suppose. And what of Jimmy Wilde or say George Dixon?

Hey we don't have it on film so I guess Alexander never conquered Persia! It's all the imagination of some loaded up Babylonian Journalist!

I've never seen a dinosaur on film therefore they never existed.

The attitude KILLS me! It's like these guys don't know that back in the 1930's and 1940's there would be DOZENS of reporters describing a fight, so even if you fon't have footage, and if you're willing to do the work, you can get to many of those accounts, read them and get a pretty good idea what went on. Heck, radio recordings can still be found in many cases. The notion that there was ONE account and that's all we have is just ill-informed.

It's no different than studying any other kind of history.

[marbleheadmaui]

Two Robinson fights at 147? How many Burley fights are there on film?

I'm sure they are great fighters, but compared to todays standards, where you can easily analyse a fighters entire career, which readily shows up his worst moments as well as his best, you are clearly repeating the views of fossils that experienced those eras.

Maybe they are right, but with so little to go on you are putting a lot of faith in the old grey beards opinion. And a lot of those stories must be fantasy. Just saying like....

I've got five Burley fights on film. I also know he beat Archie Moore (I have around 20 of his fights on film) lost to Ezzard Charles (20 or so of his fights) etc. We also have the views of men like HOF Trainer Ray Arcel who saw every important fighter from Benny Leonard through Sugar Ray Leonard as well as Nat Fleischer who saw every important fighter from 1910 through 1970 or so. We also have the works of current historians like Mike Silver who have done detailed work into examining film footage of men as far back as 1900. Believe me I can keep reciting source material like interviews with referees at the time, interviews with trainers at the time and on and on. The variety of opinion is wonderful! You really can have fun digging to form your own.

The idea we "have little to go on" is simply wrong. It's like arguing we can't have views on the Civil War because we don't know what exactly happened to the Hundley or we don't know much about Julius Cesar because we never got Vercingetorix point of view.

We have a TON to go on if you're willing to do the work.

[Fenster]

Two Robinson fights at 147? How many Burley fights are there on film?

I'm sure they are great fighters, but compared to todays standards, where you can easily analyse a fighters entire career, which readily shows up his worst moments as well as his best, you are clearly repeating the views of fossils that experienced those eras.

Maybe they are right, but with so little to go on you are putting a lot of faith in the old grey beards opinion. And a lot of those stories must be fantasy. Just saying like....

I've got five Burley fights on film. I also know he beat Archie Moore (I have around 20 of his fights on film) lost to Ezzard Charles (20 or so of his fights) etc. We also have the views of men like HOF Trainer Ray Arcel who saw every important fighter from Benny Leonard through Sugar Ray Leonard as well as Nat Fleischer who saw every important fighter from 1910 through 1970 or so. We also have the works of current historians like Mike Silver who have done detailed work into examining film footage of men as far back as 1900. Believe me I can keep reciting source material like interviews with referees at the time, interviews with trainers at the time and on and on. The variety of opinion is wonderful! You really can have fun digging to form your own.

The idea we "have little to go on" is simply wrong. It's like arguing we can't have views on the Civil War because we don't know what exactly happened to the Hundley or we don't know much about Julius Cesar because we never got Vercingetorix point of view.

We have a TON to go on if you're willing to do the work.

I'm not denying the fossils existed. I'm not denying they were great fighters. I'm merely pointing out that these days it's far easier to assess a career because you can download an entire resume in minutes. Therefore you are able to create your own opinion without the influence of others.

Your snippet about Burley-Moore, although very entertaining, and maybe not meant to be taken literally, is disputed. The opinion of reporters, officials, trainers and the like from those eras are not concrete fact. These men couldn't have been totally free from bias, right? They couldn't make stuff up?

How many articles are printed/posted today that completely rubbish a particular fighter purely fuelled by childish hate. These may very well influence future generations.

I respect your research and dedication to the boxing game. I'm not going to believe everything I read. Simple as that.